The gulf is widening between the vendors and the practitioners. It was never more apparent this week than at Learning Technologies - one of the largest events of its type in Europe. The conference attracted over 400 delegates, the free exhibition downstairs several times that many punters. But something was seriously amiss. Several people remarked openly that the 'downstairs' learning technology and skills exhibition was the 'same old same old' and that it contrasted sharply with the practices that were being debated, disseminated and discussed 'upstairs' in the main conference venue at Olympia 2, in West London. So I went down to see for myself. What struck me about the downstairs exhibition which took up two floors and consisted of over 240 company stands was that it really hadn't moved on from last year. It was just as busy, with plenty of potential customers wandering around. As usual there were plenty of chocolates, pens, mouse mats and squeezy toys being given away for free, and lots of colourful lights and backdrops. There were the same polished corporate presentations. The technology was just as shiny and so were the salespeople, but looking past the veneer you could see that many were offering the same tired old fayre as last year. This exhibition was very much about the technology, very little about learning. Again, these were the observations of several people.
I did no better down on the ground floor where the 'learning skills vendors' were plying their trade. In the first two conversations I had, I was asked if I wanted to know more about learning styles and if I was interested in a course in Neural Linguistic Programming. Whilst the first has absolutely no scientific basis, the second is so unsound and risky it is tantamount to dark ages shamanism. I almost started looking for the chicken bones. I didn't waste time telling the vendors what I really thought about their 'products'. I just politely but firmly told them that I wasn't the right person to be asking. I then shook the dust of my shoes, and smartly returned back up the stairs to sanity. But think about this for a minute. If training companies are still peddling such unsound, unproved and frankly dangerous concepts after all these years, what kind of a future can we expect for learning and development in the corporate sector? And who is driving change in education and training? Let's hope it's not the vendors. For some very good reasons.
Fortunately, returning to the upstairs conference venue, it was possible to hear sensible, visionary and practical stories from many of the excellent speakers at the Learning Technologies event. The likes of Jane Bozarth, James Clay, Craig Taylor and Cathy Moore regaled their audiences with inspiring and challenging talks. My own talk was packed out as I talked about Web 3.0, Web x.0 and the future of web based learning. My new best buddy Clark Quinn (pictured - who at the last minute stepped in to replace Mark Oehlert) was excellent value with his own personal take on games based learning, and Olympic Medal winning high jumper Steve Smith also shone with his motivational speaking on - motivation. I had the pleasure of meeting and spending time with Itiel Dror, and although I failed to find time to hear him speak, we did have the dubious honour of sharing the experience in the small hours of Thursday morning standing outside shivering in the sub zero temperatures, while the Novotel staff and London Fire and Rescue Service tried to discover what had triggered off the fire alarms at 3.30 in the morning.
All in all, and the interrupted sleep aside, LT11UK was a great event, well organised, and replete with great speakers, all thanks to the talents of Donald H Taylor and his excellent team. But for me there was only one floor in the building that mattered. It's clear that the practitioners, the L and D professionals, have moved on and advanced their agendas from last year. But not so the vendors. They appear to have been stuck in a time warp. I'm sorry to report that the exhibition downstairs was lagging so far behind the times it could quite easily have been located on another planet.
Upstairs downstairs by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Posts
42 comments:
Hi Steve,
Many thanks for my 'shout out' that you provided in this blog post!
Your comment relating to some vendors discussing Learning Styles and NLP with you, also struck a note with me, but not in relation to the 'downstairs' but the 'upstairs'.
I attended the session relating to Mobile technologies in which Maj. Richard Gill spoke of the use of iPads by Royal Artillery soldiers attending the Royal School of Artillery. I was very pleased and (admittedly) surprised that the Army had taken such a significant step-forward in what they are doing compared to only 4 years ago when I left the Army. OK for many educational establishments, this is no doubt seen as 'old news', but for the behemoth that is the British Army, this is a significant step-change.
However, it was interesting to note on Richard's slides that one of the metrics that they used to measure learner satisfaction (para-phrasing as I can't remember the exact title) was 'appealed to all Learning Styles' - hmmmmmmm?
In the next slide or 2 Kirkpatrick was also cited as their chosen evaluation model, again - hmmmmmmm?
