Possible futures for L&D, by Robin Ryde, Training Journal, February 2010

One thing we have not been short of during the recession is the views of various pundits telling us how the world is changing and that L&D has to adapt accordingly; in fact several previous reviews have covered articles with a similar theme. But I make no apology for reviewing another such article because each one makes different points and gives us cause to stop and think about our own ability to change.


The author starts by contrasting a course he ran 10 years ago with one he runs today, contrasting the different learning methods, duration and design. This led me to think even further back to the first course I ran at Ashridge even longer ago; forty eight managers, mostly from UK companies, for four weeks, all listening to me and others delivering generic and relatively academic content. How different is this from the type of tailored, interactive, modular and practical designs that MTP’s customers are now demanding.

Whichever timescale one takes, the message must be that change is still taking place and is accelerating, requiring even more flexibility from those L &D professionals who wish to stay ahead of the game. This article provides a number of insights that indicate the likely direction of change, in particular the development of the Internet and the greater availability of information.

However, rather than follow the standard line that we must learn to deliver learning via the Web, the author makes a different but more valuable point. The most important impact of Google, Wikipedia etc, is that it is making course participants more knowledgeable about business and management concepts so that the knowledge gaps between the trainers and the trained are becoming smaller all the time.

I have to confess to being unsure about this phenomenon but realise that my views may be coloured by the fact that a lot of MTP’s work is in the financial area, which may not be typical. However I am in agreement with the author’s conclusion; that those running courses in the future will need to have a higher level of facilitating skills, rather than just relying on their ability to deliver good content. The author also makes the valid point that ‘the death of deference’ is upon us; if facts can be checked instantly on Blackberries and iPhones, we must expect more challenges to our expertise and be prepared to take our content beyond facts to their interpretation.

Other points in the article are more obvious, the need to have an international mindset and to understand cultural diversity, to remember that the future powerhouses of India and China will, in the long-term, not tolerate the US oriented models of leadership and management.

There is also reference to the Holy Grail of evaluation, confirming that L&D departments will have to show value for money; not exactly a startling insight. However, rather than falling into the trap of suggesting impractical ROI calculations, the latter part of the article suggests that this can be achieved by more innovative design of learning programmes. The emphasis of design should be on making programmes do more than achieve learning; they can be used to provide research reports and as vehicles for innovation, making sure that the power of bright people coming together is harnessed to add value. Those of us who have already managed projects of this kind as part of blended programmes will know the challenges involved but there is certainly likely to be even more pressure for this kind of approach.

An example of an innovative course design is provided at the end of the article - a ‘live case study’ where managers from one company help to solve the problems of another. This made me realise that some things never change. While I was running my 48 strong Ashridge course, someone called Reg Revans was advocating something very similar under the heading of ‘Action Learning’. Maybe Reg was just 40 years ahead of his time!

To read this article go to:

http://www.trainingjournal.com/tj/2725.html