My colleague, Tom Werner, and I will be repeating a popular Webinar we’ve presented in the past today at 1 pm:

Selecting a Learning Management System: Using a KnowledgeBase to Find the Right Product

Wednesday, 16 September 2009, 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM (GMT -04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

Tom will describe the Brandon Hall Research approach to selecting a system and I’ll be providing a demonstration of our LMS KnowledgeBase. Hope to see you there.

Click here to register.

Tweet This Post

My colleague, Tom Werner and I will be presenting a free Webinar tomorrow, August 20, from 1 pm-2 pm ET (GMT-4). Tom will be speaking for about 30 minutes on what to look for in a system. I’ll be providing a demonstration of the LMS KnowledgeBase, showing how the tool can be used to quickly filter down a large number of available systems to a short list of three or four that best meet your needs.

A full description of the session along with the registration form are available here. I hope to see you there.

Tweet This Post

For years, people have been predicting consolidation in the world of learning management systems. This hasn’t taken place. New systems are launched each year. In fact, the rate in which new commercial systems are coming to market seems to be increasing.

We covered 76 systems in our 2008 LMS research. Earlier this year, we launched the 2009 edition of our LMS KnowledgeBase, which contained 40- to 60-page profiles of 92 systems. As of this week, we now have 100 commercial learning management systems included in our research.

We’re aware that other systems are still out there. If your company is a commercial LMS provider, or if you are the owner of an open source LMS project, we invite you to be included in our research. (There’s no cost to be included.)

Below, in alphabetical order by product name, are the 100 commercial learning management systems we currently cover. (NOTE: This is NOT a ranking of systems.)

Tweet This Post

In my last post, we looked at the average cost of learning management systems in 2009. This pricing data is based on the 92 commercial systems included in our online LMS KnowledgeBase 2009: In-Depth Profiles of 90+ Learning Management Systems, with Custom Comparison Across 200+ Features.

It’s wrong to assume that the average pricing listed in my last post is representative of what most LMS vendors charge. LMS pricing is all over the map. For larger implementations, the range between a very low-cost solution and an expensive one can be nearly $15 million.

The charts below provide price range information for the 92 systems covered in our research.

Locally installed, behind-the-firewall, 1-year license:

Locally installed, behind-the-firewall, 3-year cumulative license:

Hosted (SaaS), 1-year license:

Hosted, 3-year cumulative license:

And lastly, here’s additional average pricing information. The two tables below include average pricing for one- and three-year implementations as well as the cost per user per year.

Average pricing, locally installed, behind-the-firewall:

Average pricing, hosted (SaaS) by vendor or vendor partner:

Note: Three-year pricing includes license, maintenance fees, and hosting fees for all three years – including the pricing from year 1 (cumulative).

Tweet This Post

We’ll be releasing the 2009 edition of our annual Low-Cost Learning Management Systems report in a couple of weeks. I’m working in the LMS KnowledgeBase today to identify the systems that will be included in this research.

Requirements to be featured in this report are as follows:

1. The vendor must have submitted three-year, cumulative pricing for four sizes of implementations:

• Small (500 registered users)
• Medium (10,000 registered users)
• Large (25,000 registered users)
• Very large (100,000 registered users)

Pricing submitted could be for either hosted (Saas) implementations, installed implementations, or both.

2. The pricing must fall below average in all four implementations sizes. Being lower priced for only some implementations does not qualify a system to be included in this research.

Based on the 92 systems we cover, here’s the average pricing for learning management systems this year:

HOSTED (Saas) IMPLEMENTATIONS:

• 500 users: $68,977
• 10,000 users: $314,444
• 25,000 users: $568,201
• 100,000 users: $1,288,054

INSTALLED IMPLEMENTATIONS:

• 500 users: $48,231
• 10,000 users: $260,569
• 25,000 users: $486,076
• 100,000 users: $1,204,942

Out of 92 systems featured in our research, 34 qualify to be included in the 2009 edition of the Low-Cost Learning Management Systems report.

Tweet This Post

Some people believe the world is changing so quickly that what is being taught in schools will be obsolete by the time the student enters the workforce. Some skills, however,  are fundamental and will always be required regardless of technological and industry changes. This is the first in a series of posts about the critical skills people need to succeed at work today and in the future.

