For solving problems, I embrace looking at other industries or disciplines to find commonalities in problems to unlock innovative solutions.  And there can be elegance in unobvious or simple connections.  But I don’t think it’s necessary to go to those lengths to have a successful software development effort.  Yes, software development is an engineering discipline and as such has been subject to many of the principles involved in that world.  From a discipline standpoint, that’s a good thing.  Unfortunately, the translation has been lost in both the execution and the contracts.  Protection of the parties has to be relevant to the work in order to matter and not breed contention.

Engineering contracts in general are heavily weighted towards fixed scope because the cost of change in manufacturing or construction is not trivial.  As such, all parties are incented to stay the course.  Unfortunately, most software development contracts follow the same notion of staying the course and controlling change to protect both parties.  But by and large, trying to control change in a fluid activity actually adds cost.  More importantly, it reduces collaboration which is critical to successful outcomes of software development projects.  Change is inherent in the process and should be fostered, not marginalized.  Furthermore, detailing scope creates an illusion of agreement.  It is almost impossible to perceive or deliver on expectations from either side.

There is a better way.

Shift focus from controlling change to timeboxing development.  With agile or lean development, the grounding becomes the length of the sprint (which is the length of time for the development process) not scope.  Depending on the functionality in play, sprints can be anywhere from 1 to 3 week efforts.  At the end of the sprint, code is deployed and technically you have working software.  So the key is to focus on the appropriate features and functionality that can be completed within that timeframe.  These concentrated cycles provide opportunity to have continuous alignment of all parties as things evolve.  Throughout the process, the vendor learns more about what you do and you learn more about what you want.  In the end, the cost should be less and you get exactly what you want; essentially more value for your money.

You should work closely with your vendor to determine what to put in a sprint and can plan however many sprints necessary to deliver the target features or functionality you want in your product.  That gives you an idea of expected overall effort and cost while also providing the option to stop development after any sprint.  The contract should be constructed to outline and protect this working relationship.

Incorporated into the cost of the sprint is the size and composition of the team.  Obviously, the larger and broader the team the larger the cost will be.  And depending on how the work is staged throughout the defined sprints, the size and composition of the team can vary by sprint.  In essence, changing the structure of the team should change the cost.

There are numerous articles and information sources related to contract structures for agile or lean development as well as starting up software companies and the challenges/costs for that.  Here is a couple that we have found helpful to our clients:

• http://agilesoftwaredevelopment.com/blog/peterstev/10-agile-contracts
• http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/business/25unboxed.html

I believe that creating a new product or enhancing an old one should be an inspirational endeavor. At bytes of knowledge, we are continuously working towards finding that better way of product development, and look forward to sharing our experiences with others who want to take part of that process.

I want to hear from you too.  What is your perspective?

One of the most surprising things I heard – and it came up in every discussion group in which I participated – was the idea that if you really wanted to take “take your training to the next level” you had to “step up to” Flash. Interestingly, this sort of statement was always followed by, “but Flash is so hard to learn.”

A coworker of mine also attended this event but spent her time participating in the other discussion groups. When we later compared notes, she said that the other groups spent a lot of time talking about how easy those tools were to learn. But, sooner or later, someone asked how to implement such and such a feature or interaction using the tools and the speaker would say, “Well, you’ll have to use Flash to do something like that.”

Does that mean the Flash is the best eLearning development tool? No, it’s not. We use Flash because it is what we have that can (with enough programming) do the job we need it to do. The learning curve was steep, and we have hundreds (if not thousands) of R&D hours invested in our current Flash + ActionScript production platform.

We had to make that investment because we’d be unable to meet our client’s functional requirements (especially Section 508 accessibility support) without an object oriented programming language under the hood. But, we also recognized that it would be cost-prohibitive if we had to program the function of a “Next” button from scratch for each customer. So, in effect, we’ve built our own tools – based on Flash – in an attempt to combine the rapid development characteristics of other tools with the power and flexibility of Flash.

