What Three Learning-Video Rollouts Taught Me About Buying the Right Tool

I recall when Erin was a compliance lead from the second rollout. She changed two paragraphs in approved policy in month four. No one could identify the master source and update was stalled.

This was the moment that changed my thoughts about an e-learning video tool.

Of the three rollouts, two of them had credibility problems following the rollout. Both of them did not fail because of the absence of some kind of flashy type of feature. One reportedly did not have clear ownership of the contents. One of them didn't have any real update process and localization was done at the end.

The third deployment went well, for less fun reasons We've talked about the ownership and revisions before the production process got hectic. There was an owner of the regional review as well. I would like to share with you my five checks that I am now applying to procurement and they are: source ownership, updates, localization, reporting and long-term operating fit.

I Now Start With the Source Owner

You'd have a training video that's like complete and now the content itself behind it has become messy. This happened on our first deployment. The final video and some decks were discovered within the project folder. Multiple documents given a 'stamp of approval'. A new teammate 6 months later was unable to detect which file controlled the course. This was a documentation issue that I used to call.

Now I ask myself, Should I buy it? Prior to making a commitment as a team to a platform, I want four things to be clear:

The approved source's address.
who can change it
who approves the next version
what another person receives when the original builder leaves

The concept of portability is part of this discussion too. SCORM is a definition of how learning materials and resources can be packaged and pass information to an LMS. If a team does need that type of pitch, they ought to make the confirmation early.

A downloadable video file is not a portable learning package. That could make the difference between the shortlist. There is also the human side of this ownership. Generally people building version one won't take care of version six. I want to get my new teammate to understand the source and the publishing path, but without having to call the builder of the original release.

Month Four Is the Procurement Test I Trust

The simplest day of a video tool's life is demo day. Everything is current. It is just recently the source has been approved. That person who built the project clearly remembers each and every decision. It's month number four that really shows. It was then that Erin drastically tweaked two policy paragraphs. At the moment, our helpful query with this platform was not, Can this platform make a training video? We wanted to get an idea of the amount of work created with the version two.

To train document-based, Leadde can maintain the production near source material. A finished video can be duplicated to produce a variation. Content in the editor is automatically saved. These details are good, but on their own aren't an update process. There needs to be a person who is the owner of an approved source.

Now I'm doing a small test for revisions prior to rollout. I give my teammate a realistic content change, and then see the effect on that. There are some things that become clear rather quickly:

Do they have any idea where the current source is, or do they have to ask?
Are they able to identify the video to be changed?
Can they save the old version and create the new one?
Are the current review comment sequence and process still appropriate if the original builder is not involved?

This is where it gets expensive with cheap looking workflows. The first video is going to take a day. It can take a week to coordinate the fourth update. I would prefer to find that out while ordering it.

Localization Breaks When It Starts Too Late

In our second roll-out we thought localization was something that needed to be done in the end. First came English and at a later stage came the regional variants. That's fair, until people start putting local changes. One reviewer changes terminology. Someone else made a change to an example. Then, a regional team takes its copy which is already one revision behind.

All of a sudden ‘the translated version' has become something else. Language localisation is not just a word replacement. The local context and local use of a word still provide a factor to consider. That's why I always check on version control first and then languages supported by that platform.

A translation with Leadde will be created as a new draft. That way the translated version stays separate from the original, and doesn't somehow silently substitute. But, a new draft requires an owner. It is impossible for software to determine that only one regional change apply to one market. It also cannot make a decision that which one should return to master course.

Prior to localization, I want the team to answer three questions:

Which one of the files is considered the master?
Who approves local terminology?
What sources change and cause updates to all regions?

Those rulings will be looked upon as administrative decisions. In the practical they stop many duplications in practice. This was worked well with the third rollout. The regional reviewers were able to determine the source changes from this and the source owner knew the changes that were returned. So that clarity was more important than another language.

Reporting Only Matters When Someone Uses It

There was extensive published footage and virtually no learning insight with one rollout. We were aware of the courses. The viewing data did not give us enough clues as to what to do. That experience got me thinking that I would like not to have numbers in a section where there isn't a decision. Leadde gives the completion rates and average viewing times.

Completion rate can be an indicator of whether or not viewers make it to the end. Average watch time can show you which lessons are dropped by a lot of people. None of the measures show learning of content. I would make a decision on what team is willing to look into before giving it a high procurement score.

Perhaps required policy lesson is lacking completion. As a course lengthens perhaps watch time decreases. If not, there is a potentiality that the data has a task. This is again where handoff comes into picture. There is a number that needs to be studied post launch. If nobody knows how to use an online dashboard then it's another tab that goes unused. One well‐thought‐out question is better than 10 unused charts.

Put the Weak Spots on the Procurement Sheet

I don't trust a buyer's guide that states all the drawbacks near the end, but in less clear terms. Leadde has borders that should impact its score. It does not include a screen recorder. Another recording route will be necessary with a course that is based around live software demonstrations.

Expressive IV Engine can only process video for up to 60 seconds. If teams wish to incorporate longer expressive presenter segments, then it must adhere to the limit. Personal and team workspace cannot be shared within the same account. There is also a limit per team by plan. The goods are: a logo, colours and fonts can be added to the Brand Kit. That means that new maintainers have a guaranteed visual place to start. However, branding doesn't remove limits on workflow.

These are the compromises that I wish I could see prior to buying, not after the team has created 20 courses. Document-centric training is still a good fit for training content that is frequently updated. If lesson content is mostly screen-based or have another idea for workspace, another path could be more appropriate. Therefore, I wouldn't give Leadde an all-clear just because it is good in one category.

The Five-Line Scorecard I Use Now

In three rollouts, the feature spreadsheet was no longer something I had much confidence in. Each platform was capable and each row was rewarded with another function, making them capable on every platform. My scorecard is shorter than this. One to five points are given for each criterion.

Source ownership: Is the approved material easy to locate, comprehend and sustain by someone else?
Update path: Can the team update one course without it being a rebuild?
Localization: Will the various versions for regions remain attached to a controlled source and the process of review?
Measurement: Is there a question the reporting addresses that someone is going to make a decision based on?
Operational fit: Does the workflow meet delivery, access, production and handoff needs?

For the document-led training cases described here, my example Leadde score would be 19 out of 25, not 25:

Source ownership: 4/5
Update path: 4/5
Localization: 4/5
Measurement: 4/5
Operational fit: 3/5

The team has autonomy in terms of updates, and enabled automatic save and video duplication capabilities. Translation results in a new draft that can be helpful, but regional review is still a human effort. Reporting provides helpful sight trackers. It is not a evidence of learning. There is also no screen recording, as operational fit takes a bit of points.

Expressive IV is capped in length and workspace rules may not be the best for all teams. Prior to cross purchasing, score a real course first. Afterwards, give one realistic change to someone who didn't create it. Pay attention to their weak areas. One of those little tests typically gives me more information than another hour or more of feature demos.