I agree with Stanley that there are multiple threads in my argument. I probably should have turned it into three separate posts. One about how software should just be better designed, one about what alternatives we have for training when we have to deal with less than perfect software and one about how you can ensure that you stay independent from your vendor. The latter actually has nothing to do with application training and is more about e-learning in general.

Sigrid has pulled me back into reality with her perspective straight from the real world: a retail (= low margin) company. Her comments (combined with Leo’s distinction between novices and experts) has made me realise that there is actually a big market out there for properly designed software. How many of the iPhone apps come with a manual? Can’t we develop Point of Sale (POS) software that is as easy and intuitive to use as the touchscreen ticket machines to buy train tickets here in the Netherlands? If somebody came to the market with a product that was designed as thoughtfully as the ticket machines, it could be a use hit. It is the people that buy the software who should become more critical and not accept bad software anymore.

Marcel has shown in a recent blogpost that he is excellent in creating new rules/dogmas for this wired world. Marcel, shall we try and write a manifesto for application training and how it relates to software design and then organise a small grassroots session?

Thanks again to all and looking forward to continue the conversation,

Hans

Interesting topic. In the past 10 years I have been involved in developing a whole range of application training modules (as an instructional designer). I absolutely agree with your first point. Unfortunately, in our imperfect world most applications are still designed and built from a pure technical-functional point of view. Aplications are generated in tight-controlled project management processes, wherein budget and planning come first and (end!) users and usability are of minor importance. What a waste! I also agree with your second point. More and more employees are used to a lot of (standard) applications. They also are perfectly capable of learning new applications by doing. However, in a lot of companies employees have to learn new applications as novices. Moreover, these applications are directly related to primary processes. When there is no sand pit to play in, learning by doing is not an option. As it is no option to allow pilot candidates to fly a real plane. Let them use the flight simulator first. In my experience, a well designed application simulation can be most effective, to master the basic skills (and procedures!) in a formal, controlled way. Tips and tricks can be learnt later in an informal way, from colleagues and experts. How about electronic performance support systems, super user networks, in-built help files, web 2.0 etcetera? For experts these means can be supportive, not for novices. In this discussion, I think we should clearly make a difference between novices and experts. Nevertheless, maybe there are new ways to combine the benefits of face-to-face training with computerised application training, change this training into a collaborative experience. I gladly would join this discussion.

Interessant onderwerp. Wat betreft punt 1 ben ik het helemaal met je eens.

Bij punt 2 ligt dat in onze organisatie al een stuk lastiger. Basis computervaardigheden zijn lang niet bij alle medewerkers aanwezig. (Kassa)medewerkers die overgang op nieuwe software (en tegelijk hardware) zijn vaak volledig gedesorienteerd. Dus…

Gooien we er een e-learning applicatietraining tegenaan die we zelf bouwen in EnLight (Datango).

Ik geloof erg in de suggestie die jij doet om medewerkers van elkaar te laten leren en ze meer ondersteunende materialen aan te reiken waar ze zelf mee aan de slag kunnen (dat is ook de reden om met Moodle aan de slag te gaan). Maar voor het zover is bij onze applicatietrainingen moet er nog een hoop veranderen.

De applicatietrainingen zijn bij ons namelijk ergens een symptoon van een heel ander probleem.

We willen strak sturen op vorm en uren. Managers die sturen op uren zijn gek op onze e-learning modules omdat het zo strak geregiseerd is en we precies weten hoe lang medewerkers er mee bezig zijn. We schotelen de medewerkers alles hapklaar voor zodat we allemaal weten waar we aan toe zijn en het makkelijk ingepland kan worden.

We verwachten zo helaas te weinig van onze medewerkers en maken ze passief door eigen initiatief te onderdrukken en ondertussen te klagen dat ze zo weinig gemotiveerd zijn.

Als het gaat om ander soortige trainingen denk ik dat wij er klaar voor zijn om meer 2.0 te gaan leren. De e-learning applicatietraining zal echter nog lang blijven bestaan omdat het bij dit soort trainingen altijd gaat om zeer grote aantallen medewerkers en applicaties die worden gebruikt in direct klantcontact. Spannend, dus dat regiseren we graag strak.

Doel voor de komende jaren is met andere opleidingen en trainingen te laten zien dat de computer ook op een heel andere manier ondersteunend kan zijn in leerprocessen zodat de de organisatie en medewerkers daar aan wennen en ten slotte ook de applicatietrainingen een andere vorm zullen krijgen.

Volgens mij zie ik dit wel bij meer (retail) bedrijven. Er gebeurt veel vernieuwends maar nu nou juist niet bij de applicatietrainingen.

Herken jij dat ook vanuit andere bedrijfstakken?

Thanks for your post. I agree with you: let’s be very critical about the use of formal training when it come to learning to use applications.

I started my career for a company called SPC Training, back in 1996. I was an IT trainer (for applications like Office and Document management systems). Mostly it was face to face training. And although along with the training, some great training manuals were provided; the learning outcome was disappointing.

From 1997 we started to offer a very blended solution. The umber of trainingdays was limited and supported by WBTs, virtual labs, EPSS (evolving in LearningGuide), walk-around support, training of super-users, short presentations, assignments at the workplace and a so-called learning desk. It was all very task based and concentrated around the working place. It worked.

I think application training is not helpful and I would rather invest in informal, workplace learning. I would start with an EPSS and building a community. Use the knowledge of the colleagues although this is mostly named as a negative way of learning applications.

Informal learning is the key. But try to facilitate it. With short, marketing kind of communications, with workplace EPSS, with self-made experts (or support them with training), micro-blogging tools, and more.

It would be nice to brainstorm with a few people how to optimize it. Count me in.

Best regards, Marcel