While it’s tempting to say “Hooray, Us!” for tackling this challenge, the reality is that we only did so because we had to. We had to because companies in the web, multimedia, and eLearning tool business are not creating the kinds of tools that we ALL need. Why should you, or I, have to trade ease of use for power? Or rapid prototyping for source code control? Or … well, any other trade-off you’ve faced.

When the Internet “took off”, tool developers looked at the opportunities and selected eCommerce as their target. Middleware, business objects, n-tier architectures, and more were introduced, refined and have rapidly matured in the market place. eLearning tools – not so much. Of course, there were good business reasons why things took this course, and I’m not arguing things should have gone otherwise. I am suggesting there is a huge, untapped market opportunity for a suite of eLearning content development tools that have a short learning curve to get started, that support rapid prototyping in a team environment, AND that have an underlying technical architecture that allows programmers to implement anything their instructional designers can imagine.

Will HTML5 be the platform on which these tools will arrive? Absolutely, positively, maybe.

I’d like to hear from you. What sorts of trade-offs to you find yourself making between the content you want and the tools you’d need to author the content? Are you thinking about “stepping up” to Flash, or are other tools meeting your needs?

Like all layer cakes, this one must be built one layer at a time. Each higher layer rests on those below it.

Layer 1 – Function: the mechanisms used to find the training, open the training, navigate through the training, track progress within the training, and pause, play, interrupt, restart and exit the training must work without error. A website, search engine or LMS must make it easy for me to find and open the training. If there is a “Menu” button, it must always navigate to a menu page. The “Next Page” button must do what it says it does. If I exit the training and return, it should remember who I am and what material I’ve seen. Get layer one correct and you are in the game; miss, and nothing else matters.

Layer 2 – Accuracy: the content presented in the training must be correct. This isn’t just about getting your facts and figures right. If you are teaching problem-solving, build plausible scenarios that match the learner’s work environment. If you are teaching skills, weave best practices into the mix to explain why a task is best done a particular way. And don’t miss the importance of accurately presenting and reinforcing the attitudes and beliefs that you want the learner to hold about your company, your brand, and your products.

Layer 3 – Engagement: use a variety of media (text, graphics, sounds, video, animation, …) to present your content, as different individuals learn best in different ways. Incorporate interactive elements that require response from the learner so that they don’t have a chance to “zone out.” Use appropriate repetition to reinforce recall and stimulate synthesis.

Layer 4 – Effectiveness: measure the knowledge, skills or attitudes of the learner before taking the training, and then again after taking the training. Compare the two results. What, if anything, changed? Were the changes positive? If you don’t want to or can’t pre- and post-test everyone, use a focus group or do some statistical sampling.

Layer 5 – Retention: everyone has had the experience of cramming for a test and, the following day, forgetting everything again. Short term improvements, measured in Layer 4, are a good start. But what’s needed for real success is long-term retention. Again, sampling is fine but check to see what happens one week, one month and one year after the training was completed.

Layer 6 – Alignment: successful training does more than teach someone something new. It teaches them something useful. Depending on your organization, your competitive landscape, and market maturity, “useful” may take many forms – revenue creation, customer satisfaction, competitive differentiation, investor confidence, and so on. In my view, you can capture the essence of “useful” (in all of its forms) in the phrase “aligned with business goals.” Successful learning is aligned with, and fosters the accomplishment of, business goals.

Layer 7 – Impact: the most valuable measure of success would be one that could convert qualitative measures of alignment into quantitative measures of achievement. It’s fine to say that this eLearning project is designed to improve product knowledge in the sales force. It’s better to say that revenues went up 15% in the quarter following training deployment. But it would be best of all to say that revenues went up 15% because of the training.

Will I Get My Money’s Worth?

If, by asking this question, one means “is there a quantitative measure of value creation that depends solely on the impact of this specific training effort?” I’d have to say “sorry, no.” We are complex, sometimes irrational, human beings living and working in a complex, often chaotic, world. Tracing cause and effect with that degree of precision simply isn’t possible.

However, if one means “can I take concrete steps to define, test, and evaluate training investments as they relate to my company’s business objectives?” the answer is a resounding “YES!”

That’s my view. What’s yours?