I guess what I'm saying is that whilst the 'shiny' factor of what is being done is SIGNIFICANT for the British Army, is there a danger that they (and no doubt, many, many other organisations) have built their modern, shiny, wow-factor projects on old, unfounded, 'shamanistic' foundations?
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts?
Craig
Thanks Craig and I agree, it was another hmmm moment. It seems there are still vestiges of questionable activities based on doubtful theories out there in training and education land. We have the 'learning styles' brigade, the NLP lobby and even the 'digital natives and immigrants' squad. Those who cling to these largely discredited theories I suspect, and simply ignorant to the fact that we have moved on. I guess it is up to those who are aware of the serious problems to educate them - I also suspect that those vendors who subscribe to these theories do so not out of ignorance, but purely because such psuedo psychology is still popular with many trainers and teachers, and there is therefore still a significant market to cash in on. Oh cynical me...
I can't speak for what goes on outside of the US, but I see a lot of the same kinds of behaviors here.
I'm sure there are a lot of factors that push vendors to use things like NLP in their products: insufficient research, pandering to established markets (see the US history texts being controlled by the Texas State Board of Education as one example of this), and so on.
What I run into, mostly, in my role as an educational technologist is that the educators and program developers I work with seem to be scared that all the old labels are going away, that the old models of education are facing systemic change in the near future, and they can't clearly see their role in it.
NLP, and similar snake-oil "technologies", are at least comforting because they still clearly show the role of the teacher as being in charge of the class. The don't significantly change the power relationships, or the social relationships, between teacher, administrator, parents or students.
I can't really blame them for their discomfort. Change, especially change that's outside of your control, can be terrifying. You don't know what to prepare for, you don't feel you even have the information necessary to make an educated guess, so you cling desperately to whatever you can find. That's not an excuse, but it is a reason for the behavior.
Also, and speaking from experience, it is much easier to get budget approval for items that appeal to the existing structure. Trying to sell the idea of distributed learning, or collaborative education, to an administration with a vested interest in the status quo is very hard.
Honestly, I have no plans to attend the exhibition hall when I go to ISTE this year. I just can't see the point.
I'm going to stick up for myself first and then widen the debate - just feel a need to make a bit of a stand.
You aren't the only person to pick up on this theme, so I'm not saying there isn't truth to what you say. To think I'm not as pissed as you are when I see companies who know very little about learning and even less about innovation raking in millions would be naive.
My company took a space this year on the 1st floor. We've never exhibited anywhere before so you won't have seen us previously. We were not the only people exhibiting for the first time and I saw a number of other stands that were certainly in the interesting end of the scale.
What we're doing is pretty 'out there', aligns strongly with a number of themes coming from the conference and we're pushing in to territory which no one has before. We're doing it from an academic background and our stand had no sales people on it, just developers (cause that's all we've got). A lot of people found us and we've been very pleasantly surprised with the reaction of some pretty huge companies.
We are there, you just need to look passed the shiny things, to the stands in the lesser positions with sparse looking displays. We're spending our money where it matters, not on mouse mats.
So I've got that out of the way, let me turn it on its head with a couple of points:
1. In the current economic climate, only a complete nutter would be innovating in radical and disruptive ways. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that most of these sort of innovations will fail. It is much safer to innovate incrementally in ways that sustain your current business model for another few years whilst you wait out the storm. This is a responsible and sensible business strategy and results in the 'same old'. I, however, am not this person.
2. If you don't let us in the conference, we can't know what you're talking about. Beyond the physical separation and the fact that we'd need to spend thousands more to attend, the very fact that the exhibition and the conference occurs at the same time prohibits us from attending en masse.
3. The conference isn't without blame. Informal learning and theories like 70/20/10 have been all the rage of various conferences I've attended over the last year or two. But 70/20/10 has no more empirical evidence than learning styles; it kinda made sense to a few people, so they went with it. And it's such a nice little model to explain emerging trends that people overlook the simple facts, like the improbability of someone actually coming along and measuring such a thing. It's a Pareto rule of thumb that got preached as fact. Monkey see, monkey do.
Inclusion is the path to changing this...
Hi Craig,
Thanks for the positive comments. All I was trying to get across with the 'learning styles' bit was that we needed to design an intervention that appealed to everyone - different people like different things and so I really feel that we should look to provide this variety!
