Thursday, September 07, 2006

Yeah! Why don't learning platform vendors open their platform?

I'm certain that in the near future they will have no choice but to do exactly that. (from e-clippings)

Mark, my friend, I'm scratching my head wondering the same thing.  Oh, and those numbers you mention in your question at the end...
"What is the value add in paying $100K for something that will takes weeks/months to stand up, when I could possibly pay 1/10th of that and have something turned on today?"
...Let's just say $100k is laughably low for one of those systems you listed.  Try 6 million!

Basically we return to the "snake oil" conversation within the blogosphere of learning a few months back.  They've become bloatware loaded with stuff you really don't need.  Nanolearning, and Nuvvo will quickly dominate for the small to midsize companies, so the big vendors can kiss those accounts bye-bye.  Shortly after, that those systems will, most likely, become platforms that can be implemented behind the firewall and hosted from within.  So, game over for Mr. big vendor. 
Maybe I'm just a sucker for the underdog, but if you knew the LMS drama I've lived for nearly 8 years you would completely understand.
And Mark, unfortunately, the other piece that clouds this conversation is that most people in corporate learning still haven't heard of Web2.0, learning2.0, elearning2.0, or anything2.0.  I know its hard to believe, but we still have much evangalizing to do.  Spreading the word is job one.
Refer to my last post.  Its a revolution, not an evolution.  And most people just can't handle big change, so people are treading very lightly around this subject. 
Dave Lee adds some great commentary about helping people in this space in his title Come on in, the web2.0 is just fine.


bschlenker said...

Thanks for the comment, Jesse. I totally agree that SCORM is out of control...way too complicated. IMHO, things become complicated when they try to be all things to all people. Maybe SCORM isn't a viable standard at the end of the day. Maybe a specific learning standard will be a laughable concept in the near future because all information nuggets distributed via web2.0 technologies will be seen as learning. Its a great topic to continue discussing and I'm looking forward to doing just that.

Mark said...

Brent - yeah I knew I was low-balling it on the cost figures but your number just makes the whole thing a reall headspinner doesn't it?

Jesse - I hear you. I come from ADL, seriously worked at the Co-Lab from its start and in the Pentagon before that. In defense of SCORM, I will say that it was not developed by a "bunch of government IT putzes" but by the people who have been working in the e-learning field since its birth. I'm not one of the technical folks but I have sat thorugh alot of their meetings and these are some of the brightest people out there, working hard to accomplish a very complex task. While I will agree with you that simpler standards are better than compllex ones and that with hindsight there may be better alternatives to the path SCORM has taken, I do not think its fair to disparage the efforts of these folks. I will also add again ( that I think that as plays like Nuvvo and nanolearning come online via AJAX and Web services, that the importance of SCORM will drop. What still hasn't changed much is the understanding within the instructional design world of how to design with the precepts of reuseability in mind, but that's a different post.

bschlenker said...

Mark, again, I am humbled by your clarity. I certainly don't mean to minimize the important work of the SCORM team. That work did push us all closer to where we are today. They should be praised for their efforts.