In my first year in graduate school, a class in which I was enrolled required that we write and submit an essay each week. Whereas some of my fellow students hated that the class mark would be based exclusively on essays—some students preferred exams, class presentations, paper maché volcanoes, whatever—I was happy with this format. Writing came easily to me.

I submitted my first essay in the second class. In the third class, I received my corrected assignment. The professor had marked the essay a “C” and had added a small note: “You have serious problems with your writing. Please see me after class.” I was shocked and angry. I had written dozens of essays during my undergraduate years and had never received a negative comment about my writing. I went to see the professor, a man I had already classified mentally to be a total jerk.

The professor provided the following feedback:

• Rather than writing to communicate clearly, I was writing to sound smart.
• Sentences needed to be reread to understand their meaning, which made reading my work tedious.
• The content was poorly organized.

If there was any comfort in this meeting, it was that the professor mentioned I wasn’t the only student in his seminar with poor writing. Schadenfreude dulled the pain.

At the start of the next class, the professor announced that he would be marking the weekly essays as follows:

• Fifty percent would be awarded for the content
• Fifty percent would be awarded for the quality of the writing

And so began, in my sixth year of university, after two years of junior college, four years of high school, and seven years of elementary school, my education in the craft of writing. Each week, I’d receive my corrected essay. Annotations in red containing comments such as “What is the meaning of the word  ”it” in this sentence?” and “Run on sentence!” were everywhere.

Week by week, my writing improved, as did my opinion of this professor. He shed his label of being a total jerk, cruised through being seen as a compulsive nitpicker, was  transformed from being an obsessive traditionalist, and was on his way to being a professor with the potential to provide significant educational value. Now, more than 20 years later, I view this professor as the most important teacher I have ever had.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no Michael Ondaatje. I’ll occasionally read an article in the New Yorker or other magazine that humbles me, writing that is so elegant and well-crafted that it’s a five-star meal in words. When I read something this well written, I realize learning to write well is a lifelong endeavor.

WHY WRITING WELL MATTERS

I think of this professor every time I read something poorly written. Sadly, that’s often. The quality of much of what I read in business and in the learning profession could be improved. So, my vote for the number one, most important skill required to succeed in the workplace is the ability to write well. Here’s why:

• You may be great at your job, but, if you don’t write well, the poor writing will eclipse the perception of the great work you do.
• Key decision makers are too busy to reread material to attempt to decipher the meaning.
• Poorly written communication will be ignored.
• A well-crafted piece will catch the eye of a superior, who is likely to interpret your excellent writing skills as a sign of your leadership potential.

POSTSCRIPT

The professor in this post is William Caplin, the James McGill Professor of Music Theory at McGill University. Professor Caplin, I’m ashamed that decades have gone by and I’ve never expressed my gratitude. Please accept my sincere thanks for your time and dedication. (And, if you choose to correct this post, please be easy on me.)

Tweet This Post

Leadership development continues to be a top priority in many organizations. Looking ahead at a possible shortage of workers when (or if ever) the Baby Boomers retire, organizations see a potential leadership gap.

Developing leaders seems clear cut—until you dig into the nebulous world of defining leadership. In a leadership development initiative, what exactly are you trying to do?

• Create good managers?
• Develop strategic skills?
• Develop mental toughness?
• Help individuals become more analytical?
• Help individuals become better public speakers?
• Provide individuals with information on the inner workings of the organization?

Ronald A. Heifetz, author of Leadership Without Easy Answers, examines four theories of leadership:

1. The trait theory of leadership

If you think great leaders are smart, calm, decisive, strong, great orators, etc., then you subscribe to the trait theory of leadership. The problem with this theory is that it’s very easy to find examples of successful leaders who lack just about any leadership trait you might identify. As Mr. Heifetz states, “empirical studies [in the 1950s] had begun to show that no single constellation of traits was associated with leadership.”

2. The situational theory of leadership

Immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush’s approval rating skyrocketed from about 50 percent to almost 90 percent. In one historic, terrible day, he was transformed, in the eyes of his fellow Americans, into a strong and decisive leader. At the end of his second term, his approval rating had fallen to about 27 percent.