As far as the evaluation goes we really just need to find a way of capturing the return on investment and capture the data that demonstrates that if you use technology appropriately you can improve the training and also make it more efficient!!
I really think that what we did was not a hmmm! Moment - If it was the maybe we missed an opportunity! Would be really keen to discuss further with you and Steve...
Thanks for your comments Ben. I actually voiced the same opinion at the after conference debrief which took place at the Embassy of Ireland on Thursday evening. It was that several speakers from the 'upstairs' event should be allowed to speak 'downstairs' and several representatives from the vendors should be allowed to speak in the 'upstairs'. Inclusion must be the way forward, because at the moment, although I concede that there are companies who are 'out there' and trying to innovate, there is still a disconnect between what is being developed and what is actually being practiced. I think an overwhelming majority would agree with that. Dialogue is the best way forward I think.
Rich, certainly keen to continue the discussion, and sorry we couldn't talk afterwards face to face. What I saw generally from your presentation was excellent. The hmmm moment for me came about because for many years now I have been trying to ween people off the blind alley way of 'Learning Styles' and other forms of pigeon holing that are so unfair to learners. Consider perhaps a better measure of individual differences in Howard Gardner's Multiple intelligences theory.
As an aside - It was a little difficult (as someone with the disability of colour blindedness) for me to read your data charts - even sitting in the front row I couldn't distinguish between the red and the green columns. But we all learn by feedback, and these minor points aside, I applaud your positive approach to training. It was, as Craig previously opined, a refreshing advance to see such significant moves forward in military training.
Similar things are happening in Naval training (Subsafe for example) - more of the same please! :-)
Hi Rich,
So glad that you picked up on the comment and took it in the genuineness that it was intended.
I was the guy who asked the question relating to whether there was any operational data that supported the pioneering programme that you have been involved in, that was based on some 16 years serving with 5 AB Bde, 3 Cdo Bde & 16 AA Bde, so I know only too well that what works great in the Training Wing or on The Plain or SENTA doesn't always translate to Operations.
I hung around at the end in the hope of 'pressing the flesh' and congratulating you in person for being involved in such a pivotal project for the British Army - it made me feel 'reeeeeeeeally old'!
I spotted you name in Google in relation to Mil LearnTech - will the outputs of this be made public as it would be great to see how things are moving on amongst all services.
Going back to my Hmmmm moments, I certainly hope you didn't interpret it as a negative (I don't think you did) as that wasn't my intention however knowing the resources that the MoD has at it's disposal I would have (as Steve has alluded to) thought that Gardners MI theories would have come out as a preferable 'measure'.
If there is any way that we could continue this conversation 'offline' that would be great!
Craig
"We decided to innovate our way through this downturn, so that we would be further ahead of our competitors when things turn up." Steve Jobs.
Just saying :-)
Thanks for the excellent insights/report, Steve. Hits quite a few marks for me.
I spent a bit of time both 'upstairs' and 'downstairs' at the Learning Technologies event. 'Downstairs' there was still a lot of technology looking for a learning application - whether the technology and underpinning approaches are based on some outdated or disproved method, approach or theory or simply driven by some shiny new device.
I'm coming to the view that the emerging research on learning is trending more and more towards the fact that experience, practice, conversation and reflection are the prime activities that drive learning. If this is the case, it will be more and more difficult for vendors of all sizes and persuasions to bottle any of these and sell them than they do 'learning' content or content delivery tools. Not that it will stop them trying. We're already seeing the LMS vendors wrapping 'social' into their platforms and trying to sell the 'formalisation' of informal learning.
Incidentally, Ben, I take ever-so-slight offence at your uninformed/unsubstantiated comments bundling the 70:20:10 approach with NLP and Learning Styles. I might be slightly one-eyed on the model because I've implemented it successfully and seen it used well to drive more fit-for-purpose learning strategies, but give me a call and I'll point you to some empirical research that supports the fact that around 70-90% of adult learning occurs in the workplace - 70:20:10 is simply a reference model that reflects that evidence. It might be an idea to brush up on the meaning of 'empirical' while you're at it ;) .
And how could I have forgotten Ping!
That's a classic LMS analogy... Look what we've done, we've ignored every social site on the planet and made our software social.... It's a revolution in magical technology!
