I try to do a monthly retort session, but I admit, that it isn’t always possible.

No worries, this month we cover product reviews, AI, systems that are catching my eye, the rise of HCM focused with learning and what I would have in a learning system (if I was a vendor).

Q: How do you decide which vendor are selected for a product review?

A: I would love to say it involves all these calculations and explorations and statistical forecasts and variables, but the truth of the matter comes down to interest.

Interest as in, I find this interesting and others might too.

I never accept vendors who reach out and say, “hey can you do a product review of us?”

I’m not a marketing engine or hype machine.

The vendors I select are anything from start-ups to well-known and in-between.

Perhaps they are doing some cool stuff with AI (nowadays) or stand out in a specific segment, and are not well known (for a variety of reasons) or are doing stuff that just makes you go ‘intriguing.’

I’ll be candid here that there are plenty of vendors (globally) I reach out to, that either just retort a non-interested, or they are interested and ask the process to which I respond, and then they decline.

Then there are vendors who are all-in, and then when it comes time to the metal to the pedal, place so many restrictions into place, it just isn’t worth the headache.

For example, I had one vendor who wanted me to sign an NDA forbidding me to show the system publicliy. Uh, this is a product review that is public.

I had another vendor who said I couldn’t say anything negative about the system, ignoring that it is a product review and not a Public Relations piece.

There are vendors who want to see the post before it is posted, “to review and correct from their perspective,” ignoring that the word – Indpendent means just that and in Journalism school 101 they teach you never to show a piece ahead of time.

If I have questions or seek follow-up I always reach out to the vendor ahead of time for clarification, however the usual mode of operandi is as follows:

a. I see the system – and ask a lot of questions (I have already seen in the system in the past six months, so this is more of a refresher – and seeing what is new)

b. The vendor provides me learner and admin access: and adds fake humans and fake human data, some content/courses, enough for me to generate a report and see metrics.

They are fully aware that I will take screen shots of interest more on the learner side, with some admin, plus metrics; and now with AI – I will take a mini-short video or two – to show what it can do – if it stands out: or at least a screen shot.

They are also aware that it is 100% independent and this is from my perspective, whereas I look at it from an expert angle.

Oh, and that it is completely free to them – i.e. I never charge for a product review.

That’s it.

These next few months, my goal is to do due two reviews a month if possible.

Upcoming reviews are BenchPrep, Absorb LMS, DigitalChalk, Eurekos, Pifini Sales Enablement (very new and intriguing), ExpertusOne, Pluralsight – their learning system and not content per se, BizLMS, Thrive Learning (who have quickly gone into the elite status of AI in the learning system industry), Talent LMS and Cornerstone.

I can say that before the 4th of July (in the states) you will see product reviews of BenchPrep and Pifini Sales. BenchPrep is next week (week of the 15th of June).

Then in July, Pluralsight and either Absorb or Thrive.

I’m hoping by October to have a review with Docebo.

“Thanks but no thanks”

This list includes 360Learning, Workday Learning, Chronus (a mentoring platform), Schoox, and SuccessFactors (I heard years ago, they were not enthralled about the Turkey award – but uh, yeah, it was a turkey).

I never take it personal.

There are vendors who want a shiny and rosy look (since they present themselves as such), and others who are interested but different folks come into marketing or analyst relations and a go, becomes a no or a hold.

That’s the nature of product reviews.

Q: You mentioned on a recent post that you have a believe that there will be at least one 100% learning system by the end of next year. What would that look like?

A: Well, I can explain how I see a fully AI learning system (so what you see below is my vision. I believe there will be a vendor that takes a chunk of these items or similar and goes full AI).

Regardless, the AI is the most relevant.

Let’s look at it as a blank canvas, something we are alll familiar with.

What if we allow the learner to enter into a prompt window – let’s call it an AI Assistant, which nowadays vendors are giving it a name. I’ll call mine Hippy.

A learner asks Hippy to create a background design of X,Y, and Z. Hippy creates that background for the learner, then provides suggestions such as, do you wish to add an area showing your learning courses/content?

And then offers other suggestions such as – in this area do you want it to appear horizontal, vertical, or offer you an option to choose either or at any time?

And so on.

They can add their own widgets – or sections just by asking Hippy.

They are prompted whether they want AB or C in this or that area – knowing that they can be moved around by the learner.

The learner can ask Hippy to create the learner page in German, including showing courses that are available in German, where they – the learner can select from.

And so forth.

Hippy becomes 100% personalization assistant for the learner and the days of the admin having full control, or ‘personalization’ which is nothing more than giving the learner a widget picker and maybe moving up or down, goes by the way side.

If I want the ability to add mini-videos, Hippy can create an area for that.

On the admin side Hippy can lock in certain areas and add items automatically, so going higher up, Hippy places a section for learners to add mini-videos think Tik-Tok or Instagram shorts along those lines.

If you are buying content, you want to either have a storefront in place or the catalog right there. Hippy can do that, for the admin – and then target specific learners or customers or ‘Recommended’ based upon what the learner asks Hippy – ‘Hippy show me the courses that are for MRI machine which are focused only on X in the machine, no longer than two minutes of video, and has navigation for me to move around.”

Hippy shows that.

Heck, in the customer or learner side, that same type of question can be posed, so that what the learner now sees in that personalized look, are those courses, even simulations.

Perhaps you only want to see courses that are audio only or have that option – because that is your learning preference – Hippy does that.

Nowadays if you use Spotify some tracks offer audio or video option. Why can’t content do the same?

The admin side goes further than it has before, because their is a brief setup automatically by the vendor – hence the edition side, and there is the plug and play of MCP, but that canvas’s look is open to the admin.

In onboarding the admin, the vendor recommends adding ZYTA based on the head of Training, Learning, etc. use case, including not just now, but shows them how to add as the system evolves.

Maybe I just want to generate reports on learners taking X content and whether they passed Assessment blah.

Hippy generates that – you can view it on screen, or PDF it.

Perhaps you want an area that lists all the content, that you can pick from to add to the learner, or that catalog you want the learner to see – bam.

Maybe you want Hippy to design your side based on what you find of use to you, and what you need.

Hippy can go to your calendar, and identify the courses/content.

Hippy can identify the skills you want to learn, by you asking it. And Hippy can associate it with your job role or level of interest to a potential new role.

It’s all Hippy – because in the end, learners just want to go in take some content and bolt – on the L&D side; on the customer side, if they buy it, they will go back and forth, it if it product related they will go in, and into the sections of relevancy and back and forth.

And wouldn’t it be great if the learner asks to show the mentors that are the best (rating/score wise) for a job role or skills and the system shows them who those folks are and then they can select and schedule?

Time saver city.

Admin.

In other words, as the system evolves instead of the vendor having to add visual elements that an admin may not use, Hippy can suggest or recommend the elements the admin would use or request or even based on what Hippy sees, add it to the system itself, and shows the admin how to use it.

The vendor is still adding things, showing it, and onboarding once again, but based on what Hippy sees of repetition and/or what Hippy sees is a must based on actions of the admin, it appears.

Hippy can show the admin the calendar, add learners to sesssions, create sessions, see them, etc. – all via Hippy – ask and Hippy makes it appear.

Then you can save your ‘Favorites’, and next time, Hippy show me my list of favorites – Hippy shows it on the screen.

Fast, efficient.

Hippy automatically includes the content creator option.

The admin goes into the content creator and zing – options are available – based on requests from the admin or instructional designer (going by the way side), and suggestions.

Down the road as AI improves, so does the power of Hippy.

Hippy becomes your go to in the platform.

Hippy go to the MCP store and find the one for Workday. Open it up. Type in my user name and password. Login. Test to make sure it works.

Hippy does it.

See the power of Hippy?

For folks who believe AGI (Artifical General Intelligence) whereas AI surpasses Human Brains and where you hear the fear of AI destroying humans, that is unlikely to appear to at least 2030 – just in time to destroy every data center out there.

Hey, I just saved humanity.

You are welcomed. Hippy on the other hand, has already devised how my electrical outlets will take me out the next time I plug in my laptop.

Hippy – Darn You.

Q: Do you think HCMs will replace LMSs or other types of learning platforms?

A: No. If I want training, I see zero benefit of going to an HCM.

I mean an HCM is for internal, you are not buying one to have external customer/partner training, let alone association training, and so forth.

If I am doing internal training or learning and I only want a system to do that, than having an HCM with a learning piece to it, wouldn’t make sense.

The pluses for folks who buy an HCM with learning included in it or as an add-on but it is from the HCM vendor is the ‘one-stop shop’ approach, and the ‘easy to do’ including the removal of the hassle of finding an LMS or other learning platforms.

I often see the LMS more so as the target, as it relates to an HCM, which is odd, since as I wrote about in the past, there are all types of learning systems, including various learning platforms.

The folks who are in HR usually are the buyers of an HCM, not the person overseeing Training.

As for L&D, as the buyer of the HCM, I still see HR more on that side, and L&D is now placed into the box of using the LMS or learning component within the HCM – which goes high into career paths, and other career side of the plate – as part of the learning experience.

I’m personally not sold on the idea that the next big market is HCM for learning or that learning is going to be heavily driven by HR.

I’ve heard these stories before because an HCM with learning isn’t new, nor the whole HR-focus front.

For the record a talent development system is not the same as an HCM.

They could though make a couple of steps and go into the HCM route, which will only add to the confusion.

That to me is troubling – because when I hear a vendor tell me they are focused on the HR buyer or that they are getting inquiries from the head of HR and point that way, then I have a vibe of where this is heading.

And the impact it will have on the vendor.

In the long run.

Q: What would be the top three features or capabilities you would want in a learning system today?

A:

a. AI Assistant with prompt suggestions on the learner side: ditto on Admin side – if it can allow me to add learners to a learning path with content (I just saw a system that did this, plus a lot more cool items), the better.

b. Content around AI that is included at no charge and exists automatically when the learner logs into the system – it is contatestly updated – AI literacy is going to be a big problem, and the idea that the people using it at work know the ins and outs, and the potential issues, is a huge fallacy.

If the client is using Claude, then a how to use Claude, best practices.

At least two courses around what is generative AI.

A course of mental well-being, when it comes to using AI.

And that AI issues. – Oh this should be engaging content, nobody wants a text with some pictures or a person in front of a green screen. Where is the snooze button?

c. If you are using AI the text ‘AI may create fake or false information, always review before accepting.’ Just because a product you are using doesn’t list that text, doesn’t mean you can ignore it as well.

Trust me, the moment somebody uses an AI product that lacks that text, and mess up, and it impacts the company, then when you are being sued, you can think it won’t matter.

I’m going to add a fourth – Ongoing onboarding and training refreshers for the administrators and the folks overseeing the department where the learning system or learning tech sits.

You can’t push content and the idea of go in and tada finish and you gain synthesis (which isn’t accurate), and assume (wrongly) that the onboarding session will do it all for folks to remember.

It won’t.

Bottom Line

Recently the CEO of Verizon noted that AI will be (and has already begun) to replace human workers in customer support – as in you call in.

That AI chat box and ‘Alison’ is likely not a real person but AI – forgets that just as the AI replacement, that mistakes can happen with AI – fake and false information.

I wonder if the CEO took that into account, or if any CEO that replaces humans with AI, recognizes this.

The point of it all is that AI is here to stay.

Understanding its implications, but equally how it can benefit a learner, regardless of their knowledge or skill sets around technology in a learning manner, and even managers, administrators, folks running the departments, educators and even students – needs to include knowledge that can be understood, because it changes so frequently.

What was relevant six months ago, isn’t today.

It is rapdily changing, and learning should too.

I say should, because there are plenty of people who truly don’t want it to happen.

They say they do, but then ignore everything identifying here are the opportunities, recognize the challenges, and find a way it benefits the person on the training.

Vendors are either in one box or another, and I can say this and feel confident about doing so, that you will continue to see a variance in those pushing foward – not just by adding AI to their system, but doing so – thinking from the learner side.

That’s the difference maker.

The secret sauce.

Synthesis is the game here, and whether it is a product review, or functionality or a debate between an HCM as the future of learning (it isn’t), the learner should be the driver here.

I think this is something we all can agree on.

Even Hippy.

E-Learning 24/7

The post Reader’s Mailbag: AI, HCM, Product Reviews appeared first on By Craig Weiss.

A report conducted by a research firm (which shall not be named) found in essence that their respondents found the LMS no longer needed, and dropping – i.e., looking for alternatives – and out with the LMS (where have we heard this before?).

To be clear, the majority of learning systems are really an LMS – a learning management system – which, to go to the basics, provides content for learners (whoever they are), and the ability to track – on the metrics side.

That’s it.

Now, it is true that a knowledge management platform changes it up a bit, and I wouldn’t slide them into the LMS category, but even then, KM is going either the MCP route or sees itself more as lying on top of your tech stack, including your LMS.

A learning platform, training development platform, and so on, slide until the LMS moniker.

HCMs, okay, some LMS vendors who are pushing away from the ‘learning stigma’ for employees into an HCM, whether via acquisition by HCM, or within the HCM and handling all the career pathways, and wait for it, talent development still follows a familiar pattern.

