Missing puzzle piece? Design & development time and staffing for blended learning programs

 How much time and how many people does it take to create blended learning programs?

CNN Money has a PR article about the strategic partnership between SkillSoft and Global Knowledge in delivering blended learning solutions for IT and business skills training using e-learning courseware, Books24x7, live mentoring services, online labs, and instructor-led training. Why do their customers like blended learning? Relevant experience, the format appeals to a wide range of preferences, it increases retention and provides on-the-job application; in short a comprehensive learning experience per Jerry Nine, COO at Skill Soft. Applause!

But this approach is a no-brainer right? Who would say that a ‘comprehensive, relevant learning experience’ is not the way to go? This is what we read about all the time (and what I write about) and I believe it’s the learning professional’s goal. We also read about the hard cost benefits of the blended approach (reduced seat time, less travel cost, etc.) So, it’s better learning and it saves “hard” money…or does it?

What I am not seeing is information on development time for programs that include both e-learning elements and face-to-face classroom instruction, i.e. the most common definition of blended learning. I polled 150ish members of Brandon Hall’s Insight and Intelligence Forum and found that overwhelmingly, respondents felt that it took more time to develop blended learning programs than either face-to-face training or e-learning alone. Respondents were asked the following two questions:

• In your best estimate and given similar content and learning objectives, would you say it takes more or less time to design/develop blended learning programs than e-learning alone?
• In your best estimate and given similar content and learning objectives, would you say it takes more or less time to design/develop blended learning programs than face-to-face training alone?

The majority of respondents worked in U.S.-based corporations (60 percent) and were primarily practitioners. 40 percent of respondents worked in a department of ten or less people.

• Over 80 percent felt that blended learning took more time to develop than face-to-face
• Over 50 percent felt that blended learning took more time to develop than e-learning alone

Do you agree with them? 1 + 1 = 2 so it should take longer. Hmm…

What about rapid blended learning? I had an interesting conversation with Bill Bruck of Q2 Learning and Paul Schneider of GeoLearning awhile ago (Q2 Learning and GeoLearning are partners). We spoke of cases where blended increases the time to proficiency by reducing seat time and development time. Loosely structured collaboration, or no structure (informal learning) within a community, use of templates and wizards within an LCMS (read: re-use) were ways to reduce development time. Proper access to the right content and loosey-goosey control will get the job done possibly without increasing staff dramatically (my opinion).

I didn’t ask about staffing in my survey because that’s a whole different survey. I’d be interested to know if organizations are ramping up staff to create blended, more ‘comprehensive learning experiences.’ I suspect that in some organizations, the cost saving factors (like reduced seat time) equate to a reduced need for face-to-face instructors without addressing the increased need for ‘guides.’ By guides, I mean those that get people through their comprehensive learning experience. ‘Through’ can mean addressing technical issues, moderating, facilitating, selection and access to learning assets, etc. It ain’t easy.

My colleague, Bryan Chapman, posted about the cost of creating different types of learning on a ratio basis (development hours: delivery hours) some time ago. One could draw some conclusions about the cost factor for creating blended learning experiences from that. But how do you staff properly? Or better yet, how do you dream about staffing for this?

My thoughts:

1. LMS/LCMS/Community/Live Platform administrator (enters manual information, runs reports, etc.)
2. LMS manager (for learning governance)
3. IT/infrastucture support (installed LMS) or .5 if hosted with vendor end-user support agreement plus IT support for labs, etc.
4. Instructional design support for pedagogy issues, technology tool usage, and SME and coach/mentor support and training, etc.
5. Instructional designer(s) (depends on number and type of courses)
6. Programmer(s) (depends on number and type of courses)
7. Graphic designer(s) (could be dedicated or possibly from another department like web development)
8. Online/virtual classroom faciltator(s)
9. Multimedia specialist(s)
10. Project manager(s)
11. Instructors for classroom instruction

CLO Magazine has a 2007 industry report which suggests organizations employ 15 full-time equivalent learning professionals in their organizations. They report that among organizations with fewer than 2,500 learners, three learning professionals is common while organizations with 100k or more learners have learning staffs of about 120. The majority of respondents (59 percent) report not having adequate staff to support their learning initiatives. 40 percent foresee some increase in staffing in the future. 13 percent foresee significant staff increases and 10 percent project a decrease. (mention of talent shortage notable).

Would you agree that it takes an equivalent amount of staff to manage 2500 learners or 5000 learners? 20,000?A stove is still needed whether you’re cooking for one or 100. 10 exact courses need the same number of developers whether they are delivered to 50 learners or 500. Get my drift?

Most of the people I’ve met with recently (workshops, lunch, etc.) are practically one-man bands and aren’t staffed to handle the challenges associated with creating the type of environments they wish they could.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Tagged as: Blended Learning