Hi Steve, Many apologies for the choice of font colours - an important learning point for me!! Many thanks also for your positive comments.
I am now really keen to learn more about multiple intelligence theory - I completely agree that we can just 'pigeon hole' people into certain type which as you say really isn't fair. Thanks for the tip! Would be great to discuss further if the opportunity arises!
Hi Craig, No didn't take it as a negative - just as an opportunity!
I think that we've all got to reflect on what we've done and then see how/where etc we can improve upon it... We learnt a lot from the project. The key now will be to see how we now implement the lessons we learnt....!
Would be good to chat offline - whats the best way for you?
I'll be sure to look up the meaning of the word before I submit my PhD Charles, thanks. If you can link me to a peer reviewed journal that shows primary research backing up that sentiment I will retract my comment and stand in your debt.
I didn't actually mention NLP there btw, it was more the learning styles thought... The way some theories 'just fit'
Been for a dog walk with thoughts filled about your comment Charles and realise i need to further clarify my thoughts.
You say: "70-90% of adult learning occurs in the workplace"
I have no problem with that as a broad sentiment
"70:20:10 is simply a reference model"
And like most models, it is not reflected in peer-reviewed findings in numbers like that. Numbers like that simply don't exist on a consistent basis because it is a generalisation.
Now not all models are right, but some are useful, this I will concede. But since these figures are said with such certainty, it should be no surprise when someone comes along and tries to start measuring informal learning on a commercial basis.
Inclusion of both sides brings clarity. Right now we're playing Chinese whispers. I'd love to take this up further in person, in fact I think there is some cross-over event to be had here.
Ben - A team of researchers at Deakin University are looking into the research background of 70:20:10 and plan to produce a report/review in H1 2011 - that should shed some more light on the 'pure' research base to add to the existing empirical and survey data from organisations/people such as Loewenstein and Spletzer (US Bureau of Labor Statistics - 1996), Peter Henchel (Institute for Research on Learning), the Education Development Center in Massachusetts and others.
I've also been talking it through with Allen Tough over the past few weeks - Allen is Professor Emeritus at Univ of Toronto and tells me the data collected in his work and academic publications with colleagues in the 1960s and 1970s on adult self-teaching and latterly on self-learning support the model. Allan's name often comes up with the 'Princeton Learning Approach' which is based on 70:20:10. So there seems to be at least some academic research base if you need that in order not to dismiss the successful experiences that organisations have had in using it.
Apologies for the knee-jerk on NLP. Appreciate you didn't mention that - it just seems to get bundled in my mind with learning styles, Fleming's VAK etc. .....
Hi Steve, I'm Sim, Co-founder of Cofacio, The Help Engine. As it happens I'm also an ex student of the University of Plymouth and have very fond memories of my time there so hello on that front also.
On a more relevant note though, we were exhibiting on the first floor and actually take our lead from experts such as Donald H Taylor, Oscar Berg, Charles Jennings and The Internet Time Alliance team. We believe strongly in the role informal learning can play in L&D. Our software, approach and sales material clearly show this. In fact we're presently running a series of video interviews on new technologies and informal learning and Charles Jennings is our first interviewee. Iain Napier, responsible for BT's dare2share initiative will also be featuring and I'd like to take this opportunity to invite yourself to take part.
Finally, we were wondering what response we would get at #LT11UK because we're a new business and felt our focus on the 70/20/10 rule and the importance of informal learning might be seen as futuristic. However, our experience couldn't have been more positive. We saw a lot of interest from clients in informal learning and social learning software, they definitely get it. So too did the consultants we spoke to and indeed many elearning providers came to see us and showed real enthusiasm for what we're doing, even going so far as to ask about partnership possibilities.
My feeling, and I'm no expert, is simply that they'll naturally be a gap between the innovators and the mass market offering (I've seen this happen in digital media for years), that doesn't necessarily mean though that there's a lack of awareness or a desire to change things amongst both clients and vendors.
Finally, there's been a few comments about the separation at the event between delegates and exhibitors. A dividing line that's difficult to comprehend in the social times we're experiencing, I'm sure all of us would agree that the way forward for L&D is through communication and the sharing of knowledge. A massive thanks for Iain Stout for putting on a great show but I'd ask for a more open and collaborative #LT12UK. Surely if we all talked more we'd see there's plenty of common ground and reasons to be optimistic. Thanks,
Sim
Thanks for your comments Sim. There is, as I have previously commented a disconnect between the vendors downstairs and the practitioners upstairs, and this could be resolved to a certain extent by more integration of the two. However, this would be the decision of Don and his colleagues rather than any of us.