There are a couple of points to consider before flipping the LMS on its head.

a. The continuation of vendors moving away from the LMS – customer training/partner enablement/B2B and even L&D, unless they angle into human capital management – is on the upswing. I’d argue that the latter are in the talent development side of the house, which I have reported for a while as the next big segment.

b. Customer training/partner enablement systems have a lot of options now that the combos are starting to pick a place to be – after all, pushing your learning system more towards a career-centric focus (something LMSs could do from day one), along with the feature sets that are included, changes the narrative.

A vendor in combo land can say we handle both sides here, but if the system heavily skews towards, let’s say, L&D or HR, then, uh, you are no longer playing both sides.

Nor should you push yourself as such.

c. Associations are in the customer/partner angle, ditto non-profits.

d. All systems are going heavy into AI – again, no surprise here, and will continue to push more and more. Some are starting now, others ramped up full speed ahead with machine learning prior to 2020, and zinged into Generative AI (which is what folks refer to as AI), in 2022 or thereabouts.

e. Is it possible that a 100% AI learning system will exist by the end of 2027? I say absolutely. And I’m not referring to piecemeal here – I’m saying a total AI-driven system for learning and yes, training too. (I will publish next week, what this will look like from a systems thinking perspective – a preference of mine, whereas the systems is uh, not a variety of systems – long story).

I’d even say, possible, should be yes, there will be at least one by the end of 2027 – how good it is, well, another story – and it comes with risks and challenges – but as they say, ships were not built to stay in the harbor (okay, some poster I hung on my wall says that).

Flip One

Learning for Business Outcomes AKA Impact of Learning

Do you want to validate that your learning or training is truly meeting the company’s expectations?

Meet truly business outcomes – that isn’t about biz operations?

Learning for Business Outcomes delivers that.

The LMS must do this, regardless of whether it is customer training or employee (internal/external).

Take the ROI out (it’s worthless anyway, and easy to manipulate) and be clear around Business Outcomes.

When I was at AWS, I went there not as a customer, but to understand what they were doing with AI and how it could be used with learning technology and systems.

I brought up the Impact of Learning.

They asked what that was. I told them it was tying learning to business outcomes.

I could see a few folks writing it down.

The point here is that tying learning to business outcomes – i.e., Impact of Learning is something everyone can understand and leverage. Even with AI.

Flip Two

What’s the Problem?

We are lost here. I’m not referring to the industry itself; I’m referring to the folks who are purchasing the system, in this case, the LMS.

They are not thinking from the learner’s standpoint; they are looking at it from their own perspective, which is the problem.

I see use cases after use cases, and have yet to see a “WHOA, that is something new.”

Hence the problem.

Nobody truly thinks about the learner (the employee or customer) who is using the system or is about to use it.

The buyer thinks of today, not tomorrow, not three years down the road (which, for customer training, takes three years to build sustainable mass).

Today is today – so scrub that right now.

Hence, what is the problem?

What do ‘we’ (i.e., your business, association, etc.) want to get out of their LMS?

If you say compliance or regulatory, then no, that isn’t the problem. If you say onboarding, well, that is a benefit, a staple that you want and need, but it isn’t the problem.

If you say ‘we want to generate revenue’ again, that’s the outcome. But what is the problem? For the downturn, some folks say the LMS is out, not needed, and we can go here.

Analogy

When cars rolled out, they could do 15 mph at some point.

Why did we need cars?

Was it because horses were dropping dead on the street, or the smells?

Was it to get somewhere quicker?

Did nobody realize that these cars didn’t have anything to stop someone from going through the car as a human projectile in an accident, because nobody knew how to drive?

Somebody said, “Okay, let’s put in a glass windshield.” Problem solved.

Forgetting that when an accident happened, the person could either go out the window or shards of the glass would go into the person or others.

Next up, a form of plastic. Same problem.

The cars got faster, but uh, nobody still knew how to drive. This little thing called a license didn’t exist.

Accidents and deaths occurred at an alarming rate.

Going back more than a hundred years, who knew that the mass production of cars would lead to so many problems, without anyone thinking to themselves, ” What is the problem we really want to change?”

Nobody said, “Windshield needed. Better than plastic, teach people how to drive, create a driver’s license, and oh, something called a seatbelt.”

What they said was ‘we need cars’. We need to get somewhere quicker, wherever and whatever that place is to be.

They saw one problem – or said to themselves (Ford in this case), we need transportation, without thinking through potential scenarios – like uh, teaching someone how to drive a car.

An LMS must be able to address the scenarios that the initial problem presents in the use case.

Look, ask yourself (as the vendor), what other scenarios or situations could exist if we go down this path, and can we do it in such a manner that we can adapt, adopt, and move quicker without pushing out something that solves several use cases (we see and we hear from clients)?

The client isn’t thinking about those other situations/scenarios; they are thinking now, so you must do it for them.

Flip rather than backpedal or do nothing.

Flip Three

Adaptability, but in a different way.

Nowadays, people overseeing a learning system (LMS Administrator Guide), regardless of type, lack the basic skills and knowledge of either L&D (with OD – Organizational Development) or Training (usually seen in external, but can also be used with internal).

Even folks who are running L&D and Training are lacking the skills necessary to deliver ongoing success, relevant metrics aligned with their target objectives, and even the basics.

The premise that people will go deep to find and learn this information is falling by the wayside.

That’s just reality.

With the flip, you, as a vendor, must recognize and adapt at that stage to meet that audience.

It’s not just about Gen AI here; anyone can do that.

It’s about changing the way.

Two versions.

One version (based on a discussion with the client/prospect) is simplistic (use verbiage that doesn’t imply streamlined, because either version can do that).

Simplistic is the meat (vegan version too – ha) of the platform.

It is all about plug and play – it takes away the ‘fear’ factor of using a system with a lack of skills around learning and training.

It embraces the new reality.

Version two – sophisticated.

See the wording? Complexity is a scary word, and can confuse folks – sophisticated, however, implies that level of going beyond – sure it is complex, without the instictiveness that shows a system that overwhelms.

It goes further than just plug and play (which can still be done), but offers an expert in L&D or Training or even a CLO: (no offense, but a lot of them are stuck in the old ways, and believe a system should be complex to validate the whole L&D experience).

You want a deeper, more sophisticated dive into analytics.

Do you know code? Sophisticated.

You want to push the system as far as it can go?

Sophisticated.

Do you understand how headless technology works without IT touching your system or treating it as an ERP?

Sophisticated.

These are folks that punch the system, and ‘get it’. They may not have all the skills needed, but they have more than enough to leverage beyond what most can do.

AI plays a role in both the entry version (perhaps a better word than simplistic), and the more advanced.

Each offers content creation, assessments, the ability to do voice input for inquiries, prompts, and objectives with content (a severely lacking capability I see with a lot of systems – BTW, it is no more than three, and you never say “You will Learn.”)

Each factor into plug and play.

Each offers integration with HRIS, HCM, and other types of platforms.

However, when it comes to MCPs, the advanced version shows off all the available MCPs and dives deeper into them.

At the entry level – a basic understanding – heck, not even that – again, plug and play – using the analogy of the universal remote.

Don’t go into the nitty and gritty about the whole – your company has an LLM and wants to use that in the system – that goes into confusion.

If the prospect asks, you respond.

The same with Tokens – and that is only if you are offering it on the learner side, where you either eat the fee or provide a bucket of token credits.

Remember, lack of skills and knowledge here.

These are the folks who are going with templates and basic content, with a push to get it out quickly.

They see content as I have to do this.”

And who are the folks I tend to see with this?

People who have been tossed the LMS (often an HRIS) because the company has gutted L&D/Training.

If the system is for marketing – let’s be honest – these folks are not going to understand the whole L&D skills, they are going to use it for either sales training, or definitely an external audience.

I highly doubt they are going with an internal audience, let alone an internal and external one.

I can see an extension market – with the icons (let’s say Survey Monkey) if someone is in the marketing department.

This is all-around knowledge here.

Skills libraries are in both versions.

Adding AI with skills makes perfect sense.

“You can add skills tied to job roles tied to content, easy to do – let me show you how.”

Skill mapping wordage they won’t get.

In the advanced

Skill mapping is big. Taxonomies are big. Skill creation tied to job roles and content is far bigger than in the entry version.

Both versions include a library of skills, but push around AI.

Simple – easy to do.

Flip Four

Embrace knowledge management.

Many people see KM as a replacement for an LMS.

Hit it, rather than back away from it.

Flip Five

Suggestions and Prompts.

Those versions I mentioned?

You include “suggestions” in the ask questions/learner AI assistant side – ditto on the admin side – again, focus on the knowledge and expertise of the folks that are not just the admin, but also run the show.

Suggestions work.

A prompt library works – Include common prompts that someone can click and go.

More robust prompts are in the sophisticated.

People need prompts – because here is what happens when you fail to do so

a. People tend to go ambiguous – this increases token costs

b. People start using AI far more and see it as not a tool, but ‘all knowing.’

Flip Six

Add AI content.

Huge with entry – give them learner and admin here (because they do want to learn), content around AI literacy. What is AI? Understanding how Gen AI works: the basics.

If someone wants to not just learn but apply – include it.

You will have people who are interested.

Do not have all text content, or just someone talking into a screen.

I talked to numerous HRIS folks, including execs who were handed off the Learning System, and they hated the all-text thing.

Heck, nobody, not you, not me, not Fred at the Grocery store, likes all text when it comes to AI, or even learning – a huge problem with content creators out there.

Have content on the admin side that shows how to use the system – plug in a ‘show me, let me do it’ angle – AI is perfect with this.

Flip Seven

Go. Go. Go.

Fast modifications. Constant updating. Live for Learning.

This is for the vendor.

UI/UX updates – every other year, ideally yearly if you can afford it.

Flip Eight

Take on the challenges and resolve them.

The bogeyman, the lies vendors tell folks, the folks who think an LMS is just about compliance and regulatory – this is all due to misinformation.

Again, don’t hide from it, or use the wording that sounds as though this is the first time you have heard of this.

Push back (nicely) and show off the wonders – your system isn’t just about compliance – yeah, it offers it (depending on feature sets), and it isn’t just about compliance content.

We think differently about the direction of learning and training.

We understand the challenges we all face (uh, onboarding, customer training, or whatever the segment is), and how to take you, whether you are new to an LMS or experienced, to the next level in the industry for L&D/Training or whatever they are using the system for.

Flip Nine

People are all about skills management capabilities.

Show off what you have, and how you can add.

People who have an HRIS system want to know if you can integrate it.

If you have experience, tell them. I’d find at least one client who has integrated their HRIS (the same one they have) with your system with great success.

And offer the client – your prospect – a connection with that client.

If Nancy has a use case that requires blah, blah, and blah, find someone with the same specifics who used your system to wonderful success, loves it, and would buy it again.

Make sure the audience is the same – i.e., number of users – or close to it, and ideally the same industry.

People like others like them (it is called the bandwagon effect).

Connect.

Flip 10

AI is evolving, but recognize that not everyone is ready to keep up.

If you can add users to the system using your Gen AI, without someone having to do it manually, show it off.

If you can add content to a learning journey (avoid saying ‘curriculum path,’ since someone new will have no idea what you are talking about), show it with your AI.

Ditto on job roles and the skills tied to them.

Focus on the problems they face and are concerned about, by solving it with the AI.

Again, plug and go, type in and go, fast and simple – anyone can do it.

Flip 11

Everyone gets a concierge – someone dedicated to them.

Onboarding the customer is free, as much as they need.

Make sure it isn’t just the admin, but the person overseeing the system, because they may be doing it themselves or driving this and lack the knowledge or the full power of the system.

The majority of calls an admin makes to a vendor have nothing to do with system bugs.

The days of the admin validating what an end user says is an issue are long gone.

They just push it up to the vendor.

That costs you money.

This is BTW why I like the ‘show me, let me do it’ aspect of icons, rather than just integrating your help or FAQ, which nobody reads.

Point out how this works when they ask how to do it, and then have them type in or do what is needed.

I once read years ago that admins, on average, use only 20% of the system.

I can guarantee you that number has dropped.

Flip 12

Remember that AI literacy?

Add Mental health to it, around AI.

It is becoming a big problem, and remember this learner is going to use the system outside of the workplace (unless they are hourly, union, etc.)

I can guarantee you that at least one of your employees, in let’s say 5,000 or more, sees the AI as more than just what it is, – a tool, and no, it is not sentient or a human – it makes mistakes.

Here is a study conducted by Mercer that I think shows what I am talking about and why it is relevant.

1,000 CEOs were sent a survey (in the United States), and the data is frankly frightening. I can tell you: a lot of folks in L&D, Training, heck, even within their own company, are clueless about it.

• 99% of respondents said they expect AI to lead to layoffs within the next two years
• 98% of respondents are expecting to have significant organizational changes around AI
• In the latest survey, Mercer found that 44% of employees are thriving in the workplace, which is down by 22% from 2024
• 49% of HR professionals say incorporating worker sentiments with behavioral data will become critical to managing labor on the job. On top of that, 43 to 44% said the same of AI chatbots (Mercer study 2026)
• Mercer found that in some cases, managers who responded to the survey are using AI chatbots to decide whom to fire

While there are two camps on whether AI will impact the job market and employees specifically, the data above shows that, based on the survey, employees are indeed worried.

