Bespoke eLearning for Real Compliance Outcomes

Most organizations think about eLearning as something you build. At HumanKind Learning, we think about it as something you have to live with. That’s a very different problem. We just published a whitepaper on Structured Content Architecture for E-Learning, and it gets at a hard truth: A lot of training does not fail because it was poorly designed. It fails because it was never built to be maintained. Traditional authoring tools lock content inside proprietary files. Want to change one sentence? On the surface, and the first trap for the unwitting, it looks easy. Open the original software, find the right screen, make the edit, republish the whole course, and hope nothing breaks along the way. …and if you do not have the software anymore? Okay, not great, but just buy a license. Unless the old version no longer exists. Then you get to open it in the new version, say a small prayer, and hope it does not break like a luxury watch bought off Temu: technically still a watch, spiritually held together by wishful thinking. We have seen where that road leads. When Adobe Flash went away, entire libraries of training went with it. Not because the content was bad, but because the show curtain came down on it like an off-off-off-Broadway play written by your second cousin twice removed.  There is a better way. A structured content approach separates content from the tool. Store it in open, human-readable formats like JSON, and your training becomes easier to update, easier to maintain, and far less vulnerable to platform drama. That matters for cost. It matters for longevity. And it absolutely matters for accessibility. Accessibility makes sure people can use your training. Maintainability makes sure it still works six months from now. Ignore either one, and you’re not building a solution. You’re building a very expensive time capsule. At HumanKind Learning, we continuously improve the processes and technology behind what we build so your content stays evergreen, maintainable, and accessible. Because “done” is not the goal. Still working five years from now, and still working for everyone, that’s the goal.

I’ve been thinking a lot about slide-to-eLearning this week. At some point in an eLearning developer’s career, they’re inevitably asked to take a slide deck, add some “interaction” and then publish and upload it to the LMS.  While this seems to be the way most corporate training is made, it’s usually dismissed in L&D circles as low quality by default. Slides are often poorly structured in the first place and the whole thing usually ends up in a content library without thought. But I think this reaction overlooks how learning actually happens in the workplace.  In real workplaces people don’t seek out online training with excitement, setting aside time hoping for a fantastic learning experience. Instead, they look for online training when they’re in the middle of a task, trying to figure out what to do next. In that more realistic moment, easy-to-access training becomes more valuable than polish. A simple, slide based session, without engaging scenarios or interactions, just clearly explaining the right action can be the difference between getting a task right or wrong. This is where I think we lose balance in L&D. There’s a focus on delivering quality eLearning, which matters, but not enough focus on availability. A single well-designed course can have less impact than a dozen small, unremarkable courses. The blanket assumption that slide-to-eLearning, or eLearning that doesn't fit ideal design standards, has no value ignores the role it can play as easy to create, just-in-time support.  This doesn't mean efficiency and production time should be favoured over quality. My point is that we shouldn't wholesale ignore a style of eLearning production if it has value. In the same way that not all training has to be a video or scenario, some training can just be slide-to-eLearning, and that’s ok. Availability is part of performance improvement, and we should be using the right types of eLearning when it’s needed.  Another way to see it is this, whether an eLearning session started out as a fully-fledged storyboard or as slides doesn't matter. What counts is whether the training helped someone do their job better when it mattered. If it did, even if it’s simple and boring, then it has its place at the table.

The Serious eLearning Manifesto quietly changed how I think about L&D... One of the most valuable shifts in my professional thinking came from the Serious eLearning Manifesto: - Do not assume learning is the solution. - Do not assume eLearning is the answer. Early in my career, that felt counterintuitive. As an eLearning designer, my default assumption was: if there is a business problem, we create training. Over time, I learned that many organizational problems are not capability problems. They are friction problems. Access problems. Workflow problems. Environment problems. And training can become a very expensive substitute for solving the actual issue. This came up again today in a discussion with colleagues from our AI Hub. We were exploring whether deploying a native GenAI application across 1000+ employee laptops could increase weekly usage compared to browser-only access. From a performance perspective, this is interesting because it changes the environment rather than relying primarily on instruction. Lower friction. Higher visibility. Faster access inside the flow of work. It is also relatively low-cost compared to designing and deploying large-scale training interventions. Of course, adoption data will tell us whether the assumption is correct. But I increasingly think this is where modern L&D creates value: not only through content creation, but through designing conditions that make desired behaviors easier and more likely. Have you seen environmental changes outperform formal training in your organization?