I'm happy to take part in any video interviews so thanks for the invite. Finally, I don't think it would be seen as anything troublesome if your company decided to be 'futuristic' as you call it :-) I prefer to use the term disruptive - to evoke the idea that successful innovation can prompt changes in practice. However, here we must be careful because I don't subscribe to the idea that technology necessarily changes or leads practice - it should be an integrated effect where both are symbiotic. Not an easy trick to pull off, but with the correct conversations between vendors and practitioners, it might be a little easier to achieve.
Thanks Steve for agreeing to the interview, we'll be in touch regarding that and if you are coming to London please let me know. If not, then we're planning to visit The Eden Project over the next month and will try to coordinate a trip to Plymouth around that.
Regarding your comments on how technology doesn't necessarily lead or change practice, I would definitely agree with you. When developing and designing software it's very easy to fall in to the trap of adding functionality and cool things just because you can, when actually they are not appropriate. This tendency is often compounded by the belief that to stay ahead you need to be continuously bolting on 'stuff'. We're at a stage now when technology is advanced enough to adapt to human behaviour and not the other way round. For that reason we favour constant iteration led by user, client and expert feedback.
I've chaired a stream and attended everyone of the exhibitions since Ian and Mark started them. I concur; there is a growing gulf between the floors - but that's a generalisation as I could name at least 30 organisations downstairs that really do "get it".
More collaboration between the floors? I like the concept but I fear myopic "sales pitches" and would be concerned that it might not be as open as we would like!
Perhaps an Oxford Union style debate on an area of common interest?
I too was disappointed by the products being sold in the exhibition. So many of them seemed to be powerpoint versions of old training manuals. "Interactive" meant asking a multiple choice question and then telling you if you were right or wrong. Even the people selling clickers seemed to have no real understanding of the potential pedagogical power of their own product.
It was wonderful. After a year being told to look to the private sector it was a great confidence boost to realise that some of us public workers are ahead of the game.
I think you're right Alan - we need to avoid the blatent sales pitches, but I could see a way ahead with round table open discussions perhaps. I would certainly be up for a public debate too :-)
Knowing you audience our tweeting and being made aware that blatant sales pitches are not wanted should be enough to dissuade most vendors from just selling. Scott Gould and Drew Ellis at 'We are Likeminds' manage their speakers' content very carefully in this sense and the active twittering audience do the rest. A vendor might be fool enough to try a sales pitch once but a raft of negative tweets should convince them to stick to adding value for the audience the next time round.
I was downstairs exhibiting last week. It was our 2nd year at LT and I blogged on some of these same issues last year http://goodpractice.com/blog/planning-to-implement-informal-learning/. Personally, I'd love to be more involved with the delegates and indeed we paid for one of our team to attend and bring back the learning from the conference.
The issue of the split between the conference and the exhibition I think reflects a split I see in the market and the fact that a lot of learning spend still goes on the products on display. The suppliers will follow money.
I think the responsibility is on buyers to demand better learning products and services. My experience of selling in this market for the last 10 years is that a large number of learning professionals are not as advanced in their thinking as you might expect if you attend the conference.
So as a supplier, please involve us and challenge the market to produce higher quality solutions that really enable learning that does improve performance.
Here's a starter for ten on the way forward. The E-learning Network is in the process of starting up a mentoring network (see: http://www.elearningnetwork.org/content/introducing-our-new-mentoring-programme).
Might a few of the upstairs crowd look to sign-up as mentors?
Hi Steve,
I have read the post with great interest, and the comments with even greater interest. Very interesting discussions indeed.
I too think that a round-the-table discussion or debate would be of great interest. Of course there is a risk of sales pitching but by adding a Twitter wall visible to everyone I am confident that any attempts of sales pitching would be heavily commented on.
The risk with such a debate is of course also that when it's over the gulf is even more cemented than before. So maybe some kind of workshop where attenders from both sides of the gulf participates and innovates together would be more interesting. In all honesty I have no real idea on how this would work, it's just a very rough idea. But in the name of collaboration and innovation I think this could bring the two worlds closer together.