For the record, as many of you know, I have always been in the camp of significant job losses.

This is why mental health is so relevant to today’s workforce around AI.

Bottom Line

Adapt. Speed. Modify.

Accepting the challenges, rather than hiding from them, and solving the Big Problem will flip the LMS on its head.

Understand the audience of today – the admins, the folks overseeing the whole e-learning experience, which includes the learning system – and in this case, the LMS – are not as knowledgeable as you might think, especially the admins.

Recognize that there are plenty of people at the head of e-learning, who want a system to go further, and do more than before, who have either an understanding of MCPs or want to know more, and why it benefits them to have it.

Plug and Play.

Have an MCP? Person enters their username and password, and bam, it works.

Watch out for talent development systems that skim close to HCMs and don’t refer to themselves as an LMS.

Counter it with your sophisticated version.

Need a mix of simple with some sophistication – doable with a couple of tweaks – after all the versions are ready to go.

Which one do you show? Based on the conversation you will have with the person overseeing the department, the decision maker.

Use Cases are usually similar; if you do enough of them, you will see which version to show.

If you find out that Sammy, the admin, is no longer at the company and that Sarah from HRIS has taken this over, resolve it, work with them, and show them how easy it is to do.

This means, if needed, you’re stepping in to administer the system and help them get it up and running.

You do it for free.

This taps into their job now.

Engage.

And flip the LMS,

Not just on its head

But realizing those folks who see the LMS as passe

Are wrong.

And here’s why.

E-Learning 24/7

Bonus fact: people are starting to add typos to show or imply they are not using only AI. Again, learn, learn, and learn – share with your customer – become the expert.

Or find someone who is.

The post Time to Flip the LMS on its head appeared first on By Craig Weiss.

I, like many of you, am here in attendance at ATD 2026.

Ok, I’m not physically there, but if I were, I’d guide you through the vast, confusing expo floor.

Best of all, I’m saving the planet by not throwing you a bunch of stuff you will never read into your whatever ATD gives you this year.

Knowing the vast majority of vendors at the show, I’m going to provide you with a tour of who to see, plus a handy guide on what you can expect from some vendors’ messaging.

Key points

If I note that the vendor was in my top 10 for 2025, click here to see the post.

Each vendor has a link on the expo site, I believe, but I placed them here for those who may read the guide after the show, which is okay.

Knowledge drives interest.

If you wish to use my latest RFP template, click here.

The Guide

I didn’t spend time reading where the vendors’ booths are located because, even with the numbers, the layouts at these shows are bonkers. Plus, they gave you that list of them in tiny print to find.

My list: I should note that if the vendor is in FindAnLMS (FAL), which is my site, it will be noted. There, you can compare vendors and/or get more details. Regardless, even if they are not in there, the list I have will still recognize them.

• Absorb (FAL) – Ranked #1 in my Top 10 learning systems for 2025 – To get details on the Top 10, go here. They are strong in AI for those wondering. Ideal for customer/partner training (aka enablement on the partner side) and L&D. If you are seeking a system for frontline/deskless or blue-collar roles, it’s definitely worth a visit. Overall, pricing is good – especially because you get a lot, including one of the best mentoring platforms in the industry, included at no additional fee.
• Biz Library (FAL) – They are in FindAnLMS for BizLMS with BizSkills. Top 10 for 2025. You get a lot for the buck, as I would say. Top 10 multiple times in past years. This is L&D all the way, but I can see them for the frontline and blue-collar too. Continues to impress each year. Awesome UI/UX. Skills-wise, definitely top 10 in 2026; I should add that they were the first vendor to ever do skills mapping in the industry – and that started years ago.
• DigitalChalk (FAL) – Top 10 Learning System for 2025. Definitely will hit it again in 2026. I love “Content Factory,” which is a built-in authoring solution that goes beyond much of what you see today. AI-wise is solid, but I can tell you by the end of the year, they will be among the top in the market (I know some things, sorry, can’t share). This system continues to get better with each version. Definitely a player to watch. Easily could slide into the top five in 2026 (as of today). Product Review coming this summer.
• D2L Brightspace (FAL) – Top 5 learning system for 2025. I list them in these rankings for corporations and associations. #1 for Associations in 2025, and still the leaders in 2026 for associations. Thus, I would slide them into the L&D side, plus the association segment, which in turn slips them into customer training/partner enablement. I constantly nag them to include their “built-in authoring tool” as part of their system at no cost, rather than an add-on. Anyway, I love the system. For those angling for EdTech (higher education), a multi-year run at #1.
• CYPHER LEARNING (they go by all caps) (FAL) – Top three for AI in 2026 (as of 5-18-26). You want a fast-forward thinking system around AI and what it can do – here you go. Top 10 learning for 2025. L&D here. If you want an L&D system, here you go. Frontline is doable, blue-collar too. Built-in Authoring tool is in my top three for 2026. Top 10 learning system for 2025
• 360 Learning (FAL) – Solid in AI; honestly, they should be much further along. The system is worth a look. Definitely more on the L&D side these days – IMO. I wouldn’t buy them for customer training/partner enablement. The system skews L&D. They are ranked in my Top 10 for 2025.
• Bridge – Just saw the system last week. This is really for L&D, with frontline/deskless too. AI is okay at this point. I think they have come a long way, the metric UI/UX is brutal – actually common look in the industry – they need to update that in a big way though. Solid system worth a visit. Hence, being in my guide.
• Docebo (FAL) – AI strength is growing, after a bit of a stall. I really dig Harmony, their AI assistant, and I like the Chrome extension. They still have a way to go for AI compared to, say, the top five in the space. This system is increasingly focused on L&D, with a target audience of L&D and HR professionals. Top 5 Learning Systems for 2025.
• Despite the split – i.e., combo, for customer/partner training and L&D, I would check them out for L&D, but not for customer/partner training. I want to stress, they are not an HCM, nor do they want to be. They are, IMO, edging closer to a Talent Development System, which I have always seen becoming the #2 market behind LMS in the years to come. TDS is growing faster in 2026. That said, going all in for L&D with some HR capabilities was my takeaway – still really dig the system.
• Metalark.AI from OnPoint Digital. They are the #1 new product – i.e., learning technology for 2026. AI dominates here and excels at learning. You aren’t buying this for the UI/UX, you want it for what it can do with the data, a core – okay, THE CORE – for learning and training. Metrics will always tell your learning story. If I were running a training department, I’d buy them. Robert Gadd, who founded the company, is a pioneer in the online learning space, and even before that, with CD-ROM – remember those?
• Thrive Learning – From an AI standpoint, if I were to rank top AI systems today, they would be #2. Overall, I really like the system. I see them more focused on the L&D side, but there is potential, depending on their vision, to start tapping into customer/partner training with some functionality adds and metrics. If you are debating between them and other systems that push around AI, Thrive wins. I will have a product review on their platform coming this summer. Lastly, if I were to rank the system overall, as of today, it would easily be in my Top 10 for 2026.
• LearningPool – Wonderful learning system. Skews towards L&D. Top 10 in my 2025 rankings. Solid in AI. The whole LCMS thing doesn’t work for me, but it is a segment making a comeback, albeit it is best suited for folks who still believe SharePoint can be an LMS or at least be used for learning, which is where the LCMS market always targeted.
• LearnUpon (FAL). Top 10 learning systems in 2025. I like the system, there I said it. Combo for L&D and customer training/partner enablement. I’d rate them in the top five for the association segment. AI can be better, but they are definitely ahead of a lot in the industry, which says something. Now, if I were to say top 10, I’d place them on the fence. That said, I admit I get confused about where they really want to play, and that is definitely a concern.
• dominKnow – Look, there is a slight learning curve with the authoring tool’s advanced capabilities, but for a start-and-go authoring tool, they play well. I like them better than Articulate, even with their Rise platform. These folks know instructional development far better, IMO, than any other authoring tool solution on the market. While I no longer do, rankings for authoring tools, if I were to, I would place them #1. Heck, I’d buy their product. If Paul is in the booth, you want to talk to him (let him know Craig Weiss said you should talk to him). I’ve done interviews with him on my blog here in the past. He is the only ‘interview’ person I have asked multiple times. That should say something.
• Chronus – Mentoring platform (L&D). Ranked in my top three mentoring platforms for 2025. Lots to like – the pre-assessment, which drives everything, is sweet. I want more. AI is fair. Sadly turned down a product review option – I guess going through the “gauntlet” wasn’t something they were willing to do – I found that odd, anyway, still like them.
• Sythesia – Learning Technology platform. A lot of folks love them, definitely a drive in the AI market. Nevertheless, they are outstanding from a learning technology and what they can do standpoint. If you want audio dubbing, though, the player that many vendors use on their own platforms is Eleven Labs. I use them too.

The Promises (According to the Vendors – okay, a chunk of them)

• AI-First – This is going to be hot. AI everywhere. Fantastic, yet nobody is really AI-first unless you can find the very first vendor who added machine learning (a form of AI) to their system many, many years ago. This whole idea of AI-first is to entice you to come and see them – the twist – I have provided in a previous post, questions to ask the salesperson to ascertain their level of knowledge around AI. For those who wish not to click on the link, here are the top three to recognize

a. No system, learning tech, or any platform using AI can say they are 100% accurate. AI can make mistakes; that is just a fact. I don’t care if they tell you they have guardrails, RAG, and it is your own content in the system; the system is trained on your own content – it can still make mistakes. Oh, and you can have AI bias. And wait, every LLM (learning language model) – a vendor may say ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini (each is an LLM)- has strengths and weaknesses.

The point is nobody is perfect, worse, those data centers (energy consumption monsters) are needed for an LLM. Notwithstanding, there is this little thing called token fees. You pay for them. Always relevant to ask whether the vendor has an AI assistant, an AI chat box, or whatever they want to call it, so your learner can ask questions and receive responses. It’s not a big deal if you have 100 people price-wise hitting that thing; with 10,000, 25,000, or 100,000 humans, it’s another thing.

b. MCP is the next big thing – I wrote a post last week about it, so click to read more. It stands for model context protocol, and the post I wrote presents what it is – a universal remote for AI. I don’t expect many vendors to have it yet, but you want to find out: a) do they know what it is, and b) if yes, when do they expect to see it. Note, that not all versions of say a LLM from a vendor, let’s say OpenAI (they make ChatGPT) will have it.

Anyway, if you want the latest, there you go.

c. How does it benefit the learner? AI (generative AI for now), the talk is all about Agentic Agents that can handle a task or a series of tasks.

Perfect if you think of it as a co-worker for the office, not though from a learner perspective.

That to me is the challenge. What will it really do to get the learner to learn? Comprehend? And most importantly, synthesize?

I see its strength more so on the admin side.

I’ll be writing a post in a few weeks on Agentic Agents, task-driven for administrators, regardless of whether you have L&D, training, or zero experience – and the latter is where I see Agents doing their best work.

That said, even with an L&D or Training background, more and more people want a learning system (regardless of type) to do the heavy lifting.

Promise 2

We will follow up. Let me scan your badge.

Less than 10 percent will follow up with you, even if you say you really want to talk to someone.

In my tests over the last three years at various trade shows, including ATD, and in discussions with buyers (folks looking for systems), the follow-up rate is around eight to nine percent.

That stinks.

What you get, though, is auto-added to their newsletter and spam stuff. Heck, maybe your name gets handed off to a marketing list OR is added to say Trust Radius or similar, like G2, who magically reaches out to you, to seek your opinion on a system you have never really tried out or seen – in return for a gift card.

I’ve had this experience.

Vendors should be ashamed of themselves for the whole scan badge scam, and that is what I will call it.

Either you follow up on a commitment, or you don’t.

And those that don’t should go on your “never follow-up” list. Scratch them from future consideration.

Promise

You will see a lot of G2 listing – leader things, or G2 high feedback on the booths.

Take it for what it is – after all, it is marketing.

What is left out are the following:

• That random gift card e-mail sent to you – I got one of mine by seeking to see a system, and filling out a “contact us” form on a vendor’s website. Data shows that if you are offered a tangible item (a gift card), you are more likely to leave a positive review than a zero review or a negative review
• AI bots are becoming a real problem. Any site, regardless of whether it is G2 or Fred’s Best Picks, or heck, Trust Advisor, that has a place where people can leave comments is seeing huge increases in comments and five-star ratings. It’s very hard to validate, and that is a real challenge, because, for all the legit star comments and feedback, some may be false. Sad to say, that is just reality.
• What you are looking for in a use case and specific functionality and feature sets may not be what the person who rated that vendor highly in the overall score is looking for. It is like YELP. How many times have you gone to a place to eat that has high comments – let’s say five stars, and from Elites no less, and think that this place is going to be great, only to be disappointed? It happens all the time. Everyone is different, thankfully, and each case, although it seems the same, isn’t true – a small tweak can make a difference.

Bottom Line

There you go, the guide for the #ATD26 expo floor.

I never understood the whole sponsorship for Bingo thing – because I’ve never seen a vendor score a deal with someone who wants a stamp.

Nor do I get the full selection of candy to choose from at their booth. Pens are super cheap, people love them, and will use them over and over again. IMO, it is a cheap and great promo route.