Don’t Just Click—Think: The Power of Guiding Questions in eLearning Most eLearning modules are full of clicks. Very few make learners stop and think. Click-and-reveal is often mistaken for interactivity, but it isn’t. It’s navigation. True interactivity begins when the learner pauses and thinks. That’s where guiding questions come in. Well-placed questions do more than check knowledge: they shape thinking. They pull learners into the flow, make them alert, and help them build a mental map of what’s coming. Instead of passively consuming content, learners begin to probe, reflect, and connect. Think about how we operate in real life. Before acting, we ask ourselves: * What am I trying to achieve? * What could go wrong? * Is there a better way? That internal questioning is learning in motion. Why should eLearning be any different? Here is what that looks like in practice. Examples of Guiding Questions * Explorative: What do you think is happening in this situation? What factors might influence this outcome? * Discovery: Can you spot the pattern here? What insight emerges if you compare these two cases? * Reflective: Have you faced a similar situation before? What did you do? What would you do differently now? * Decision-making: Given these options, what would you choose, and why? What are the consequences of each choice? When a learner responds to a guiding question, they expose their thinking—and that exposure is an opportunity. Feedback tied to a question doesn’t just correct; it explains and reframes. A well-designed question isn’t merely an input prompt; it is the beginning of a conversation between the learner and the content. Guiding questions activate curiosity, the first essential spark that makes a learner lean in rather than tune out. From there, they encourage deeper processing, pushing the mind beyond surface recall into genuine engagement with ideas. This naturally supports problem-solving, because a learner who is thinking is also weighing, questioning, and deciding. The result is a learning experience that feels less like a download and more like a dialogue. Great thinkers didn’t just deliver answers; they asked better questions. From Socrates to scientists to explorers, progress has always followed inquiry. If we want learning that truly engages, we must rethink what we ask of the learner. Moving from clicking to thinking, and from delivering content to provoking genuine cognitive engagement, is not a design tweak; it is a fundamental change in intent. One treats the learner as a navigator. The other treats them as a thinker. Learning doesn’t stick when information is revealed. It sticks when the mind is engaged, when it is not a passive receiver but an active participant.  

If you are new to eLearning and the world of learning management systems, you may not know these eLearning Standards: AICC vs SCORM vs xAPI vs cmi5. Unfortunately, many LMSs do not provide for all of these standards. Some old LMSs still don’t have any. You need to have an idea of what these standards are and how they present your eLearning course to the learners.

eLearning is just a tool. I’ve been thinking about this a lot while building my portfolio. I’ve tried to design for every angle, covering different formats, levels of depth, and moments of need, all while keeping the experience engaging and outcome-focused. But no matter how much time goes into the build, one limitation keeps showing up. Training on its own doesn’t sustain behaviour change. In many cases, you see improvement for a few months, and then it starts to drop off. That’s not because the training failed, but because people return to environments that reinforce old habits. The shortcuts and workarounds that existed before training are often still there, and over time, they take over again. This is why we build microlearning, performance support, and refreshers to reinforce key behaviours over time. They help extend the impact, but they don’t solve the root issue on their own. Without space to apply learning, support from managers, and a culture that values improvement, progress will always be temporary. It’s changed how I think about my role as an instructional designer. I can’t control the environment people return to, but I can design with it in mind. That means creating resources that fit into the flow of work, prompting reflection beyond the course, and encouraging ongoing support where possible. Because the real impact of training isn’t just in what’s delivered, but in what happens after it ends.