Keep on commenting, so interesting to read your thoughts.
Thanks,
Mattias
I agree with Peter that a large part of the responsibility for the divide lies on the shoulders of the people who buy solutions.
Vendors sell formal content delivery because lots of people buy it. NLP and learning styles survive as selling points because many people still believe in them.
Also, as Charles points out, several of the "new" ideas are hard to turn into a product.
Conference speakers can change the tools on the market by changing the minds of the buyers. Creating demand for a better approach is a good way to get vendors to invest in that approach.
Steve,
Great post. Thanks. It made me realise that I didn't miss much by not attending the exhibition this year.
In my reflections on last years Learning Technologies conference, I wrote that there needed to be "more opportunity for vendors to be challenged by the speakers in public".
I still stand by that. Those who are selling "snake oil" need to be shown up, and those who are selling stuff that provides real benefit need to be highlighted.
I, too, think round-table discussions might be the way forward here.
Great post Steve.
You've certainly raised an important point about the distinction between the #LT11 conference and the exhibition. I agree the two could be more cohesive in terms in ideas and programming. I also think we have to remember that it takes a while for the future to become reality not aspiration and of course, vendors have to operate in a world of commercial reality. As we all know, the application of learning technologies in this environment doesn't take place in isolation. There are cultural, skills, infrastructural, business management issues to consider and overcome. However, we are living/working in times of accelerated change and technology-enabled learning is essential for organisations to meet these challenges.
Conferences, as well as online discussions such as this, play an important role in educating the marketplace on the actual business significance of using learning technologies as well as how it can be done. I would argue that we all (as Cathy Moore suggests) have a role to play in this.
In terms of bridging the divide we were really pleased to try something different this year with a debate on the exhibition floor (yes, downstairs, would you believe it), called 'A roadmap to 2020', the debate was charismatically hosted by Donald Taylor with panellists Laura Overton (Towards Maturity), Kenny Henderson (Head of Talent Development at Sky) and Charles Gould (Brightwave). We explored five key questions on 'how learning technologies can support fast-changing business practices' in the next decade. And, the audience participated using live voting technology. With over 100 people in the audience and a genuine conversation taking place from different perspectives it was a genuine success and a nod towards the need to do more like this upstairs and downstairs. To see the results check here: http://www.brightwave.co.uk/blog/brightwave-lt2011-debate-all-the-action-as-it-happened-part-one
Overall a great show and the key date in the UK Learning Tech calendar.
Having been to the conference last year and only the exhibition this year, I have to agree with the majority of comments here. I remember leaving the conference with copious notes, ideas and contacts that I wanted to work with as soon as I was back at the office. Some of those worked out whilst others got put on the back-burner, but the main point was that I wanted to use what I'd seen and heard to make changes at work.
So could I say the same about this year? No...
I spent some time manning the eLN stand, but the rest of the time wandering round the exhibition. At no point did I stop by a stand, look at what they were selling and think "Wow, I haven't seen anything like that before, I can really see a need for that in my organisation." I watched a couple of the seminar slots, knowing full-well that they would either be product demos or thinly-veiled sales pitches, but even found those a bit stale (apart from Rob Hubbard's on the eLN of course). By far the most useful and enjoyable part of being there was just catching up with people I don't see often enough and meeting some face to face for the first time. Those were the discussions I wanted and a few minutes of those was a worth a whole day of exhibition-roaming.
As for the roundtable idea, I've seen this work well at the symposium run by Elearnity (David Wilson). They arrange a day of discussion with other 'non-vendors' with similar questions and issues as you, but also with a slot for you to quiz groups of vendors without any sales pitches or follow-ups.
Matt
Hi Steve
A great post that has stimulated equally as engaging discussion.
I wonder if there is something that can be done to bring together organisation/vendor/practitioner in a way that we can all benefit from.
I was thinking about some kind of working group, comprising of all three parties, who work together assessing an organisation's current learning provision, and all it can be improved.
The group could report back as part of the conference next year. A practical project such as this would be of great interest to many of us, and could help inspire other orgs and vendors to see the value of social and informal learning.
Of course, it would take a particularly ego-less organisation and vendor to lay themselves open to such (potentially brutal) analysis ...