I am also not a fan of vendors who won’t give you their promotional/marketing gift unless you talk to them (I’m not referring to something that costs a few hundred bucks and requires a drawing; I’m thinking more along the lines of a stuffed toy or something like that).

The whole reason you have those as a vendor is for marketing and getting your name out, which is why you (a vendor) attend trade shows.

If you are doing it because you think you are going to land a lot of sales, remember that high lead numbers never equal sales (actual numbers).

Lastly, if your salespeople or whoever is in your booth is more interested in looking at their smartphone than looking at the floor, standing up and being seen, welcoming people into their booth, with a friendly high, and not a fear factor of hard sell, then that person shouldn’t be allowed on the floor at all.

The goal is to be friendly and approachable, and to have the expertise to provide insight.

I personally hate it when folks in a booth seem disinterested in talking about their system, answering questions, or looking around while they are talking to you, or eating in the booth.

It shows that the person walking by isn’t important – and it turns off a lot of folks.

Plus, it lacks a professional image.

Which, if you are dropping thousands on a booth, doesn’t say, “Come and see us.”

IT says,

Don’t.

E-Learning 24/7

The post ATD 2026 Expo Guide appeared first on By Craig Weiss.

MCP, which I will use going forward, is best in explanation to something everyone else can relate to.

Let’s say back in the day, you had a DVD player, a Fire TV Stick, a TV remote, perhaps a soundbar remote.

Or for plenty of folks nowadays, you have a remote for the soundbar, maybe a remote for a speaker system you want to use with the soundbar, a remote for the TV, and another remote you use for some tech item for your TV.

That is a lot of remotes.

Then, someone came up with the idea of a Universal remote, which connected all your different remotes into one remote that can handle it all.

This is how an MCP works in basic terms.

It is not an API, mind you, that allows you to connect different applications with the LLM you are using (you have it already at your company) with the LLM the vendor is using in their system.

Just as that universal remote, you can have it handle different tasks, dependent on the vendor’s LLM capabilities and how they set it up.

The interesting aspect is that you can connect that Learning System (regardless of type) with their LLM or LLMs (the vendor’s) and your LLM to multiple MCPs in lots of different solutions.

Sort of one for all, all for one – a quote from a film, which I don’t remember nor care to.

What I set out to do in this post is the following

• Selected a random number of vendors to inquire if they offer an MCP to the clients who already have their own LLM (again, think universal remote)
• Ask for what the vendor’s MCP can do in their system, with your LLM (did I mention that universal remote)
• Present to you, my dear reader, the capabilities
• A few items that vendors may not be aware of, that impact you – uh, the client with your own LLM using the MCP (let’s say with just one platform in this case, a learning system, and not the learning system enabling connections with lots of other MCPs you can use for the system)
• The difference between an MCP and an API
• Those nasty things called cost to you, and data sets – yours in the system
• Something on the horizon called a Headless MCP (which I won’t dive into too much, but give you some highlights of what is possible, but it comes with a cost)

We are talking AI when I reference the LLM; granted, it is Generative AI, but it’s still AI.

MCP – Easy to use

The big win for an MCP, besides the universal remote, is a plug-and-play angle.

If the vendor has one MCP, they will identify what LLMs, including small (sometimes referred to as tiny) LLMs, their learning system supports.

Plenty support all LLMs (or so the vendor says), while others support a specific provider – and a specific version of said provider.

When it comes to config, if that is available to you, it is just turn on or off – on the MCP side – because that MCP is connected to the AI in the system, and thus, you are using the AI that you have, without having to go into the system, if you so choose (the pitch is to just stay in your AI offering).

Again, that universal remote.

For those who still say, “I need another explanation on what an MCP is,” here you go.

“It’s a standardized protocol that sits on top of systems (often on top of APIs themselves) and makes them accessible to AI in a natural, flexible way.” (Claude 4.6 Sonnet. Validated by me – a human).

Example

I use Claude.ai and Sonnet (you can also pick Opus, Haiku – check with the vendor (your learning system vendor) to see the version acceptance, and/or the AI provider you are using.

Anyway, my blog (the one you are reading) sits on WordPress – and I use the Business edition.

WordPress now has an MCP for Claude.

I connected – simply by adding the WordPress MCP with Claude.

Within Claude, I had a config option.

It allowed me to simply select (on or off) a variety of capabilities Claude could do in WordPress, without me having to be in WordPress.

I could have Claude decide whether I need a plugin or, if I already have one, no longer need it.

I could have Claude review all my content in a couple of blog posts or all of them (652 – who knew, I didn’t) and see if there were trends or whatever I asked.

If I wanted Claude to create content it could (I kept that option off)

The initial configuration of Claude Sonnet 4.6 with WordPress

Once you decide, you can bounce into the MCP on WordPress and again, just turn on or off what you will allow Claude (in my case) to do.

I asked a question within Claude tied to my blog – Total engagement with all the topics, and which ones do you see as high priority for future posts?

It provided its results. Then, they gave specific topic ideas and offered an outline.

I openly admit that a couple of topic ideas I never considered made complete sense.

What about using a different MCP with the LLM I am using?

I connected Claude Sonnet to Microsoft Office 365 – Outlook in this case (you can have it with Word, Excel, PowerPoint)

Outlook365

Simple.

Easy to connect and rock and roll.

The downside to using an MCP

Darn it, the cost comes with those nasty Tokens, and what you – okay, your end-user i.e. learner or even admin does within the LLM you have at the company with the LLM(s) the vendor has – with the MCP – again, connect from your own LLM to the vendor’s LLM using an MCP, which in turn you could connect multiple MCPs within the learning system – universal remote.

Here is a common trend when it comes to using your AI Assistant (which the learner sees – if they go into the system) or if they stay within your LLM (the ideal) and type away.

• Ambiguity – Very common. Start ambiguous, because the individual doesn’t go right to the main point
• Asks for more details (perhaps the AI offers prompt suggestions) – the learner chooses to use them or not
• Follows up with whatever question or questions they asked
• If we add the MCP, then, depending on what the vendor’s learning system can do, which would appear in your AI LLM (again, you are the client), the learner is given greater context and can do more things.
• Anything they type becomes token fees
• The more datasets you (client) has in the Vendor’s LLM – which is a very popular aspect, vendors note with their “you can add your own content/data,” and we the vendor has trained the LLM (ours, with various data sets) or maybe they haven’t, but it is still your own content/data the LLM has been trained on – end result, you will see higher token fees – i.e you the client pays.

MCP is wonderful, but because it is tying into your own LLM – guess who pays those token fees? Not the vendor! You.

Even if the token fees are .025, you could blast through and see a massive size cost.

Do I still want to use an MCP if the vendor has its own AI built into the system?

Yes. If you want that connection to the LLM your company uses, your learners can do what is possible in the vendor’s LMS and stay in the LLM you have. You can also still use what the vendor’s AI can do.

If you do not want to use an MCP and only use what AI capabilities the vendor has in their platform, you can.

I see the MCP as an added benefit if you already have bought and use an LLM within your company, thus Gen AI at your company, and wish to stay there for learning, without pushing people to go into the system.

What is the difference between an API and an MCP?

(via inquiry to Claude, and validated by human – hence the importance of the human loop).

MCP and API

It should be noted that MCPs often sit on top of an API, but that is getting into the weeds, and let’s just move on. (I brought this up because I will get folks stating this in the comments section, so for those folks here you go.

Terms to remember

Model Agnostic – This means that any LLM the client (you) supports, the vendor’s MCP will support it. Since Claude, and ChatGPT are the most popular I asked vendors to verify that their MCP works with them.

Regarding Claude (MCP supports only paid versions), and ChatGPT (paid versions only). Thus if you have the free versions, the MCP on your side (client) will not work with a vendor’s MCP. It doesn’t matter which vendor (if they have a MCP).

MCP offerings

Vendors are not just including theirs – if they have it or it is in the works, but they will have MCP connections with other providers (SaaS) that offer MCP. Always ask a vendor who has a MCP, what other systems it can connect with. Don’t assume it will connect with your HRIS, ERP, etc. platform.

LearnAmp

• Cornerstone
• Absorb
• DigitalChalk
• Docebo
• Thrive Learning
• Capacity
• Metalark.ai
• Kallidus
• KREDO
• 360Learning
• Talvi
• Otus
• SparkLearn

I did some light editing for clarity, when applicable, but for the most part, it is what they provided to me.

LearnAmp

Which AI models does it support? 

Model agnostic including Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, CoPilot.

What can users do through MCP?

Administrators

• Browse and search all learning Items, Channels, and Community posts 
• Create new learning Items 
• Pull Activity data to report on engagement and completions 
• View Tasks, Events, and Enrollments across the organization 
• Create, update, and delete Teams 
• Add or remove users from Teams 
• Create Enrollments to put users into events

Examples:

• “List all learning items added in the past 30 days.” 
• “Show me activity for the Finance team last month.” 
• “Create a new team called ‘Q2 New Hires’ and add these five users.” 

Managers

• View Activity and Channel progress for their Team 
• View their Team’s Tasks and Enrollments 
• Enroll Team members in Events (create Enrollments) 
• Manage Team membership (add or remove users) 
• Pull recent learning Activity ahead of 1:1s 

Examples: 

• “Show me my team’s learning activity for the last 30 days.” 
• “Enroll Sarah in next week’s leadership workshop.” 

Learners

• Browse Items, Channels, and Community posts 
• View their own Activities, Tasks, and Enrollments 
• See upcoming Events and Event Sessions 
• Self-enroll in Events (create an Enrollment) 
• Mark Items as complete 
• Check progress against Channels 

Examples: 

• “What learning items are in the ‘Giving feedback’ channel?” 
• “Which events can I sign up for next week?” 

Absorb

Which AI models does it support? 

Model agnostic including Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, CoPilot.

What can users do through MCP?

• Once a customer’s IT team has connected Absorb and a user sign in with their Absorb account, they can ask Aura questions directly from inside the AI assistant (VhatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot) — without opening Absorb.
• For a regular learner, that includes:
  • Q&A grounded in actual content (e.g., “what did our compliance training say about handling customer data?”, “how does our refunds policy work?”) — answered from the course content and organizational knowledge base content made available to the learner (Google Drive, Sharepoint, OneDrive, Box, DropBox, Confluence)
  • Natural language course discovery
  • Personalized recommendations
  • Lookups on their own enrollments, progress, and certifications.                                
•  For an administrator, it adds Q&A on Absorb’s help knowledge base (e.g., “how do I set up automatic enrollment for new hires?”) as well as the ability to pull reports in natural language (e.g., “who’s overdue on GDPR training?”)       
• Every answer comes with a source link back to the original course, lesson, or article. 

Cornerstone Galaxy (Includes Learn)

Which AI models does it support? 

LLMs currently supported through Amazon Bedrock are – Sonnet 4.6, Nova lite, Nova; OpenAI 4.6+, 5.x and Llama 8b, 70b for light tasks (such as metadata generation) are also supported through the architecture

What can users do through MCP?

Cornerstone will make the announcement of what their MCP can do, by the end of May, along with another item (cannot be disclosed at this time due to an agreed Embargo).

Docebo

Which AI models does it support? 

Supports all LLM models. Setup with the MCP will take your IT about 10 minutes.

What can users do through MCP?

Some of the tasks include:

• Asking what courses they’ve completed or what’s still in progress
• Checking certifications and upcoming renewal deadlines
• Searching the full learning library by topic or keyword
• Getting answers pulled directly from inside course content, not just titles or descriptions 

Coming by the end of the year – 2026

1. More advanced server-side capability: Admins will soon be able to query enrollment and completion data conversationally from their AI assistant without opening the Docebo platform. 
2. Client-side capability: Instead of just querying information in Docebo, admins will be able to take action directly in Docebo by talking to their AI assistant or connecting other applications via MCP-based workflows. So Docebo could use context from a customer’s HRIS, ticketing system, or other tools to trigger an action like enrolling a user into a course or sending a notification.

FYI from Craig – I should note that Client-side capability will become common with vendors who are already have MCP or is planning on having, before the end of 2027, with many whose target is before end of the year.

DigitalChalk

Which AI models does it support? 

MCP is coming later this year via their AI core and leveraging Bedrock, from AWS.

What will users be able to do through MCP?

• Create users within DigitalChalk
• Find users and their associated learning records
• Update user information
• Register users or groups of users into courses
• Create courses
• Find courses by category, time period, and other metadata, including when they are offered

Thrive Learning

Which AI models does it support? 

Supports Claude and ChatGPT (paid version). It is model-agnostic thus it will work with any LLM.

What can users do through MCP?

Content Management

• Create, update, publish, and manage learning content entirely through conversation. Build articles, videos, quizzes, and mixed-format resources complete with metadata, descriptions, and content items – without leaving your AI tool.
• Create new learning content with rich mixed media (text blocks, videos, quizzes, and more)
• Update existing content: edit titles, descriptions, and individual content items
• Publish content when it’s ready, or delete drafts that are no longer needed
• Create and manage pages and posts with full control over layout and structure
• Search across your content library to find and review existing resources
• Skills and Tags
• Take full control of how skills, interests, and topics are organised across your platform.
• Search your skills taxonomy to find and explore available skills
• View and manage tags assigned to any user — skills, interests, and topics
• Add or remove tags from users individually or in bulk
• Create new tags and generate AI-suggested tags for your content
• Update skill levels for users to reflect their progress
• Get tag suggestions for specific content to improve discoverability
• Check tag permissions to understand who can manage what
• User Insights
• Quickly pull up the information you need about any user on your platform.
• View a user’s badges and achievements
• Check learning assignments and progress
• Retrieve audience membership to understand segmentation
  Content Endorsement
• Control which content carries your organisation’s official endorsement.
• Toggle endorsement status on any piece of content to signal quality and relevance to your learners

ExpertusOne

Which AI models does it support? 

