Learning management systems, learning apps, gamification, mobile learning, virtual learning…the list of modern training technologies is longer than most fast-food nutrition labels. But how much do you know about what goes into the development of these technologies before you make a purchase decision? When choosing one technology over another, how often is the decision based on a bloated list of features you think you need and a price tag you need to secure versus the results you’re trying to get, or the company behind the technology? To answer this, let’s take a look at what training technology is and isn’t.
What is technology?
A quick search on the term “technology” posits that it’s the “application of scientific knowledge.” A quick search on “scientific knowledge” reveals that it’s “knowledge accumulated by systematic study and organized by general principles.”
Many will agree that training technology does adhere to general principles. But, how many will agree that training technology actually involves systematic study or scientific knowledge? The thought of training technology being a science conjures up the image of creating a hypothesis, developing mathematical models, running correlation analysis, and measuring standard deviation.
The Scientific Method of Training Technology
Let’s first look at some non-training examples. Ben Franklin created bifocals out of necessity. He was exceedingly frustrated over having to tote around multiple pairs of eyeglasses. Steve Jobs was adamant about the use of rich graphics and fonts in the personal computer. He believed that without them, the PC would never feel “personal.”
And so it goes, all great technology starts out by identifying a market need either through intuition, experience or necessity. Once the need is identified (Make Observations/Think of Interesting Questions), most training technology companies conduct market research to understand the size of the market, overall business opportunity, target consumer and more. Once the opportunity and success criteria is defined (Formulate Hypothesis), the company sets out to develop the Minimal Viable Product (MVP) required to test the assumptions (Develop Testable Predictions). The MVP allows the company to gather validated learning about the technology (Gather Data to Test Predictions) and to tweak it until they get it just right (Refine, Alter, Expand, or Reject Hypothesis). This ultimately leads to general theories about why the technology is effective and/or how it generated results.
Did you see what just happened there? The scientific method could literally be mapped to every phase of technology development. And, it makes sense. When a reputable company brings new technology to the training industry, you’d expect, or at least hope, that its creators have applied a scientific methodology and have measured the feedback from its early users. With feedback in hand, you fully rely on its creators to have applied that feedback and improved the technology to ensure business results are met. On top of that, the very best tech companies will partner with you as you implement the solution because they have the observations, data, and general theories that can only be gained through a scientific approach to trial and error, and a lot of experience.
So, why does this matter? With so many training technology solutions available on the market today, choosing is hard. Don’t simply take the technology at face value. Get to know the company behind the technology to get a better sense of how the solution will fit within your business. Look for a track record of proven results from an experienced partner. Something to keep in mind the next time you and your procurement team are evaluating training technology by only checking the feature boxes and comparing fees.
Dave Romero is the chief product officer at Unboxed Technology.