Thanks for the post, Steve. As a first-time visitor to LTUK, I thought it was just me who felt the disconnect.
I came away highly inspired by the conference, especially thrilled that a number of the sessions and conversations confirmed and validated some of the trends that I've been working on in R&D for new product development.
However, I saw clearly in the exhibition space that vendors are not keeping up with the rate of change in organizational learning. And being part of the much-maligned vendor species myself, I take that as a challenge and a call to arms to accelerate some of the crazy things I'm working on, and get them into production yesterday.
But as Cheryl says, there are commercial realities that we have to deal with. Although we see some organizations with a strong appetite for innovation and change, it's not true across the board. There are many companies who are risk-averse after the economic downturn. In fact, quite a few vendors fall into this category themselves.
As a result, many vendors carefully balance their commercial investments between incremental evolution - usually driven by established maintenance-paying clients - and disruptive evolution geared to capturing a wider audience with imagination.
Unfortunately, at the moment, incremental evolution seems to be setting the standard in the industry. That is something all vendors need to address, or run the risk of becoming irrelevant in what is now becoming a dramatically different world of learning.
Maritza
To follow up to the suggestions of more collaboration between vendors and practitioners, I think that's a great idea. Although James's idea is intimidating, it could be a very useful and revealing exercise.
Something else that could work is to use one of the afternoon slots for LT12UK, or even an extra day entirely, for an OpenSpace conference with the theme chosen specifically to generate dialog between exhibitors and conference speakers.
There could even be some specific collaboration goals to ensure that vendors and practitioners come away from the OpenSpace with tangible ways to continue crossing the divide.
Personally, I think this divide needs to be addressed much sooner than that, though. What about doing something much sooner than waiting for next year's LT12UK?
Hi all
I was keen to chip in on this, but I have to say, as someone on the 'vendor' side I was a little...not scared but possibly intimidated! These days being a vendor can be a bit of a dirty word and something I struggle with, because although I do work for a learning vendor, I am also lucky enough to be welcomed and feel very much a part of the wider learning community. I am fortunate in my role to attend many of the conference sessions at events like Learning Technologies, so do get the opportunity to see both sides of the coin (or both upstairs and downstairs).
I completely agree that much of what you'll see at these shows on the expo floor isn't great, and often companies have so much money they can make themselves look big and shiny and like serious players without actually knowing all that much (ah, how I envy their marketing budgets though!) However, many of us really are committed to learning and to helping our clients be the best they can be, and ultimately to deliver value back into their people and their organisations.
I think Cathy's point about some responsibility lying with the buyers is interesting. Only today I overheard a conversation about a piece of e-learning where our designers had pushed the boundaries somewhat, only to be told by the client that it was 'too much'. It's definitely a dichotomy.
My strongest feeling overall however lies with Ben's comments about inclusion. I've said for some time (and yes nagged the organisers about it) that vendors should be allowed into the inner sanctum upstairs BUT judged on merit and value. I do understand why they don't do it but whilst the status quo remains, vendors won't be challenged to push the envelope. For years, even with the complimentary seminars downstairs, I (and many others) have worked incredibly hard to provide value and insight to the attendees. To me, whether upstairs or downstairs, it is always about the quality of the content you deliver. And definitely not, as someone has said, 'thinly veiled sales pitches.' Why anyone would do this is beyond me but it does happen sadly.
I know I am coming at this from a biased angle, but I truly believe vendors have a lot to offer. Our people are working with successful learning solutions that deliver value and benefits to learners and their organisations every day. Some are better than others, but there could be huge benefits in tapping into that knowledge and experience from a neutral perspective....if only given the chance.
Finally, thanks Steve for such an open and thought provoking blog. I'm a great follower of yours and to be able to take this platform amongst some of the leaders of the learning community like Charles and Cathy, and up and comers like Craig and Ben, to speak from a vendors perspective feels like a real privilege.
Thank you
Kate Graham
Hi Steve - thanks for your excellent post. I fear this happens every year. A whole bunch of bloggers made this comparison last year (and a few the year before). Here's mine: http://patrickdunn.squarespace.com/occasional-rants/2010/2/1/mutually-assured-destruction-boiling-frogs-and-the-time-trav.html
Hi Steve,
An engaging thread and totally sums up my own thoughts about the conference and exhibition. I have worked on both sides of the fence (upstairs and downstairs) - in academia doing the conference circuit and now as a supplier of e-learning services.