Model-agnostic including Claude, ChatGPT (paid version).

What can users do through MCP?

ExpertusOne provided some information, mostly technical, but items presented include

• Converstional retrevial of various learning information (They did not provide specific details)
• Metrics and Reporting
• Workflows Orchestratian

SparkLearn (Frontline workers/Deskless/Blue-collar focus)

Which AI models does it support? 

Currently, the AI can only be used within the Veracity LRS (Learning Record Store).

Coming later this year or early 2027, you will be able to use it with the LMS too.

What can users do through MCP?

• Learners — search, retrieve, create, and update learner records
• Courses and Content — list and pull course details, lessons, content items
• Classes — retrieve and create classes with member rosters and course assignments
• Launches — query and initiate content launch sessions per learner
• xAPI Keys — manage xAPI access credentials
• Analytics — access embeddable dashboards, charts, and logs

Joysuite by Neovation

Which AI models does it support? 

Model agnostic including Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, CoPilot.

What can users do through MCP?

Knowledge Access

• As Joy retains an organization’s “source of truth” documents, and they are very heavily indexed, a Client LLM can use them to ask questions of the documents. This includes asking questions of videos, eLearning modules, diagrams, etc., and receiving answered filtered by the user’s permission level.
• Joy retains a full audit trail of interactions by user, sources being access/cited, analytical information, flags for conflicting or inaccurate responses, etc., to allow an organization to improve their knowledge sources over time.

Administration

• Assign training, create learning paths, create training, verify certification status
• Run reports, analytics and generate interactive dashboards which is based on Joy’s data, or combines Joy’s data with another dataset (eg: correlate product knowledge to sales by salesperson)

Learner Examples

• Just-in-time answers in the flow of work such as “how do I refund a customer in this edge case?”) and gets the company’s answer with citations.
• A learner can ask for a 5-minute explainer, a quiz, or a worked example from any of the sources of truth
• A learner can ask “remind me what the course says about …”
• A learner can ask “Quiz me on objection handling” or “roleplay a tough customer call with me” based on source material
• Pre-meeting micro-prep. “I have a discovery call in 20 minutes, what do I need to remember about MEDDIC and our discovery framework?”
• Coach-style feedback on real work. Paste a draft email, proposal, or call transcript into ChatGPT; and ask it to be scored by JoySuite which will use the company’s actual playbook and shows what to improve.
• Catch-up after time off. “I was on parental leave for 4 months, what’s changed?” and get a synthesized briefing of policy, product, and process changes, with optional deep-dives.
• Capture what you just learned. After a Client LLM explains something well, the learner can say “save this to my notes in JoySuite”, turning ad-hoc learning into a personal knowledge library.

Kallidus

Which AI models does it support?

Currently in beta, however when launched it will work with any LLM (i.e. model agnostic), albeit at this time they have tested and validated success with Claude, ChatGPT and Copilot

What can users do through MCP?

• Training the current user has completed
• Training the current user needs to complete
• Training a specific user has completed/needs to complete
• Training a manager’s team has completed/needs to complete
• Who has completed a specific piece of training
• Training usage patterns (IE: volumes of completion)
• Any of the above, and use in conjunction with other data sources (EG: a Salesforce MCP Server, allowing for queries like “Show me what training is overdue for the salespeople who didn’t achieve their quota last quarter”… assuming this data is available in Salesforce then it is possible to use.)

KREDO

Which AI models does it support? 

Model agnostic including Claude and ChatGPT 4.0 and above (business subscriptions)

What can users do through MCP?

Learners and administrators

Knowledge Reinforcement

• Follow-up content or practice material based on learner progress

Notifications

• Alerts and/or messages, updates
• Reminders on activity, incomplete tasks, in-progress

Generate Reports

• Showing data/metrics on performance, progress or activity

Others

Metalark.ai

Currently in beta target launch date late Q3 2026. Model agnostic including Claude, ChatGPT (paid version).

Features will be learners and administrators (information to be provided soon).

IMC-Sheer

Model agnostic including Claude (Sonnet and Opus) and ChatGPT (Plus account required).

Capacity’s Answer Engine

Plans to evolve into an MCP (target end of 2026, early 2027). Capacity is a knowledge management platform.

360Learning

MCP is not yet live, target by the end of 2026. Will support Claude (versions noted earlier), ChatGPT (Enterprise), CoPilot. More coming soon.

Use Cases they see include learning in the flow of work (content/courses, questions, etc.) and reduction of administrative burden such as user management, content creation.

Otus

Currently building MCP, target date Q4 2026.

Bottom Line

MCP it’s a new term, well for folks who are unaware of the latest around AI and connectors – the fun technical side of the house.

Just wait until headless MCP rolls out, and yep, for some vendors it is in the works – rolling out before end of Q4, 2026.

Headless definitely won’t be for everyone, and while headless technology for learning systems sans the MCP side, has been around for several years, it isn’t as though everyone wants or uses it.

As with any “new AI connectors” there is always a cost involved.

You as the client pick up the tab.

Datasets, capabilities available and achievable within your own LLM comes with a price tag.

MCPs will do far more than what you see say in MS teams – whereas folks will think, hey we can do a bunch of this stuff now, without an MCP – ditto for Slack, Salesforce and the list goes on.

Let’s be clear MCP is the future.

Plugins and integration is the past.

After all, what do you want?

A universal remote

Or a bunch of them to find somewhere

in your residence?

E-Learning 24/7

The post Understanding MCP: The Universal Remote for AI appeared first on By Craig Weiss.

A quick perusal of exhibitors shows many with some form of AI.

AI video creators. AI transformation of content.

AI is everywhere in these shows—powering scenarios, skill development, and more.

To help you cut through the noise and ask the right questions about AI at these events, here’s a focused guide (this post).

Terms to Ask

MCP (Model Context Protocol) is the latest; go ahead and ask whether they are using it.

Other MCP Stuff to Ask

1. Can I have the platform/knowledge management (i.e., the vendor you are talking to)- be used in your LLM – your company’s one, if they are using one.

It works this way – you are currently using your own Learning Language Model – let’s say, Copilot or Claude.

The vendor’s platform using MCP can be integrated into the LLM, with some capabilities. I have yet to see a 100% system MCP integrated into your own LLM.

For example, a vendor-knowledge management system, Talvi (product review next week), can do this – MCP.

2. Does your system have an MCP store? This is the latest, and if you need it or seek something like it, it is a huge plus for a vendor to have it. There should be more than 10 MCP offerings

Vendors love to talk about guardrails, and they have a RAG.

The premise is simple: we have all this stuff, so the human loop element isn’t as crucial, since we are 99.99% accurate or fully accurate with your own content.

However, these claims are not entirely accurate.

If they are using an AWS solution, such as Bedrock, it would make sense to ask how they use it in your system.

If a vendor says they are using Claude, then I want to know how they handle the data throttle that Anthropic is doing with mass usage – yep, that’s right, just like those telecomms.

If your company values environmental protection, ask about data centers’ impact—energy use, costs, and water consumption.

I want to know whether the vendor is using or planning to use an SLM (the term varies, but it means a small language model that can run on a mobile device, even a laptop, and push out nearly as many parameters as the big LLMs).

Here are a few other items I would want to know

• Token fees are costs for using an AI system, as tokens are units of text processed. Low usage poses little concern, but high usage raises fees. For example, 10,000 users a day asking the AI Assistant questions increases fees, since each prompt is not free.
• Natural Language – I want to learn more about their approach and ongoing work in Natural Language Processing (which you want).
• Processing chips are specialized hardware needed for AI operations. A major shortage of these chips drives up vendor costs, since LLMs or SLMs—foundations for Generative AI (Gen AI)—must be used. NVIDIA, the leading supplier, faces this challenge. Even if a vendor builds its own LLM, significant computational power is still necessary. Vendors pass these higher costs to you. What strategy does the vendor have?
• Does the AI assistant’s prompt window offer suggestions? You want this, as suggestions spur new ideas or actions.
• Does the vendor display a warning: ‘AI can make mistakes. Always verify accuracy before accepting results.’ Some suggest human review before accepting.
• Does the system allow you to create your own AI agent (a vendor may call it Agentic)? The creation capability has to be easy to use. I’ve seen ones that are very complex.

Vendors often assume people know AI can make mistakes and compare it to human error.

I rely on AI, expecting 100% accuracy, but even small mistakes, like in PowerPoint, can hurt a company. AI bias can slip in unchecked.

There is data showing the potential impact on folks who use AI a lot and get attached to it, as if it can do everything for them.

I laugh at claims that ‘AI frees employees for other work.’

If AI handles tasks, why would employees take on others if they see AI doing them?

While AI cannot do deep thinking, it can handle many tasks in L&D, Training, Marketing, and Finance.

You need a spreadsheet with computations based on a series of data points, usually handled by macros?

Gen AI can handle those spreadsheet needs.

What I want to know

Ask vendors how their Gen AI platform enables you to measure and enhance the Impact of Learning, which is a more meaningful goal than traditional ROI.

I’m a huge believer in IOL over ROI, because I can tie the impact to the company’s business goals and objectives.

Use data instead of vague claims like ‘happy employees work more.’ Ignore unknown variables.

Show the impact on goals or profit centers; usually, better results lead to more budget. Online learning isn’t one-and-done.

Show your boss external training generated $250K—big impact, clear benefits.

Benefits include more budget, resources, and less oversight from HR/IT (if applicable).

Now, let’s consider your specific objectives:

1. The vendor must provide ongoing AI literacy for all users. If sales lack AI knowledge, why buy? Vendors should update, not you. Stay informed and keep your team updated, as few read support guides. Some vendors shift responsibility to buyers.
2. Ask questions. Don’t accept jargon; clarify if unsure.
3. AI roleplaying can bore users. Roleplays should require deep thought and align with job roles. If in construction, I’d prefer a relatable roleplay scenario.

The fact of the matter is that people learn better when the stakeholder is like them.

Thus, the coach isn’t a manager – rather, it is a person who works in, say, construction and achieved XAB, which is why they are a coach for that employee.

Transparency

I am a huge fan of Bedrock and the other AWS AI offerings.

So much so that, for my FindAnLMS platform, I will be using an AWS AI product (launch in Q4, 2026).

Bottom Line

DigitalChalk is on track to become the first LMS with a complete learning intelligence infrastructure built 100% on AI.

What I have seen is really getting me thrilled about what is possible and what is on the map with DigitalChalk.

There are other vendors that use Bedrock, such as SparkLearn, designed for frontline workers, and Cornerstone, which works with AWS on a variety of AI offerings.

If you want to see who I have in my top tAI learning systems (as of May 2026) (rankings and insight to be published), Thrive Learning is definitely impressing me. DigitalChalk, Absorb, Cornerstone, and Talvi are equally worth a check.

Learn Amp is another one, too.

They are ideal for L&D, IMO, and their AI-based learning is strong.

At the end of all those AI learning tech offerings, ask yourself two questions:

Ask: How does this solution help validate the company’s meaningful learning impact?

Ask: Will using this AI system drive repeat engagement and support ongoing learning for your users?

Remember: The true goal is to entice learners—your end users—to return to the system because the AI makes it valuable to them.

Not you.

E-Learning 24/7

The post AI Inudation – Know the Questions to ask appeared first on By Craig Weiss.

First, EdTech stands for educational technology, which refers to online learning in higher education and K-12/primary education.

It has never meant to represent corporate, despite vendors and some of my fellow analysts thinking otherwise.

Secondly, vendors in the EdTech sector (and there are those who play corporate too) missed so many chances when the big HEY DO THIS was staring them in the face.

The EdTech dilemma

Back in the late 90s, I was working on a doctorate on how lesser-known universities/colleges could compete with bigger names, such as Duke and Harvard, through online learning.

The distance learning angle – popular in higher ed, where someone is talking into a video camera, while other students are seeing them on a TV or a screen.

Yep, it was a massive loser for learning – but successful for insomnia and not paying attention.

I bring up the late 90s because it was so clear that universities that need revenue, after all, could achieve positive results, compete effectively with bigger-name schools, attract students (a key revenue channel), and succeed.

To no one’s surprise, universities/colleges never saw the potential of online learning (e-learning).

Granted, Blackboard, just one of the few, developed an LMS for higher education, primarily, and Moodle rumbled around (designed specifically for Academia).

On the corporate side, learning system vendors – and companies themselves – failed to see the marriage potential between the two.

Able students, graduating with a degree (100% online, no ILT on-site) (something universites back in those days didn’t do) with a willingness and capabilities (assuming EdTech provided asynchronous based courses – still the predominant form of learning – online with the corporate segment and I’d argue vastly superior to synchronous based – which EdTech heavily uses), to enter the job market for those companies of need for workers.

