Frequently Asked Questions

2. Is it necessary to invest in a LMS (Learning Management System)?

If you're a large organization there's no question that you need to invest in some kind of LMS. The question is when and how?

Most Learning Management Systems currently on the market tend to be Management Systems rather than Learning Systems. Basically, they provide an infrastructure for the acquisition of e-learning materials, tools for the analysis of individual learning needs, and course management, assessment and tracking functions. Basically they have absorbed the traditional managerial functions of the HRD-Training Department. Though technically very sophisticated, most operate on 'first-generation' e-learning principles in that they tend to be locked into course-based linear learning models. As a result, they have difficulty interfacing with 'second-generation' e-learning systems that seek to encourage informal learning with a focus on improved job performance. (See FAQ # 9 for further detail)

The argument for purchasing a LMS rests on the ease of managing learning needs, direct access to learning materials produced by a wide range of content providers that meet the implicit 'first-generation' learning style and administrative requirements, and potential cost reductions in the acquisition, delivery and management of content. Many LMS vendors also offer authoring capacities that allow organizations to create their own course content. However, the up-front and annual licensing costs are considerable, and most important of all, purchasers often find that they have locked their learning strategy into the 'first-generation' constraints built into the learning management system itself.

Think of it this way: In buying a LMS you are usually buying a MS, not a LS -- a Management System, not a Learning System. The disappointing end results in terms of the quality of learning outcomes and poor ROI has led many industry commentators to urge caution in how you approach the purchase of LMS functionality and to look for low cost alternatives. For example, Jon Warshawsky of Deloitte Consulting has pointed out that much LMS functionality can be executed through low-tech means -- after all, HRD staff have been executing the same functions for years. Brandon Hall has also warned about the unnecessary "feature creep" that accompanies many purchasing decisions and created a useful checklist and other advice for paring down your LMS requirements to bare essentials.

The NewMindsets view is that many organizations -- even the large ones -- are rushing into organization-wide LMS purchase decisions too quickly, especially since most already have an administrative infrastructure in place -- not always the best, but certainly one that serves their learning management needs reasonably well. At this stage in the development of e-learning it is much more important to invest in successful e-learning projects that will be able to deliver outstanding learning for end-users with a demonstrable ROI, than to invest most of the training and development budget on unnecessary learning infrastructure. We recommend a phased approach:

Target high value e-learning opportunities.
Concentrate on making them a success.
Benefit from the fact that many e-learning providers have perfectly adequate learning management functionality already built into their software.
Delay all major infrastructure decisions that are going to lock you into a single learning philosophy or learning provider until the e-learning industry has had a real chance to show what works and what is likely to fail.

Too many organizations are gambling valuable e-learning money on the "big play" -- on the big LMS decision -- instead of hedging their bets by spending on highly promising alternatives that are much more likely to deliver a short and long term positive return.

Back to main list of FAQ

print this screen