By Shanna R. Teel, Contributing Editor
With the ever-present pressures of cost-cutting in training & development budgets, I'm curious about how companies are focusing more on technology-related training & development solutions as a way to save money. Over the last few months I've heard of several large corporations going "virtual" with their T&D. In some cases - for example IBM - this means they are spending millions of dollars on developing their own virtual worlds and related training modules (i.e., compliance training) and in other cases there seems to be a renewed or continued use of e-learning.
Nonetheless, there is a buzz again around technology-related T&D solutions and less in-person, workshop-based programs. In theory, I like technology-related solutions as an effective way to train people across regional boundaries, thereby reducing travel costs and the environmental impact of global or regionally dispersed teams. However, I am perplexed about the purported cost savings aspect of these "virtual" solutions.
There is a good article in the May issue of The Chief Learning Officer Magazine, "A Second Look at Second Life," by Steve Mahaley. He describes the benefits of virtual world training, the different types of learning experiences (guided tours, immersive team building, business simulations), and the interactive nature of second life training. But I do wish Mahaley had gone deeper into the actual costs of using virtual worlds in T&D.
I'm not so sure that the actual costs of virtual training will yield cost savings for organizations. And I've had a hard time finding software companies and/or second life training organizations that gave me any real data on the actual development costs and subsequent ROI. I worry that the pendulum is swinging once again to technology products under the guise of cost-effectiveness, but in reality the costs are substantially more when you add up development, implementation, upgrades, etc.
The Second Life software company recently conducted a survey demonstrating that 76% of the respondents who implemented immersive training simulations as a training tool had modest to good results; 93% of respondents felt that these immersive programs were better than other types of traditional training programs.
I can't vouch for the validity of this data, but it is interesting nonetheless; time will tell tell how effective these types of training programs are from the perspectives of quality, knowledge retention, and cost.
I welcome your input on the cost-saving aspects of virtual training programs and second life/immersive training methodologies.
Until next time,
Shanna
Recent Comments