That marriage still isn’t even close to being there in 2026.

Yes, today is an employer market, with students (and others) unable to find jobs with companies using AI in recruiting (ignoring hallucinations), and just a push from many pundits that a college degree isn’t needed because of what is presented to students.

The Fix

There is a band, a group of smaller colleges, making changes to the degree angle.

This band offers a B.A., which can be completed in three years.

The goal is to shorten the window for completion and, I assume, to advance the premise that by providing content relevant to landing a job, skills-focused content, and lower tuition costs, more folks will go to college.

What they are doing is eliminating those General Electives that nobody likes, and jumping right into your program.

There are challenges here: anything from the business school, for example, requiring students to take a test to get in (ignorance of potential).

Assuming that is yanked out, the GEs can be overhauled, with students deciding if they wish to take them – after all, students do change their minds on what they want to study – but that’s for another day.

Next up is the Master’s degree, where universities are again debating whether to shorten the time.

The problem there is that most universities that are aware of the shortened B.A. will not admit those students to a Master’s program because of the shorter number of years.

Think of that logic.

A perfect example of how small colleges can save themselves from possibly shuttering (a sad reality) is to push 100% online learning, tied to a vendor that buys into the approach of having companies agree to accept these students if their skills align with the opportunities.

It’s a marketplace of sorts – a guaranteed job (entry level or even start with a project), a willing audience, and yes, wage compensation (based on the company’s choice).

Skills are tied directly to this marketplace of sorts, with students agreeing to take X number of courses and continue to develop skills on an ongoing basis as part of their personal and professional growth (something L&D hasn’t been strong at, and, nevertheless, the #1 reason people leave companies).

The fact of the matter is that companies are restructuring and downsizing while also hiring.

I look at a university like St. Michael’s, which is on a slippery slope in terms of financial aid and student attrition.

They have not, IMO, adapted to the potential and possibilities, even though they cite a high rate of students graduating and getting jobs.

They seem to have a progressive university president who is trying all kinds of things to boost.

Here is a university (a small college in Vermont) that screams potential with a learning system vendor in the Edtech industry, and having already contacts and agreements in place with companies – the latter isn’t in existence, but it could be.

And should.

Skills result in Success

A constant push among ‘clients’ and vendors who put in lots of skills management capabilities, and those talent development platforms are adding opportunities tied to skills.

If the desire and perspective of companies is wrapped around skills, again, a high trait with L&D and HR folks, then why are they limiting it, when an audience eager to learn is standing by, ready to go?

AI is going to take jobs.

People need to be completely clear on that, and even in retail, the thought that this sacred cow could never be replaced by AI has, at least with one company, gone that route.

Yes, they have two employees, hired by AI, who handle several tasks, but AI drives the business as a whole, from negotiating with suppliers to deciding on what items to sell.

And yes, it makes mistakes – due to hallucinations.

The point here is that, while we are at a very early stage, AI is landing in a segment of face-to-face retail and frontline workers.

Who is to say that in three years, those two humans will not be needed, as AI advances?

This is why colleges/universities need to adapt quickly to the realities of AI (right now, it is just slugville), and why vendors in the EdTech segment need to establish a marketplace of companies ready to hire.

Even if those companies need blue-collar workers, or, say, construction folks.

Technical colleges are the usual providers of those skills, but there’s nothing to say a college/university couldn’t do the same.

Bottom Line

Take one part – small or mid-size colleges (heck, big could do it too – but I think an ego-driven attitude of superiority complex will limit willingness), one part vendors in EdTech, and one part arrangements in place with companies willing to hire those students, who have the skills required and needed for the job: as a marketplace.

There are no fees here, just as there are no fees for ‘opportunities’ that vendors have in place with those clients who want to offer this to their learners.

This is where the future of the industry for skills growth, development wrapped around learners is heading – AI is causing this disruption, make no mistake about that.

Who, I ask, is willing to step up to the plate?

E-Learning 24/7

The post Job Readiness Marketplace: A new strategy for Edtech, skills, and learning systems appeared first on By Craig Weiss.

L&D systems are separating themselves without perhaps even noticing it, because of their approach towards employee growth.

Systems targeting employees are diverging by focus area: office/professional (often L&D-focused), deskless/frontline, and talent development platforms.

You do not see the same splinter in customer training/partner enablement, or even in a system for another non-internal segment.

Systems today that are 50/50 combos, like 40-60 or vice versa, targeting L&D and customer training will face a reckoning. This does not mean people will flee or another situation will arise.

The system—the vendor—will continue to skew one way.

Often, combos lean toward L&D features rather than customer training. Some focus more on customer training and must add functionality.

Others try both, but this is challenging and usually leads to imbalance.

The Change Over

I’ve never cared for the term workforce development because it sounds dated. Whenever someone mentions it, I picture an old-timey factory in the 20s.

Talent Management is another term that worked well, but every TM always added learning, which in a way defeated their purpose or focus.

Plus, this is 2026, not 2015.

Employee Growth is slowly becoming a valuable term, but calling something an Employee Growth system does not seem to work technically.

What does work is identifying your learning system for employee growth because it is that if you are L&D-focused and especially if you are moving toward a Talent Development Platform/System (depending on vendor semantics, but TD is the key type).

Vendors face a dilemma identifying their L&D system type—whether to choose career pathways with optional content beyond job-specific skills or to mix personal and professional development.

Many L&D systems focus only on skills, not holistic growth, though training is broader.

The other option for L&D is a Talent Development Platform (I have said ‘system’ in the past, and it is vernacular here).

My take is you will see far more TDPs than L&D systems, as I noted above.

Now, there is nothing wrong with an L&D-focused versus a TDP, because similarities do exist, along with overlap.

I won’t discuss whether a vendor lets you switch to what you want, because most do, and it has no bearing on this.

Systems Going Talent Development

I saw it just a couple of weeks back, Docebo.

They are a combo system—about 60% of clients are customer training, 40% L&D.

The system has always seemed skewed more toward L&D. There was enough to do well on the customer training side.

What I saw clearly is a system that screams talent development.

While I cannot say certain items (until after their show later in April), the first take I thought was whether they were eyeing the HCM segment, which they made clear they are not.

After seeing everything, it clearly screamed Talent Development Platform to me.

I believe that is what it is and will continue on that path.

Does this mean they will drop customer training?

No, not at all.

However, I believe as more TD pieces are added, they will seek a significant increase over the next year to openly call themselves a TD Platform.

This, and I want to stress this, does not mean you cannot buy a TDP and provide customer training/partner enablement, frontline/deskless, or blue-collar specific.

You can, as you can with any system, regardless of the main target.

On the list for TDPs that I like, surprisingly enough, is Degreed.

Yep, the original LXP, then skills-specific approach, has become a TDP.

I was definitely surprised, because market-wise, they were no longer part of the deep conversation for folks seeking an L&D system alone (which they always have been).

On their own platform, though, they introduced new functionality directly tied to being a TDP.

These features included (and not all are listed here)

• Opportunities – This is a must for a TDP. It covers internal jobs, whether a three-month project or a different role. If a vendor uses “Opportunities,” as the industry does, they are slowly—sometimes unknowingly—becoming TDP because career pathways (another popular phrase) are an added component.
• Skills Coach – Often AI, replacing AI tutors with AI Skills Coaches. You can have this in an L&D-focused system, but the more an AI Skills Coach does around skills, the more the system becomes a TDP.

I’ve seen a Skills Coach who goes a couple of steps based on prompts the person asks, with an output and assessment, or another item, such as a roleplay.

The TDP one goes much further, at least the systems that stand out do. And if you are a vendor and go, “Wow, we are really a TDP, but we need to do this and that,” then you are off and running.

• Existing or new content changes the learning experience based on AI, with an initial pathway that expands beyond existing content. New content, whether taken or completed (not required), opens new learning doors around skills—whether learners are aware of them or not. This is a cool component most ignore.

If you do the above but do not go to TDP, you can still go L&D only. I prefer the unaware approach, where the learning experience changes based on what learners choose rather than being forced to take content tied to skills and roles.

At least for now.

At some point, as the market splinters, an L&D-focused system will likely end up in the TDP bucket, which is not a bad thing.

• Discovery – this goes into the whole skills angle with skills mapping already done ahead of time (a major gripe among anyone who has to do it themselves, let’s say pain point – now eliminated)
• Skills Management – more than usual skill ratings. A TDP offers skills to pick from with descriptions and uses that info to build ratings continuously with AI. Skills capabilities include roleplays, a crucial TDP function.
• Roleplays or scenarios – I have yet to see a truly engaging “real-life scenario” course beyond clicking a retort, though voice input to the “AI Player” improves engagement. Scenarios include multiple variables but haven’t evolved much since Flash days. Roleplays are more common, and a TDP really taps into that.
• Metrics focus on the career pathway and employee growth patterns. To date, I have not seen TD- or L&D-specific elements tying content, skills, roles, pathway direction, or output metrics together. Such data would be highly valuable.
• Leadership Development based solely on the “discover” aspect – unknown skills the person doesn’t realize they have, can take someone from here to there, and eliminates the “we see you as a leader,” subjective approach.

I didn’t include compliance because everyone claims to have “great compliance” features with L&D, and most are just the usual stuff I see.

Strong compliance capabilities leveraging AI across the entire employee growth process change that narrative.

The others on the list for TDP – Even if they do not pronounce it as such in their marketing (these are systems that I like as a TDP.

• Learn Amp – They refer to themselves as employee development.
• Cornerstone Learn with Cornerstone Transform – There are items within CT you will need, not all of them, and yes, I’ve mentioned the extraction of some of those items into Cornerstone Learn.
• Docebo
• Juno Journey
• Degreed
• NovoEd
• Acorn – Although they, for whatever reason, pitch some combo capabilities (external audience, for example)

It isn’t a big list because others pitching as TDPs aren’t leveraging enough.

Many more systems call themselves TDPs, but others are just thinking about it.

The L&D Systems that stand out

Digital Chalk – I still see them as a combo, because they can do well in each segment based on soon-to-be-launched and already-launched features.

• BizLMS – Comes with Skills and BizReady, isn’t there yet, but could become a TDP
• D2L – Another combo, but a strong player for L&D
• Absorb LMS – Combo L&D and Customer Training. Strong on both fronts.
• Cypher Platform – Opportunities push them closer to TDP.
• Learning Pool
• Thrive Learning – L&D with the potential of expanding into customer training. Strong in L&D.
• Gyrus – Compliance-focused system – those types of platforms are L&D specific
• Atana
• Learnster
• LearnUpon – L&D Combo with Customer Training.

Just a short list because many combos are ideal staying combos.

Some systems focus mainly on blue-collar/frontline with customer training combos—I see them and recommend they stay that way. ExpertusOne is one example; there are others.

One item you will see more of is “business outcomes.” I didn’t place it in L&D-specific or TDP because it can and often should be in customer training, partner enablement, blue-collar, or deskless/frontline.

After all, everything revolves around business outcomes.

A quick takeaway here.

Will your prospects and clients know the difference between a TDP and “We want a system for L&D?” Unless they have researched TDP and read this post, it is unlikely.

Do most folks type “Talent Development Platform” into a search engine?

No. Then again, when LMS rolled out, the number of users was minimal. Now though?

Many people say, “We want a system that accepts this content, can do assessments, compliance, and blah blah,” with “blah blah” meaning “Every system.”

I get it, but understanding that a TDP is different and meant to be so is recognizing what is happening in the market.

A TDP is not an HCM.

A TDP is not an ERP LMS -such as SuccessFactors, which can call themselves a TDP and get away with it, nor Workday Learning.

Bottom Line

The L&D market is splintering.

That’s a fact.

Whether your vendor chooses to stay in the L&D without making the changes to go TDP is up to them.

Some vendors will try to be everything to everyone, combining L&D with TDP functionality. The challenge is deciding which functionality will be their priority.

It can’t be both.

One will get more resources.

If your audience is TDP-seeking and debating between you (a combo L&D lacking enough TDP) and a TDP vendor, where do you think they will go?

Employee Growth driven or Combo L&D driven?

Everything to everyone isn’t going to work anymore.

It’s too fragmented.

And on the business outcome perspective

Inefficent.

E-Learning 24/7

This post is in memory of my sweet dear boy, Voodoo, who passed away at 13. He was a big ham, loving pit bull, who protected his siblings and family.

Car rides, jumping into tides at the beach, eating McDonald’s hamburgers were tops in his book.

Along with giving Dad, munchies (kisses) each morning.

We will meet again, my Sweet Prince.

Until then, love you always.

The post Recommended Systems for Employee Growth appeared first on By Craig Weiss.

Over the past few months, I’ve been testing different types of posts, zeroing in on multiple subjects that I find interesting, or that could be of interest, and that are definitely of value to the blog’s readers.

Some I see as strong, others clearly have reached the dud level.

I’ve always been a risk taker when it comes to training, learning, and its integration with online learning.

E-Learning started out as an umbrella term covering everything from learning systems to authoring tools and content.

Today?

Vendors refer to it as ‘courses and content,’ and when it comes to videos, they list them as content, not under the e-learning term, but just video.

