The Goldilocks Dilemma of Authoring

Presented by David Wilkins, Senior Director of Product Strategy, KnowledgePlanet Inc.

- The Dilemma
- This Chair is Too Small: Individual Authoring Tools
- This Chair is Too Big: Individual LCMS Tools
- This Chair is Just Right: Collaborative Authoring

If you have ever developed eLearning, you likely know the breadth and depth of the tools and solutions available to simplify the authoring, management, and deployment of content. There are literally hundreds of learning management system (LMS) providers, software simulation tools, authoring systems, and virtual classroom tools. More recently, niche tools such as interactivity builders and SWF animation builders have also come to market. Despite this rapid innovation, the pace of change shows no sign of slowing; indeed, according to industry analysts, we're just about to start riding the next waves of the eLearning evolution: social simulation tools and collaboration solutions (Arevolo De Azevedo Filho).

Given this rapid pace of innovation, the changing landscape, and the relative maturity of the various core market segments-authoring, learning management systems (LMS), and learning content management systems (LCMS)-it's surprising that the available tools for Web-based Training (WBT) creation are so poorly aligned with team composition and modern development practices. The modern development team has just two options when defining a development methodology: 1) individual authoring tool models that may rely on best-of-breed tools or suites, or 2) an LCMS-driven model that may rely on XML or databases to store, manage, and assemble content. Unfortunately, neither model is a particularly good fit given the regulatory, business, and instructional design influences currently shaping team composition and development methodology.

The Modern Development Team

Just as eLearning has evolved since its birth in the mid-1990s, so have courseware development teams. While there are still large numbers of developers who work alone, team-based models are now the norm in many organizations. Sometimes these teams work in ad hoc virtual groups that form and disband when projects arise; they typically consist of a core group of instructional designers or course developers who partner with the relevant subject matter experts for a given course. These ad hoc teams might also require legal review or approval from a project sponsor.

In larger or more mature organizations, development teams are often more structured, reflecting role-specific specializations: project manager, graphic artist, course developer, quality assurance. As with ad hoc teams, these standing teams often require the approval of subject matter experts, legal reviewers, and project sponsors. Unlike ad hoc teams, however, these teams follow role-specific workflows and division of responsibilities, while also typically requiring more significant collaboration among members. Teams of this type often strive to replicate processes, standardize instructional design models, and deliver consistent, normative learner experiences. In larger organizations, there may be dozens of teams like this aligned in a federated model where a central team defines standards and approaches while business-unit teams focus on tactical delivery within the defined standards.

One common characteristic between these two types of eLearning teams is "collaborative, team-based development." Ad hoc and formal teams both need to work with multiple contributors and multiple reviewers. In many cases, the reviewers are also contributors, either directly through source material or through interviews and sharing of best practices. Even in cases where the development "team" is just one individual, he or she usually interacts and collaborates with subject matter experts, project sponsors, and even legal teams in some cases.

Another major characteristic of the modern development team is the "need for speed." In 2005, analyst Josh Bersin of Bersin & Associates noted that "rapid elearning" was "emerging as the fastest growing category of online training." According to Bersin's research, one of the biggest drivers of this trend is the need to react to rapidly changing business drivers, government regulations, product rollouts, and the like. Business is rapidly changing, requiring employees to produce at an ever-faster pace to stay competitive in the marketplace and up to date with increasing levels of industry and government regulation.

The Dilemma

Given the above, the modern eLearning development model can be summarized as "rapid, collaborative team-based development." Unfortunately, the two dominant models available to eLearning teams today fail to address this reality. The first model, individual authoring tools, does an effective job of addressing the need for speed while also enabling a broad range of instructional quality. Where these tools fail is in addressing the need for collaborative, teambased authoring. The second model, learning content management systems, specifically address the need for collaborative, team-based authoring, but typically fail to address the needs around rapid development, flexibility, and development simplicity.

Modern development teams face what can be referred to as a Goldilocks dilemma of authoring: Do they choose a chair that's too small or too big? Either way, they don't have a solution that fits their needs. In one model, they need to work around, through, or outside the tool in order to collaborate or involve reviewers; in the other, they have an enterprise solution that doesn't help them address the need for rapid, tactical development. Just as Goldilocks found in the fairytale, what's missing is the chair that's just right: In this case, a collaborative authoring tool that addresses the need for team-based development while also enabling the rapid production of instructionally-sound, compelling content that promotes the standardization of corporate branding and instructional design models.

Read part 2: This Chair is Too Small: The Case Against Individual Authoring Tools