A stand-out feature of many successful online services is simplicity. It’s been a guiding principle behind everything from Twitter to YouTube and, simpler still, Google. One can of course argue that there’s complex software behind these services – that the simplicity is only skin deep – but they all share a minimal user interface and a razor sharp focus on what they’re trying to do for the user.
I’m not sure we can say the same in the world of e-learning. On the contrary, learning systems seem to get ever more complex as they try to incorporate everything from talent management to informal learning. But how did we get to this point? What drives the complexity we see in both content and technology – and, more importantly, is there a solution?
What drives complexity
Technology has been behind some great advances in the quality of content in recent years, not least of which is the ability to stream good quality sound and video online. But, as Spiderman’s uncle would have it, “With great power comes great responsibility”. The content choices that technology presents can distract us from the business results we were aiming for in the first place. Then we see decisions about e-learning solutions being driven by the desire to do something ‘new’ or ‘more creative’ than the last project. And the risk then is that the needs of the end-user fade into the background and organisations end up with content that is unnecessarily complex.
"We see decisions about e-learning solutions being driven by the desire to do something ‘new’ or ‘more creative’ than the last project."
Another problem lies in the procurement process. It’s not uncommon to receive Excel files with great lists of features and functionality to which a vendor must commit in order to be selected. These ungainly lists are often produced by committees working to define requirements (and everyone seems to get their favourite 10 to 50 points onto the list), sometimes it’s consultants out to prove their worth by adding a lot of complex integration elements, and sometimes the list is simply copied from another company – possibly one of a different size and with different needs. The, literally, misguided vendors then try to ‘tick all the boxes’ in the spreadsheet, adding features that will never be used, just to make sure they win the business.
Such feature specifications would never have given us YouTube, Twitter or Groupon. You might argue that these are consumer services and that the enterprise has more complex needs, but looking at successful implementations of Mohive I’m not so sure.
Aaron Levie, CEO of Boxnet, excellently encapsulates the problem of complexity in his TechCrunch article about enterprise software’s over-complexity.
“Complexity… justifies costly software licenses and a swat team of consultants and systems integrators. It explains why updates are available every three years instead of being pushed weekly. And it even serves as an easy – but ultimately blameless – scapegoat for failed deployments and lagging user adoption. After all, the problems faced by today’s enterprises are incredibly challenging, and complex problems require equally complex solutions, right?”
Is Mohive any better?
How about Mohive, are we any better? After all we provide an enterprise platform and we have to tick as many boxes as possible in the enterprise procurement process. And I admit that we probably have added unnecessary complexity to the solution to do so.
But I’m also proud of the fact that there is a lot of complex functionality that we decided not to implement. We didn’t add Gannt charts to weigh down the project planning process, we avoided the advanced branching features that can overcomplicate content creation, and we left interactive PDFs out of the publishing options. It may seem odd to call attention to the things we didn’t do. But doing so helped us keep our focus on solving complex problems with simple solutions, and on helping our users to deliver rapid e-learning on time and on budget.
It’s simple, but it’s out there
In my opinion ‘rapid’ trumps ‘complex’ every time, by which I mean that it’s better to get a few simple e-learning module out into the world than to have several complex productions stuck in development limbo. And if you can also use rapid to generate volume it’s an even better use of your budget. For example, I’ve seen retail organisations increase sales more by publishing a series of updates on new products and promotions for their sales force, than by creating one super-duper multimedia extravaganza that they could only get done by going all-in with their budget for the year.
"It’s better to get a few simple e-learning module out into the world than to have several complex productions stuck in development limbo."
Ultimately, avoiding unnecessary, inefficient and even ineffective complexity is a matter of focus, of making sure that e-learning projects are driven by the fundamental learning objectives and business results they must achieve, and not by the technological and creative possibilities. So, keep it simple. Cultivate an uncomplicated focus on results and the content and technology will serve you, and not the other way around.