It’s definitely frustrating because any type of content online, using the now-e-learning as content/courses moniker, is, uh, e-learning.

I spoke to a dear friend of mine, Juliette Denny, yesterday, and we both said the same thing about learning.

These days, it feels like we have to go back and teach L&D, Training, and HR teams—especially those new to learning—about the different types of learning and training methods that actually matter.

We seem to have lost the art of training and understanding e-learning, as well as the different models of learning and training.

I am one of the people (a large group) who know what Kirkpatrick is.

Honestly, I think it’s time to move on from it.

While it’s a decent approach, especially for e-learning, it was originally meant for instructor-led training.

Let me say that again: instructor-led training.

ADDIE is another method designed for instructor-led training, but many instructional designers and e-learning developers still use it when building content.

Vendors with built-in content creators, whether acquired or built in-house, lack even the basics of effective instructional design, so they don’t need someone to research outdated throwbacks to ILT methods.

I think Adobe Studio is partly to blame, since they kicked off the PowerPoint-style approach.

Terms like ‘slides’ replaced the old chapter, page, and scenario structure—what some used to call ‘lessons.’

After Studio, Rapid Content Authoring Tools (RCAT) really took off.

There was a funny moment when Studio claimed their tool couldn’t do something, but someone from Articulate made a website showing exactly how to do it.

I always liked that.

Back to learning methods: I’ve seen vendors promote Kirkpatrick or Bloom as part of their learning experience, but they often forget that most people in L&D, Training, or HR today probably don’t even know what those are.

If a vendor doesn’t realize that someone running L&D—like a CLO—might come from an Organizational Development background, why would they assume that person is an expert in Bloom or Kirkpatrick?

In my opinion, Gagne is by far the best learning methodology out there.

It’s easy to follow and understand, and it works much better for content development and learning strategy than any other method I’ve seen.

Vendors should understand learning methods.

Even though many were designed for instructor-led training, Gagne, for example, fits better with online learning than the rest.

Vendors need to take the time to learn about effective, up-to-date learning methods.

Many vendors don’t have this knowledge, and that’s a big problem in the market right now.

Case in Point

I saw Opus the other day.

They focus on the services industry, which is a smart choice.

I hope they stick with it instead of branching out too soon.

While I was quite intrigued about Opus – it is a mobile app on the learner side, which can be accessed today, whether you have an Apple or Android device. For some reason, on my Android, when I entered my number to gain access, it sent me to the iPhone store.

Highly likely, this is a bug.

I see a lot of potential with this app, but it’s missing an on/off sync feature.

I get the concerns about phone cache, but after watching and downloading lots of videos, I’ve never had to clear it.

A quick search or typing ‘clean cache’ into your phone takes about 30 seconds, and it’s done.

If cache is a big concern, Opus could simply show users how to clear it instead of holding back on an on/off sync feature.

One of the Opus founders comes from the restaurant industry, so they really understand their market and the challenges frontline workers face.

If the store has awful internet connectivity, or a bar or restaurant, or whatever, an hourly employee isn’t going to be able to do what is asked of them.

I’ll admit, we ran out of time before I could see the back-end, but I’m looking forward to checking it out.

One thing that really surprised me was how much engagement Opus gets from learners.

Even though they say they don’t have gamification, they actually do have an element -a leaderboard.

Don’t get me wrong—Opus is a vendor to watch, especially since they’re in a niche like services, which includes places like amusement parks that many vendors overlook because they don’t see the revenue potential.

Shifting Gears

Docebo, which I really like, is moving more into the L&D segment than before—at least in their messaging.

Despite their audience being 60% in customer training and partner enablement, I always saw the system leaning toward L&D.

They are not the only Combos systems that do it.

I saw the latest version (with what is out today, what will be released and announced at their show, and what is rolling out later this year).

A lot is Embargo – which means I can’t tell you – something any analyst worth their weight should always do, regardless of whether the vendor is public or not.

Still, what I did hear—and Docebo isn’t the only vendor to mention this—is that they’re talking to people like the head of HR about their system.

There’s a saying—and I’m not the only one who says it: Training doesn’t like working with L&D, L&D doesn’t like working with Training, and nobody likes working with HR.

Too many companies put L&D under HR, but it’s a terrible fit.

I think companies that keep L&D separate from HR do a better job for their employees.

That’s because someone leading L&D is expected to know much more about learning approaches—especially e-learning—than someone in HR.

HR is helpful for sending files or data to L&D, especially if the learning system isn’t connected to the HRIS or HCM.

Toss in IT, and things often go wrong.

IT often sees a learning system as another ERP nightmare.

Then you have IT wanting to manage everything, HR wanting control, and L&D getting blamed if anything goes wrong.

Career Management

There’s a new term out there—though it’s really an old one—called career development.

When I see ‘career management’ listed as a feature in a learning system, it clearly points to L&D, with a bit of HR influence.

This basically turns the system into a Talent Development platform, especially if it offers opportunities, goal management, and similar features—whether as add-ons or built-in.

There’s nothing wrong with Talent Development.

I still see it as a growing market—Degreed, for example, now calls itself a Talent Development System or Platform.

Cypher Learning, which serves both markets and has about 80% of its audience in L&D, now wants to focus more on customer training and partner enablement.

But when you add career management, it doesn’t exactly make someone say, ‘Wow, I need this platform for my clients.’

B2C

Now, there are combo systems that focus heavily on customer training and partner enablement, especially those that see growth potential in the B2C segment.

Think about all the influencers who not only sell products—like infomercial 2.0—but also sell their content to anyone interested.

What platform are they using to do it?

Vendors need to think creatively.

The industry is fragmented, and you can be strong in niche segments if you are willing to make changes and tweaks, for example, in B2C.

These clients don’t care about skills or career management.

They care about making money, so vendors need to provide insights about their buyers.

One vendor I see as a player here is Eurekos.

They are IMO, the #1 learning system for customer training/partner enablement – because that is their only focus.

The system is built for this, with the right features and data points for customer training and partner enablement.

Expect to see a few more vendors go after the B2C market for influencers—not just training consultants or instructors, since there are already vendors for that.

Bottom Line

When it comes to AI Assistants – aka Knowledge Management, you want to have it include SCORM Parsing.

KnovaLearn, Metalark.AI, and Talvi.ai already provide it, with the latter also supporting xAPI.

In my view, instructor-led training isn’t the most effective learning method overall.

Web-Based Training (WBT), also known as e-learning or online learning, gives you insight into what learners or customers know and provides metrics to back it up.

People are not robots, thankfully.

You can’t expect to remember everything from just one instructor-led training session.

You won’t reach true understanding, go at your own pace, or access the content whenever and wherever you want in a traditional classroom setting.

You can make mistakes without the fear of being called out.

That’s the power of online learning and training.

It’s not about AI (a tool, not a universal replacement for an LMS or any other learning system).

It’s about the learner themselves.

What do they know and don’t know?

What can you do to enable them to retain and synthesize the information?

What data is relevant, what content is of value?

And what does it all mean?

E-Learning 24/7

The post The Latest Insight – Learning Systems appeared first on By Craig Weiss.

Number one is developing skills – current or future (albeit that is a bit misleading) – this part of the skills angle is taught through assigned learning.

Number two is content tied to your job role, and of late, “career management” is another wonderful, ambiguous term focused on white-collar professionals – whether on-site or remote.

I wish it weren’t true, but way too many C-level folks see it this way, and too many L&D folks as well – even if they have a solid blue-collar workforce.

I say this because the learning systems that push the ‘career management’ angle, perhaps unknowingly, towards white-collar.

I digress, though.

Leadership Development

Overwhemingly it is an L&D (Learning and Development) focus – and in the past, it worked this way.

1. Someone in some department identifies X as a potential leader
2. That person is placed into a ‘leadership development’ program, even though a percentage of folks in said ‘leadership’ group do not have a leadership mentality, but someone in said department believes so.
3. Those lucky folks – depending on their perspective – get into this special group to acquire specific skills to ideally move up the food chain – whether it is for a specific area in the department/group, the department itself, across the board, division, another location, or in the long term, the company itself. It reminds me of ‘Six Sigma’ with only a select few individuals getting an opportunity to be in the program. Everyone else? Not happening – even if you have the aptitude and desire to be in the Six Sigma program.
4. The same applies to leadership development. You may have the leadership capabilities – the future leader, who, if they left your company, would get such a role, but within your company, the selector doesn’t see it that way. Trust me, I see this a lot.

There is nothing worse than having the selector and even the person higher up in the food chain be the leader, and they themselves are horrible leaders.

Yet, in this room, there were books around leadership development, and I thought to myself, “This person (VP) should read some of these books.”

There is no doubt in my mind, you are at a company where a ‘leader’ is incompetent, and you wonder how in the heck they got this role, and why do you have to listen to their utterly nonsensical method of doing things?

Did they not take the appropriate skills for leadership? Did they ignore it when given the opportunity to take such courses? Are they the owner’s nephew?

What Skills are relevant to leadership development in a learning system

I’m not going to go in-depth on the content, because that is always the client’s decision.

That said, I will say you need personal and professional development content – go third-party off-the-shelf.

Look for content that offers scenario-based learning situations – and even if you create your own content, you want real-world scenarios and not some theory you read about in some book or watched on YouTube.

The most important leadership content, according to CEOs, is empathy. And yet, I rarely hear or see anyone offer this content in their learning system – i.e., the client buying the system, to include leadership development.

Heck, it should be for everyone, but this post references leadership development.

Case in point, there was a CEO who was seen as a “G-D-like person” in the company.

They rarely came out of their office to see the minions, uh, the employees.

One day, they did.

The employees greeted the CEO.

The CEO then pointed at various people and told them they were going to be laid off.

Skills functionality that you want in a system, specifically around leadership development

In this situation, it is always about the quality of the skill capabilities and not the quantity.

Often, a mistake plenty of folks make when looking at skill capabilities.

The term I use is Skills Management – this covers all skill options

Here is an approach I would go with before assigning content to your future ‘leadership development’ program.

Pick content that can ascertain (not by an assessment only) where the individual’s strengths and weaknesses are.

The content should be ‘assigned’ and be no more than four courses/content, all of which should have scenarios in them – you can find this.

This assigned approach isn’t a longetivity angle – it’s about finding out – okay, weeding out those that are potential leaders and those who are leaders in theory.

• Communication Skills – Everyone in the leadership group goes through the course – yep with an assigned due date of a couple of weeks. Create a course that is no more than 20 minutes in length. Ideally 10 minutes -and place again, a couple of scenarios and see how they respond.
• Empathy – Find a course on this, or create one. Make it no more than 10 minutes. Add some scenarios – and not, “Johnny is grumpy at the company, and can’t handle change. How should you respond to him?” Trust me if Jhonny ripped you in a company e-mail, Johnny wouldn’t have a job the next day. Go realistic here, not defcon-5.
• Listening – Pretty important. 10 minutes max. There is plenty of content out there, that offers legit short courses on listening. Avoid LinkedIn Learning content for any of these, unless you want to snooze, which uh, some leaders do when they ask you dumb questions, in your weekly meetings. I mention LL because it’s a lot of talking heads. Boring.
• A Deep Thinking Question for each of the three – Really put together a scenario, that each potential leader will face – or high probability – in handling people, dealing with them – a bit different than handling IMO, the communication, empathy and listening piece all in one.

When I was in grad school, my final exam (besides defending my thesis), consisted of one scenario, based on the courses of required in the two years I was there.

The scenario involved a small business store that had to compete against a big-box (my term) business, and I believe the small biz store was a grocery store.

Anyway, you had to create a marketing plan including strategy and tap into stasticial analytics, to define which is the best approach.

No calculators allowed. Four hours to complete.

I remember using a multi-ANOVA with four or five variables and multi-regression to output the correct strategy or most accurate tying into the marketing program, and pricing.

You had to include writing – journalism style – as part of it.

The point here, isn’t that I smoked it (I did – ha), but that it required deep thinking – to really get insight into what you learned beyond memorizing, and the potential of what you can be, based on the variables presented to you.

That’s the key here – variables which is why you start off with specific courses for each leadership dev group.

The high potentials end in up in another group and are tasked with higher-level content, scenarios, and concepts – they go back into areas that are identified as “areas to improve”, to began retention.

Through your program, this group is provided content tied to specific skills, for reinforcement.

Reinforcement will lead (no pun here) to potential future leaders.

An AI Assistant comes in, along with real human mentors (trust me, AI mentors are appearing).

Mentoring is crucial to leadership development, and yet, most folks think Coaching.

Coaching gets you to point A, then you need another coach to get you to point B.

A mentor can achieve those objectives and much more.

I’d rather have the VP of sales at my company, or a VP of sales at say another division – assume it is an international company with different LOBs for sales – as my mentor than Missy – who is a leadership coach – covering either one specific skill (common) or multiple skills (common too), but will not be elite in all those skills. Plus, Missy may be a horrible listener, which sort of defeats the purpose.