Yes, it is a fair question. And, on the surface, it seems simple enough. Suppose, for example, that I do not know how to use the red-eye correction on my new digital camera (perhaps I don’t even know the feature exists). If could learn to use red-eye correction by taking an eLearning course online, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the training was successful, right?

But what if there is more to the story? Perhaps, I am disappointed with the family photos I’ve taken with my new camera because everyone seems to have “devil eyes.” My friend, who has a different brand of digital camera, tells me that she never has any problem with this. I take a look at her Facebook album and – sure enough – her photos look great! At this point I’m a frustrated and unhappy customer. And I’m a customer who may be wishing that I bought a different product.

Now – would a “How To Use Red-Eye Correction” eLearning module turn me back into a happy customer? A customer who is not only capable of eliminating red-eye, but is also confident in the buying decision I made, and ready to recommend my camera to others? Frankly, I doubt it.

“Will I get my money’s worth?” If I’m the digital camera manufacturer, I might think of red-eye correction as just one more checklist item needed for the inevitable side-by-side comparisons with my competitors. As such, I might see little value in creating eLearning for the new model. And, with little perceived value to gain, the question of value for my training dollar might never be raised. But, throw in an unhappy customer or maybe a whole bunch of unhappy customers. Well that could be different.

My example is somewhat contrived, but I hope that it illustrates my point. “Successful eLearning,” which it surely must be if I am to conclude that it was worth the development cost, is not nearly so simply a concept as we wish it might be. And if “success” is difficult to predict and/or measure, surely a precise, quantitative measure of “return on investment” must be even harder to come by.

So what does one do? Give up? Move forward with eLearning development projects as an act of faith? Conclude that training is little more than a black hole for resources? Absolutely not.

Next time, I’ll give you my “seven-layer cake” recipe for defining, creating, and measuring successful eLearning. In the meantime, I’d like to hear from you. If you’re in the training world, what challenges do you face in getting funding for training development approved? If you are on executive row, how do you evaluate the business worthiness of training projects?

Broadly speaking, physical disabilities can be grouped into three categories: vision, hearing, and mobility. Each category encompasses a variety of impairments and a spectrum of ability; from able, to disabled, and everything in between. For example, while blindness is obviously one type of visual disability, so is color blindness. Loss or paralysis of a limb is mobility disability, but so is loss of fine motor control due to Parkinson’s disease.

For application developers, content creators, and information publishers, providing full access for individuals with physical disabilities is not a trivial endeavor. It adds difficulty to interface design, often requires development of additional media assets, and complicates quality assurance efforts. And that adds up to more time and more expense. So why do it?

In my view, there are four reasons that you should consider taking that extra time and expense to remove obstacles to access. The first, and the most obvious, is if you know that your target audience of information consumers includes individuals with disabilities. This might be the case with internal employee training, for example.

If you supply products and services to the federal government, including our military, the second reason is equally compelling. It’s the law. Section 508 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain or use electronic and information technology, Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities. Section 508 also requires that individuals with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information or services from a Federal agency, have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to the public who are not individuals with disabilities.

The third reason, perhaps, is purely financial. Individuals with some degree of physical impairment or disability represent a significant market segment. This is a market segment with significant purchasing power, composed of millions of individuals that will look either favorably or unfavorably upon your company, your products, and your services. In the United States, for example, nearly 3 million consumers are visually handicapped from color blindness and over 1 million have Parkinson’s disease. Some 36 million American adults report some degree of hearing loss, and more that 100 million Americans are visually disabled without corrective lenses.

This is also growing market segment for two reasons. First, aging boomers are living longer and yet are increasingly affected by a variety of age-related health issues that can impair sight, hearing, and/or mobility. Second, an unprecedented number of young Americans now return from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan with serious injuries that will be with them for the rest of their lives. Ask yourself, “Are there aging boomers in my work force?” and “Are my products and services of potential interest to veterans?” I’d be truly surprised if the answer to both was “no.”

I raise the issue of market opportunity to point out the potential financial rewards of designing for accessibility, and to open discussions of return on investment. I think that one should also consider what the economic impact of preventing a significant segment of the population from participating in the global knowledge economy could be.

