Contents:
What was expected from LXP and why the project failed
Initially, LXP providers presented their platforms as an innovative way of training employees. Unlike traditional methods, which include mandatory courses, the emphasis is on the needs and interests of the student. The platforms offer a user-friendly and intuitive interface, making the learning process more accessible and engaging. The approaches used are informal and tailored to the users' personal preferences. The platform's functionality includes a variety of tools that help tailor training to individual goals and objectives, thereby ensuring more effective assimilation of material and skill development.
- Focus on skills - both tied and not tied to a specific role.
- The ability to choose training - while in traditional LMS systems specific courses and trainings were assigned to employees by learning and development managers, in LXP the system automatically selects content based on data about individual students.
- Large content libraries from third-party providers - Craig Weiss notes that at first LXP included offerings from at least ten third-party providers, suitable for different budgets (including free options).
- A system of recommendations, grouped into playlists and collections according to various principles - from necessary skills and knowledge to the most popular content.
Read also:
Corporate training is becoming an increasingly important aspect of business development. In today's environment, organizations strive to use the latest technologies to improve the effectiveness of employee training. Let's consider six of the most promising technologies that can significantly improve the corporate training process.
First, virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) open new horizons for training, allowing employees to immerse themselves in situations. This is especially relevant for training related to security, sales, and customer service.
Second, artificial intelligence (AI) makes it possible to create personalized training programs by analyzing employee performance data. This helps adapt course content to the individual needs and knowledge level of each employee.
The third technology is mobile learning. Using mobile applications, employees can access training materials anytime and anywhere. This is especially convenient for organizations with remote teams.
The fourth perspective is the use of online training platforms. These platforms allow training to be conducted in a webinar format, making the process more flexible and accessible. Employees can study at a time convenient for them and receive feedback from trainers.
The fifth technology is gamification. Incorporating game elements into training helps increase employee motivation. Competitions, points, and rewards make the learning process more engaging and effective.
Finally, Big Data analysis in training allows organizations to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and identify areas for improvement. Collecting and analyzing data on employee preferences and training results helps companies optimize their training approaches.
Thus, the application of these six technologies in corporate training contributes to increased efficiency, engagement, and employee satisfaction, which ultimately leads to increased productivity and competitiveness of the business.
The author of the article argues that one of the proposals turned out to be a marketing ploy. In less than a year, mandatory training, according to Craig Weiss, "went out the door and back through the window." For example, the idea of personalized playlists based on recommendations failed because the lists of recommended materials were dominated by mandatory courses, rather than those that genuinely interest and help users. Some platforms decided to disable this feature, while others outsourced its development to artificial intelligence. However, if the algorithm is developed by a third-party provider, the client risks receiving ineffective recommendations that are not aligned with the interests of employees, as Craig Weiss notes. This underscores the importance of creating personalized training that takes into account the real needs and interests of users.
Course libraries in LXPs, and on platforms that call themselves such, have significantly shrunk. Even the ability to use them is not available everywhere. This is an important point, since the international market, unlike the Russian one, has a wide variety of corporate content providers. In such an environment, companies are less likely to create their own content.
The key problem is that the very concept of LXP has become a marketing tool. Platforms that position themselves as LMSs already include some LXP features, while many platforms that claim to be LXPs may not have these features. The name is used loosely, but in reality, true "experience-based learning platforms" are extremely rare, as Craig Weiss argues. This creates confusion for users looking for effective learning solutions. It is important to understand the differences between LMSs and LXPs to choose the right platform for an organization's needs.
LXPs can be compared to revolutionary television channels, which at the time of their introduction stood out for their unique content and innovative approach to broadcasting. In the US, such an example is MTV, and in Russia, the channel "2x2", which many millennials probably remember. However, over time, these channels have transformed, replacing the original concept with standard formats featuring talk shows, commercials, and occasional glimpses of past successful programs. The learning platform market is evolving similarly. It's important that modern educational systems maintain their original creativity and continue to offer users relevant and diverse content that promotes effective learning and development.
The system initially promised to be innovative and effective. It was presented as a learning platform with a unique approach. However, the developers failed to realize its potential, focusing on formal training and ignoring the needs of students and flexible learning methods. Craig Weiss emphasizes that this led to the loss of the original idea, which negatively impacted the system's effectiveness.
What is the fate of LXP in the Russian market?
In Russia, LXP (Learning Experience Platform) platforms did not initially achieve the same popularity as in other countries. This is due to the specifics of the local market, where many companies prefer to develop their own distance learning systems and content for them. Moreover, the share of businesses actively using centralized systems for online training remains relatively low. As a result, LXP adoption in the Russian market is slower than abroad, where similar solutions have already proven themselves to be effective tools for improving employee training and development. Providers offer not only LXPs but also combined solutions that necessarily include training. This makes the Russian and international markets similar. Corporate training expert and founder of the Digital Learning community Pavel Bezyaev, in a commentary for Skillbox Media, emphasizes that platforms initially positioned as LXPs actually offer features convenient for LMS users. This points to a trend toward integrating various educational tools, allowing organizations to more effectively manage employee training and development processes. Pavel emphasizes that LXP systems should not be expected to flourish rapidly. He believes that the near future will likely see accelerated development of already popular LMSs integrated with artificial intelligence. These LMSs will become analogous to LXPs, offering recommended learning functionality and customized learning paths. The expert notes that this approach will improve the quality of education and make it more personalized.