Skill items I’d look for include:

• Skill ratings that include descriptions, so the prospect knows what each rating means and represents. Ideally if you can get a seven point Likert Scale, that would be ideal. The majority of vendors offer only five. And you want a skills rating whereas you can change the wordage, so it isn’t average or a 3, rather it can be King Kong of Empathy or Psycho Empathy.
• Provide the learner specific reasons on why the ratings are so important – the manager isn’t reviewing this, because this is for folks in leadership dev programs, which can include managers – right?
• Skills tied to the content – Obvious, but way too often focused only or solely on job role – again, this is leadership dev – not the job role of leader. You want that? Have everyone play RISK – the winner is your leader. The last place person? Hangs out with Johnny.
• Adaptive learning – legit kind – trust when I say this, there are plenty of vendors who push Adaptive, when in reality, it is misleading. You want AL tied to skills mapping (via AI is fine). Skill is empathy or dealing with poor level sales employees (in this example) – Leader prospect takes empathy course/content and based on results – goes to a higher and more challenging course. Lower, goes to a lower level course, and then learns from that. Clearly, you want folks going up and not down.
• Skills data – Metrics will drive this in the end – don’t look at how many views, or the fact the completed the course. If it has sections or chapters or mods – how often are they going into it, where are they going – I bring this part up, because yes it is assigned, but ideally you want someone to go back into an area within that course or back to the course itself. Focus on how often, and how many times. Length of time can be overrated – I’m more intersted in return and where, not that they spent 32 seconds there.
• Look for systems that have canned skills reports – this means the system comes with skills reports out of the box. Sure you can do ad-hoc – with filters, but if you do not know what filters to select from, out of the box can help. If you want specific data that you cannot generate with a filter report – ask the vendor to see if they can generate it for you. The majority of vendors can, because their system captures that data (please note there may be an additional fee)
• Tier up courses – This bounces into the adaptive piece, but we are focused here on leadership development – and only that.
• Skill Challenges – My ideal would be scenario-based challenging content – have your potential leaders do something outside of the workplace or in the workplace that meets the challenge requested. Let’s say you want to find out their communication skills – okay, they record themselves in a setting with friends, and talk about situations of X. You will be looking for ABC, to indicate their skill growth. Skill Challenges can rock, and you can tie them into a gamified learning experience.

Too many leadership dev programs are boring, dull and lack engagement.

The real world shouldn’t and isn’t like that.

If someone is cutting off their employee explaining something, that would be relevant don’t you agree?

Okay, so you have a record me and you challenge, and you act like a new employee, and maybe add a couple of others on the call “acting” and the leader prospect isn’t aware of the scenario – afte all, if I know you are assessing me on whether I have strong comm skills, wouldn”t I prep to handle that situation?

A good ol’fashioned webinar will provide the outcome, and the leader prospect can review, and take notes, or usually AI generates a summary and from there the leader prospect can learn from that.

Preferably you want them to go back and check out the now recorded content in the following two months. If I am needing improvement in an area, I should want to go back in.

Bottom Line

Leadership development programs with a learning system should be a six month program or up to a year depending on your objectives and goals.

Content and skills specific for a leader is and should be only applied.

Mapping is relevant.

Skill ratings – relevant.

Skill Challenges – Relevant.

Mentoring – relevant.

Building upon one skill to another skill to another skill, each time getting more difficult – relevant.

AI scenarios – depending on how you leverage your built-in AI Assistant (KM) can be useful – but deep thinking isn’t something you can do – and thus, the deep thinking aspect is extremely relevant.

When it comes to leadership development, are leaders born or can they be developed?

I may have to do some deep thinking on that, or better yet, you can create your own question around it, and provide it to your prospects.

I mean, if they you think born is #1, then why is that person in your leadership development program?

E-Learning 24/7

The post Leadership Development + Skills = ? appeared first on By Craig Weiss.

I often see this as a quick take, and whether its objective is to have you read the article or just bypass it, it doesn’t inspire.

Rather, it taps into AI, and as a result, can be ignorant of what the writer is trying to say.

As everyone knows, I am a big fan of AI.

However, many systems repeatedly emphasize AI without clearly defining objectives that benefit learning for all audiences—white-collar, blue-collar, deskless, frontline, and even customers and partners.

If you are the former—L&D professionals, consider how AI influences your field: adapt, modify, replicate, enhance.

If you are training, it’s similar. With perhaps a twist depending on the audience.

Done correctly, it can inspire.

Done poorly, it validates the push towards the perception of innovation, even in the face of a negative reality, but hype is achieved.

What really surprises me – to a degree – is how many vendors are applying AI to skills without considering the potential ramifications – i.e., that AI can output errors and mistakes.

Think about that for a second.

Your learner’s mapped skills recommendations could be wrong.

Ditto on the content that is recommended by the AI tied to those skills.

Enough of Skills – We get it

Skills aren’t innovative; they are a necessity for selling a system to any audience, because “skills are essential for growth and development of the employee, at our company.”

Whippee-do.

Skills are not new – heck, it was tapped into back in 2000 without having to say skills – you, yes, you – okay, maybe not you specifically – could and would use a learning system – LMS or LCMS in those days for skill gaps.

Learning with ILT fails IMO to identify those skill gaps – unless it is technical training with a max of eight people.

But, this post isn’t focused on AI (I brought it up early as to where we are today, with the push), nor around ILT – albeit there can be areas for those who use it as though they can’t pull away, even if there is data showing that e-learning can be as effective, if not more so, than ILT.

Are you listening, universities?

Anyway, getting back to the learning systems, the innovation of approaches to skills isn’t there.

If it wasn’t for AI, the skills piece would be languishing – a bygone era, whereas skills – upskilling as the core – is innovative.

Yeah, right.

Change the narrative around skills.

Give me some scenario-based learning practice areas for the skills piece. Real-life, real-world.

Back in the days of Flash, this was easily achievable without a video head, and you could pick the questions the human head asks or the responses with a click.

How fun is that?

And are you truly applying to what you learned or should be learning – after all, comprehension and retention, let alone synthesis, don’t happen in one setting.

Despite the raves from companies talking about how high their rates of completion are, as if they are all driving around a race track and crossing the finish line.

The basic rule of learning and training when it comes to e-learning is to get people to stay in the system, beyond the “go in, take the course, and leave.”

That is the reality. It’s not new; it’s not tied to a system, i.e., LMS vs. a brand-new learning platform.

It’s how learners think when using a system.

Assigned learning doesn’t help, nor the idea of only compliance – no wonder you see high completion rates – they have to complete it.

When you think of tying skills to recommended content, and it is all assigned, you can easily do the math and see the irrelevance of said skills.

With SBL – as I’ve written before, it changes the whole experience.

Learning should be about experiences (ditto on training).

Yet, with skills, it isn’t.

Take a look at your current system and ask yourself whether there is innovation in skills that isn’t tied to AI?

Has your vendor done something that really goes yowsa – and don’t consider them adding smiley faces to the skill ratings, let alone having skill ratings.

To me, a skill analysis is innovative. It breaks in a positive way – a methodology that shows strengths and weaknesses, and if done correctly, could place the person into a series of content (which exists today), then the applicable SBL.

The SBL becomes building blocks – and thus skills application isn’t just an idea, it is a beginning.

I can’t tell you how many systems have a big F when it comes to the whole package here.

Yes, you can do it with AI – albeit nobody is doing the entire package, which is odd, since it is logical and, as they say, applicable.

Could you tap into immersive learning here?

Yes, but you really need those headsets – and sorry, using a mobile device without a headset to show off immersive learning isn’t truly immersive.

That is like saying I can see the ocean, and feel the experience – and then get into a glass-bottom boat and think “yeah, I am getting the immersive experience.”

Building Blocks

Speaking of building blocks, this could be an innovative approach to learning and training for all audiences.

I get the whole “there is no such thing as learning styles,” but as someone who ran training in multiple verticals and audiences, I respectfully disagree.

It changes – as you do, and adapts – as any human will do in any situation.

I have seen just a handful of systems that output (pre-AI) the learner’s preference of knowledge delivery mechanism.

Maybe it is short videos.

Maybe it is an e-book, a podcast, or audio files.

AI can streamline preference identification, but it still needs a human loop for validation.

Rather, by leveraging metrics and data, anyone – on the admin side, and honestly the person running L&D or Training or whatever department, learning/training slides under – to see the preferences.

How many systems, though, capture that data?

Well, a lot do – but you will never see it, because it isn’t part of the buy of the system.

You would be surprised how much data your system captures, that you, again, not the learner, won’t see.

Zeroing back, though, to the data output, you can see, let’s say sans AI, your cornerstone is right there waving at you.

There are too many companies that train their retail staff using online PDF guides, and they think this works.

Hint – it doesn’t, which is why WBT, let alone CBT, outpaced it.

Next time you attend a seminar and take notes, let me know how much you read it once you get back to your location and work.

Oh, and how often you do so.

OJT is still in the debatable mode in terms of long-term success, let alone short-term, if you work in hospitality (inc. retail) with high turnover rates.

What can your system then provide to help reduce those high rates?

What are you missing?

And if you say, “We are missing personal and professional dev content,” perhaps find out why your system doesn’t offer it via a 3rd party off-the-shelf provider.

Innovation is crucial here, and limiting 3rd-party content, if you have it, goes a long way.

Better than having zero, but is there something in your system to get folks to want to go in, over and over again?

Gamified Learning

It can be innovative – if you go beyond badges, leaderboards, and points.

A store is always a winner – turning points into swag or items that folks want.

Sims today are as popular as they were in the early days of “The Sims”.

Why isn’t something like a sim – where your learners have to apply those tasks – to grow and prosper, not in a system?

This is different from the SBL lab; this is seriously like one of those Sims that people love.

Minecraft isn’t exactly state-of-the-art, so why isn’t something like that, or at least an attempt at it, missing in a system?

Crosswords, “Wheel of Fortune,” “Jeopardy,” and similar ilk are old school.

I never cared for it, as a gaming experience, and I can guarantee you that most of your learners in the 21-35 category would have zero idea of the Jeporady “game”.

If you go with gamified learning, you need usage metrics.

I have seen vendors with a “golf game” as though this empowers learning.

I’m not seeing it.

So I get to play putt, putt.

Here are key ways you can drive innovation:

a. Recognize that blue-collar and even white-collar folks may not be able to attend college due to cost.

How can you CHANGE that? How can you tap into that in your system to keep folks coming back?

How can the system incorporate that, without you having to drop a dime – i.e., the learner to do so. How can you, as the client, convey that you truly care about your employees, customers, and members?

The other day, I got an email from Brandeis University (online), the head of professional development.

Immediately, I thought to myself, this could be beneficial to both sides of the house: one for learners and the vendor (i.e., the learning system), the other for the college.

Maybe you test out (no pun here) the offer to get a degree at a lower price point (I have no idea how Brandeis charges, but there are plenty of universities that, with the right partnership, can make it work – even community colleges).

If you want to offer or target apprecentiships, then what are you missing in your system, that will benefit them?

This can motivate someone.

I’m a big believer in executive education certificates – because people love to place them on their LinkedIn profile, ignoring that it was an EE program.

I am still stunned by how many vendors just ignore this.

Yet, I suspect many themselves go through an EE program for that certificate.

If there is a company or university that offers an AI certificate, I’d think you would definitely see a jump in usage of your system, plus capture essential data that benefits your company, business, etc.

AI on demand with a program that pushes out a certificate, and not one from LinkedIn, is very valuable.

The development of Agentic Agents will be big in the coming years.

Why then are you not giving folks at your company who are interested in working on this the opportunity?

Why, as a vendor, are you ignoring this – leaving it to the customer to find it?

Why are you, as a vendor, not capturing the usefulness of this data or any data tied to certificates, beyond the standard fare of “X got a certificate in Y”

And hey, you can customize it, print it out, or send it as a PDF.

That is not innovation.

That is 2000.

Take a look at that front-end UI/UX – i.e., on your learning system.

Does it shout out – 2022 at a minimum, or 2015 or earlier?

Does it scream – “Look, we are 2025, or early 2026?”

And if so, how?

Again, don’t rely just on AI here.

UX – user experience should equate to user- “learner” data capture.

If business today is all around business intelligence, which it is, why are vendors as a whole lacking either behavioral intelligence or data intelligence, that if correctly done will tell you your learning story

Again, AI can do this – okay, in 2026, so far, the number of vendors that have figured this problem out is super low.

However, I’m referencing without using AI.

Bottom Line

The basics of a system need an ongoing innovative path.

Offering customer training? How about adding customer forensics as a core component?

Instead of just saying “we base this on your use case,” take the last 50 use cases and extrapolate the unique aspects that can be applicable to anyone that your system is targeting.

Don’t just include the use cases of new clients – they are already a client – look at those that you didn’t win.

Then think to yourselves (vendor reference here) whether this is a learning innovation or a learning outdated?

If I am a vendor, I’m going back to my drawing board.

Not the whiteboard on the wall, but rather the visual one, people can offer suggestions to – and I’m referencing employees here.

They should be taking your system and offering a perspective on it.

Because they are your uncertainty.

The people you want.

Innovation doesn’t come only from success.

It comes from failure, too.

Perhaps then,

Combine one with the other.

As they say, if the first time you don’t succeed,

try and try again.

Without using AI

to do so.

E-Learning 24/7

The post Revolutionizing the Learning System Transformation – Beyond just AI appeared first on By Craig Weiss.