Setting all practical, regulatory, and economic arguments aside, my fourth, final and (I believe) most compelling reason to design for accessibility is simply this: it’s the right thing to do. I can’t imagine any ethical or moral basis that could justify creating and maintaining a new community of second class citizens in cyberspace.

Of course there are still hundreds of millions of people world-wide that have no access to the internet at all, much less, broadband access. And that status quo isn’t acceptable either. But if website designers, software programmers, and eLearning authors would start building for accessibility today, we’ll be ready for everyone to participate tomorrow.

Is information accessibility on your mind? Let me know what you think.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m OK with the dictionary definition of “learning” and it does in fact accurately describe what we generally hope to accomplish through an eLearning module. My problem is with the narrow definition of “training” within most organizations, and the direct tie often drawn between training, learning and eLearning. As in “our training division is responsible for all of our learning initiatives,” or “the training budget doesn’t include funds for eLearning.”

This gives me grief on two fronts. First, it’s now almost universally accepted that customer service is everyone’s job regardless of department, role or title. In many organizations, the same is true of sales. Common sense says that every single employee can recognize new opportunities, support your brand, and build customer loyalty… and that they can improve their abilities through proper training and experience. Yet few of us say “learning is everyone’s job.”

If that’s not enough to prompt a “Whoa!” moment, think about this. If globalization has taught us anything, it’s that almost everything can be made a commodity. In today’s world economy, the only sustainable competitive advantage is an ability to adapt and change more quickly than do our competitors. “Adapt” and “change” sound like “learning” to me.

My second concern is with the artificially narrow functional role often assigned to training. For example, both product training and sales skills training can be essential components of a product launch strategy. Too often, however, we see those activities as something done before the launch itself. Do the training, and then do the launch. Separate and definitely not equal.

Here’s my radical idea. Every product, service or communication your organization creates or provides IS training. Advertising is training. Promotional materials are training. Packaging is training. Documentation is training. Press releases are training. Newsletters are training. Blogs are training. Branding is training. Sales calls are training.

Why? Because “training” is an attempt to introduce, reinforce, or modify a fact, attitude, belief or skill in someone else. “Learning” is the set of processes through which that fact, attitude, belief or skill is internalized. Do it better than your competitors and it will be your values, your product, your brand, and your message that wins that valuable real estate in the human mind. Do it poorly and someone else will capture that turf.

Am I advocating the reassignment of all sales and marketing personnel to your training organization? Of course not. But just remember: communicating, persuading, and training are just three sides of the same coin, and learning IS everyone’s job.

What do think? Am I pointing out the obvious, or am I running off the deep end?

On the other hand, if you change the question to “Do you need learning?” it sounds almost silly. Surely everyone in every organization could learn something that would allow them to give better customer service, work more efficiently, make more sales, solve more problems, or in some other way better help your organization to achieve its goals.

So, where do you start? Well, it’s back to the basics — who, what, when, where, why, and how. WHAT needs to be taught or communicated? WHO needs to learn or know? WHEN and WHERE will those individuals be able to engage in learning? WHEN do they need to know, and WHERE will they be at that time? WHY is this information important? HOW can you judge whether or not the training or communication been successfully accomplished?

You’d be surprised (or, perhaps, you wouldn’t) at how often “we’ve got a PowerPoint” is considered as both necessary and sufficient to launch an eLearning development initiative. In my experience, such projects are unlikely – very unlikely – to truly succeed.

Of course, whether or not an eLearning project is successful depends upon how you define “success.” I’ll share some of my thoughts in a future post, but I would really like to hear about your experiences.

How do you decide to start an eLearning initiative? How do you measure its success?

• How do you get employees engaged?
• How do you get employees to see their work as meaningful?
• How do you get them to look forward to coming to work, and have pride in their work and company?

It’s about building trust and personal responsibility. That means sharing information about the company, its brand, and products and services. High performance starts with hiring. A well designed on boarding process is essential for new employees and starts even before the first day. The company’s brand begins with its website and continues with the training sessions, elearning programs, and interfacing with supervisors, managers, and fellow workers. For more read a white paper by Gary Lear.