President Bush’s status as a leader was situational, depending on the events of that fateful day in September of 2001. At the helm when the attacks took place, he was transformed into a strong leader.

3. The contingency theory of leadership

Contingency theory states that different situations need different types of leadership. What may work in one situation may not work elsewhere. Jack Welch may have been a great leader at GE, but would he have had the same success at Google? No idea, but it would likely have made great reality TV.

4. The transactional theory of leadership

The transactional theory of leadership departs from the other models in focusing not exclusively on individual leaders but, rather, on the relationship between leaders and followers. Leaders gain the respect of followers through reciprocity. In the 1950s in my own province of Quebec, Premier Maurice Duplessis mastered the transactional approach to leadership by buying refrigerators for residents in certain political ridings in exchange for votes.

These four theories of leadership can provide insight into our evaluation of leaders. Do we believe a leader is effective because he or she is compassionate (trait theory)? Or is it because he or she has inherited the throne (situational theory)? Or is it because the leader is such a perfect fit for our organizational culture (contingency theory)? Or is it because the leader treated us all to a beer at the corner pub after work (transactional theory)?

Tweet This Post

I’ve been thinking and reading about leadership these last few months. As a timely coincidence, a friend this week suggested I read “Leadership and Self-Deception: Getting Out of the Box” by The Arbinger Institute.

Here’s a quick summary:

The premise of this book is that we often exist in a state of self-deception where we over inflate our own virtues and diminish the virtues of others. In this state—described in this book as being “in the box”—we view ourselves as superior, better leaders, better workers, better spouses, better friends, etc.

When in the box, we’re prone to blaming others and fail to see how we sabotage relationships and workplace results to justify our own need to feel superior. Also, while in this self-deceived state, we often don’t see people as people. Instead, we use mental shortcuts to categorize them. At work, we may think of co-workers as lazy, selfish, lacking business sense, unmotivated, disengaged, etc. Conversely, we view ourselves as hardworking, dedicated, productive, smart, fair, etc. If only this company had more people like me, we think, we’d be in great shape.

This book suggests that we enter this state of self-deception at work by failing to honor a commitment to achieving results. We unconsciously sabotage results to support our inflated view of ourselves. To get out of the box requires a selflessness and a focus on honoring the needs of others.

End of summary.

From a leadership development perspective, this book suggests we need to create selfless leaders who are focused on results and supporting the needs of co-workers. Individuals with big egos, often the type of people who are selected for leadership roles, may sabotage results to support their inflated views of themselves.

Postscript: The Steve Jobs Conundrum

There comes a point in every book I’m reading about leadership where I think “but what about Steve Jobs?” Wired magazine wrote an expose about how Steve Jobs can be, at times, the boss from hell. He’s been known to make Apple employees cry. (I commented on this in a past post.) And yet, as supreme leader of Apple, Steve Jobs’ value to the company is estimated to be in the billions of dollars. If Mr. Jobs were to leave the company, you can expect the share price of Apple to plummet. When people discuss Steve Jobs, no one questions his leadership.

I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Jobs. Many successful leaders have this same leadership style. But, in “Leadership and Self-Deception: Getting Out of the Box,” this top-down leadership through threats and coercion approach is used as an example of leadership in the box. Once the company tyrant sees the light and gets out of the box, his or her leadership style becomes gentle and supportive. The leader becomes an enabler to the success of others.

Studying leadership is often like eating soup with a fork. You get some good bits, but most dribbles through in the form of exceptions to all the rules.

Tweet This Post

A recent dinner party I attended included three individuals who have given a lot of thought to the topic of war:

• Phil is a retired entrepreneur who’s currently doing extensive research on his grandfather, who served with the Canadian Forces in Belgium in World War One.
• Leigh teaches a course on the ethics of war at a local college.
• Derrick, Leigh’s husband, joined the Canadian Forces at the age of 40 because, as he says, he “needed a career.” Just last summer, Derrick returned from serving in Afghanistan.

Phil’s research project is fascinating. Using the letters written by his grandfather, Ross Campbell Playfair, to his wife, Mary (née Ferris) Playfair, as a starting point, Phil is piecing together his grandfather’s experiences overseas. Phil is documenting and sharing his research, titled the Ross Playfair Letters Project, on the Web.