How eLearning Reduces Training Costs By 40%+: Measuring ROI In Corporate LearningOrganizations are under increasing pressure to upskill employees quickly while keeping operational costs under control. Traditional training methods: classroom sessions, instructor-led workshops, travel, and printed materials, are not only expensive but also difficult to scale. This post was first published on eLearning Industry. https://lnkd.in/e3gDBcju

We spend enormous energy designing training content. And then wonder why nobody applies it back on the job... 🤔 I'll let you into a little secret 🤫: the problem is rarely the content. It's everything around it. Here's a pattern I've seen repeatedly: the line manager gives a brief to L&D about identified capability gaps, L&D designs a programme around those, delivers it, gets reasonable feedback scores, and moves on to the next one. Sounds reasonable? But there is a missing voice in that entire process: The learner. 👤 The line manager CAN tell you what outcome they want. They might even tell you who the learner is, but they certainly CAN'T tell you how the learner experiences their workday, where and when they consume learning, what format actually works for them, or whether the outcome the organisation wants aligns with what the learner themselves needs to grow. When those two sets of needs diverge (which is often the case) the training programme will feel irrelevant to the people sitting in it. Outcome? It won't stick, and it won't change behaviour. This is where applying Design Thinking to learning changes everything. Real Learning Experience design starts with research - and not just a brief from the line manager, but genuine inquiry into the learner: 🔹 Who are they, and what's actually going on in their working day? 🔹 Where and when are they consuming learning... and what disrupts it? 🔹 What platform, what format, what time chunks work for their REALITY? 🔹 What do they want to get out of this, and does that align with what the organisation wants? Only once you know all that, you can start with the creation. Be the learner, every step of the way: 💭 How participants feel about the training? (Anxious? Unclear on why they were there? Resentful for being away from their desk?) 💭 How do they feel in the first 10 minutes? (Was there genuine excitement and motivation to go on learning?) 💭 And during the whole training? (Bored, annoyed, eager to put into action? Were there actionable takeaways? Was it relevant?) 💭 How about the moment right after? (Was there a follow up? Was there space to reflect?) 💭 And 3 weeks later? (Was there any structure for applying what was learned, or did the programme exist in a bubble?) These are all important criteria... Next step: soft launch and iteration based on real feedback. And only then - full rollout. ⚡That's the difference between designing a TRAINING PROGRAMME and designing a LEARNING EXPERIENCE. One delivers content, the other changes behaviour. And the moment you start asking learners what they actually need (rather than assuming the line manager's brief tells the whole story), everything about how you design, deliver, and measure learning shifts. 👉 When did you last ask a learner what they actually needed - before designing anything? #LearningExperience #EmployeeExperience #LXDesign #DesignThinking #LearningAndDevelopment #HRStrategy

❓ What is SCORM, and why does it still appear in LMS discussions? SCORM is a technical standard that defines how eLearning content interacts with an LMS – how courses are launched, how data like completion or scores is tracked, and how content stays compatible across systems. 👉 Read the article to see how SCORM works in practice and where it is still used: https://cutt.ly/vtJAvC2k #SCORM #LMS #EdTech #Elearning #DigitalLearning #RaccoonGang

If anyone is interested in developing their skills in Lms, a quick thought based on my experience that might be helpful. 💬 Here are some tips for developing this skill: I started learning LMS by working directly with platforms like Tutor LMS, Moodle, and LearnDash while creating and managing online courses. Most of what I know came from real projects, setting up courses, uploading lessons, fixing issues, and supporting learners. Over time, I learned what actually works, not just what the tools can do. Here are some tips for developing your skill: Pick one platform and learn it well: Before jumping between tools, focus on one (Tutor LMS is a good start). Learn how courses, quizzes, certificates, and user roles really work. Practice with real content: Create a test course for yourself or a friend. Add lessons, quizzes, assignments, and track progress. You learn faster when you build. Understand the learner’s experience: Always check how your course looks from the student’s side. If it’s confusing, learners will struggle. Learn a little design and structure: Good courses are simple, clear, and well-organized. Don’t overload pages with too much text. Explore reports and analytics: LMS is not just about uploading content. Learn how to track who is learning, who is stuck, and where people drop off. Keep improving: Watch tutorials, read updates, and test new features. Every project teaches you something new.