I have seen things change significantly over the past few years at the shows I've been to. Technology used to excite people but now they have far more vision and are more focussed on integration, social/informal learning and creativity.
The difference at this show for me was the number of organisations actually developing their own internal social/informal learning initiatives. Previously, culture and confidence seemed to be common barriers.
Over the years, I've seen several products/technologies/buzz words that I believe have done the industry possibly more harm than good. Vendors often latch on to these and wring them dry until no more profit is to be had.
As an organisation we strive to offer consultancy, not off the shelf product sales. This thread has made me more committed to continue in this vein.
Thanks.
Hi Steve,
An engaging thread and totally sums up my own thoughts about the conference and exhibition. I have worked on both sides of the fence (upstairs and downstairs) - in academia doing the conference circuit and now as a supplier of e-learning services.
I have seen things change significantly over the past few years at the shows I've been to. Technology used to excite people but now they have far more vision and are more focussed on integration, social/informal learning and creativity.
The difference at this show for me was the number of organisations actually developing their own internal social/informal learning initiatives. Previously, culture and confidence seemed to be common barriers.
Over the years, I've seen several products/technologies/buzz words that I believe have done the industry possibly more harm than good. Vendors often latch on to these and wring them dry until no more profit is to be had.
As an organisation we strive to offer consultancy, not off the shelf product sales. This thread has made me more committed to continue in this vein.
Thanks.
Hi Steve,
Interesting article and comments!
It's interesting to note that the conference structure itself goes a long way to exclude vendors. If you're on a stand downstairs it's difficult to get away to see the sessions upstairs as Peter says.
To get access to the recorded sessions you need to be a member of the Learning & Skills Group. Yet the membership profile says:
"Learning providers and suppliers of learning solutions, technologies, systems and methods cannot become members of the Group."
http://www.learningtechnologies.co.uk/member-profile/
Surely we should be more welcomed into the conversation? Especially as we work with all types of client - not just those at the leading edge.
Why doesn't everyone have access to these recorded sessions? Of course there are business reasons why some of this is premium, but surely seeing these sessions online is a great way to get more delegates next year. After all being there is still a premium feature...
There's a long lead time between research influencing the customers, who then influence the vendors. That will happen very rarely as there aren't many leading edge customers and fewer that have that close a relationship with their vendor...and that's ignoring the technical effort and release cycles to make changes...
Equally we as vendors have to balance ideas from all of our customers and not many of them are currently asking for leading edge features. They also have competing demands from different parts of their own businesses.
We try to include a mix of leading edge ideas with the bread and butter stuff but it's a difficult balance.
As the 'largest events of its type in Europe' maybe the Learning and Skills Group needs to reconsider it's relationship with vendors so we can speed up adoption?
Steve Hurcombe
Product Director
Enterprise Study Ltd
Further to Matt's post...
http://www.elearnity.com/Roundtables.htm
Just to follow on from Matt's posting about Roundtables.
http://www.elearnity.com/Roundtables.htm
Great post and lively stream of comments. This is a healthy sign that real change is brewing. Havin been involved in promoting the successful integration of technology to support learning and performance in the workplace for what is approaching two decades, the abiding view is that we are really only just beginning to move into the mainstream. There is so much inefficiency and lack of effectiveness in much of what is called learning and development, simply addressing basics such as good design practice, providing more flexible packaged learning experiences, and practical tools to support learning transfer goes a long way towards reducing the still vast waste of peoples valuable time and money.
I agree that there appears to be a difference in what is promoted (and sold) in the conference and in exhibition settings. On the whole, though, there are many different types of conversation being had on these stands and all usually valid and genuinely supportive of the requirement under discussion. Learning can be aided using technology in smart and pragmatic ways. It requires a considered mix of tools, platforms, content, facilitation, an organisational culture that is open to engaging with learning in new ways, since most people's educational experience is still largely rooted in very traditional practice.
It's exciting times for the e-learning fraternity as we finally move into the hot glare of the spotlight. It comes with more scrutiny, bigger scale investments and a chance to bring about the benefits many of us have envisioned and pioneered over many years.
Exciting times.
Post a Comment