At one point in the evening, Phil mentioned that his grandfather asked to be transferred from a comfortable—and safe—desk job, to the front lines. He asked Derrick—who himself chose a longer tour of duty in Afghanistan in a relatively safe role over a shorter tour of duty at the front lines—why a soldier would make such a choice.

Derrick mentioned three reasons:

1. Honor and duty: A soldier may support the military cause or may wish to play a more active role in helping his or her colleagues at the front lines.
2. Boredom: We think of war as Hollywood portrays it, all bombs and flying debris. War, however, often comprises weeks of boredom interspersed with minutes of terror. Boredom is likely reduced at the front lines.
3. Training: A desire to put the skills obtained through training to use.

We rarely give thought to the fact that a significant number of people undergo workplace training programs to develop skills they may never use. Military personnel fall into this category. So do disaster response teams. Doctors need to be prepared to treat people with diseases or injuries they’ve never before encountered.

Providing training in these areas presents interesting challenges. The person must be completely prepared for events that may never occur. In most cases, the individual hopes to never need to use his or her skills. (No pilot hopes to one day attempt a potentially disastrous emergency landing.) In others situations, such as the one described by Derrick, and perhaps experienced by Ross Campbell Playfair, the desire to use their newly acquired skills could be strong enough to risk their lives.

Photo credit: Vintage portrait: great-grandfather in WWI military uniform http://www.flickr.com/photos/freeparking/

Tweet This Post

Photo by Chris Suderman

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending my colleague Janet Clarey’s Webinar on Multi-Generational Learning in the Workplace. To illustrate the educational experiences of a person born on the cusp of the Generation X and Baby Boomer generations, Janet asked me to say a few words during her presentation about my formal education. Reflecting back on my grade school years, I realized that my time at school differed significantly from the education currently provided to my 10- and 15-year-old daughters.

Classrooms in the 1960s and 70s had desks lined up in rows facing the teacher and the blackboard. Group projects were practically non-existent. One of the only times you collaborated on a project might be to perform a dissection in biology class. (Clearly, the high cost of dead preserved frogs was the main impetus to having students team up in biology. Had dead frogs been cheaper, we would have performed our biology experiments as we did all of our other school work: alone.)

Contrast this to the modern K12 classroom. Desks in my youngest daughter’s classroom are arranged in groups of four, kitchen table style. Students work facing each other, not the teacher. Every day, students spend time on group projects. On the first day of each month, my daughter comes home from school and announces the members of her new group. If she’s lucky, she’ll have one of her best friends seated with her. If she’s unlucky, she’ll have the kid who likes to watch horror movies and provide detailed summaries.

Whereas students today spend their days working in groups, they don’t spend as much time after school with friends as my generation did. When my daughters’ school days end, they attend organized activities such as dance classes or figure skating practices, or they spend time relaxing at home. They might connect with friends after school through Facebook or text messaging, but, in my neighborhood, playing with friends after school is a rarity.

When I was their age, all time outside of school hours was spent outdoors with friends. If any of us were home after school, it was likely due to illness or, more likely, detention.

I’ve always assumed that most children today don’t roam free with their friends after school because of the influence of overprotective parents who have watched too many news reports of abductions. But, perhaps this isn’t the case. Maybe kids shun friends after school because they need downtime from an educational system based largely on group learning. Perhaps they’re just sick of people by the end of the day.

Alternately, kept separated in rows and working alone on our studies in the 1960s and 70s, perhaps my generation was hungry for human contact. The ringing of the end-of-day school bell at last signaled our freedom to satisfy social needs. Days filled with individual learning created nights playing kick-the-can and stargazing with friends.

The amount of group and individual learning we experienced may influence how we like to learn. Janet mentioned in her presentation that Anoush Margaryan, a lecturer at the Caledonian Academy, Glasgow Caledonian University in the UK (who was in attendance for yesterday’s Webinar), has found that students’ attitudes to learning appear to be influenced by the approach adopted by their lecturers.

Ms. Margaryan’s findings suggest that the next generation of workers may expect employee training to take place in groups. Individual learning may be seen as unusual and socially isolating. The use of learning technologies that enable connections with others may appear more natural to these workers than self-paced online courses they undertake alone.

Tweet This Post