Here's a look at lessons learned from Caliber Data
Training's first endeavor in converting an existing ILT
course to e-learning.
In 2004, a Caliber Data Training client made the decision to
transition from a home grown source code management system to a
third-party product. Caliber was contracted in 2005 to develop an
instructor-led training (ILT) course on the new product. The ILT
courseware was written in the fall of 2005, and part of that
development effort included a pilot training session. The
development process had a few bumps along the way as the client
fine-tuned the product to fit its environment. The completed ILT
course includes five hands-on exercises that are taught over a
two-day period. The first day runs from 8:30am to 4:00pm and the
second day runs from 8:30am to about 3:00pm, for a total of
thirteen hours. These thirteen hours are estimated to be broken
down as follows: 7.75 hours to instruction, 3.25 hours to
exercises, 2.0 hours to lunch and 1.0 hour to breaks.
The course was delivered four times in 2006, with two additional
sessions in the first quarter of 2007. However, in the fall of
2006, the client began to look for alternative delivery methods.
There were two primary motivations for making a change. First, what
to do about consultants? Consultants need to be trained on the use
of the software within the client's environment, but it doesn't
want to pay consultants to attend training, and the consultants'
employers don't want to take their employees off billable time to
attend training. Second, what to do about offshore workers? It is
neither cost-effective to send an instructor overseas, nor to bring
the offshore workers to the client's offices.
Several meetings were held to discuss options, but it was apparent
early on that a web-based e-learning alternative was the most
appropriate delivery method for an updated course. In December
2006, Caliber began the process of converting the ILT course to its
e-learning equivalent using Macromedia's Captivate. The finished
e-Learning product was delivered in February 2007.
The conversion effort
The good news is that the conversion effort was completed ahead of
schedule and below budget. Many factors contributed to the success
of this effort, or might otherwise have contributed to its failure.
Here are the questions Caliber addressed in converting the course:
- Does the course already exist in ILT format?
- If there is an existing ILT course, does the courseware exist
in electronic form? Is it useable?
- If there is an existing ILT course, how complete is it?
- Are there any hands-on labs in the ILT course? Will these need
to be converted? Is it feasible to do so?
- Is the person doing the conversion already familiar with the
ILT course?
- Is the person doing the conversion already familiar with the
product or service being taught?
- Will subject matter experts (SMEs) be available for
consultation as needed?
- Will the person doing the conversion be dedicated to this
project exclusively?
- How many people will be working on the conversion team?
- How much animation is required?
- Is the scope of the conversion effort clearly defined?
- What is the approval process? Who will sign off on the project?
- How will the finished product be implemented within the
organization?
- Does the organization use a learning management system (LMS)?
If so, will this product be required to interface with that LMS?
- How will learning be measured?
- Is the person doing the conversion familiar with the e-learning
software? Does the person doing the conversion have prior
experience with similar projects?
Does the course already exist in ILT format? As
indicated in the title of this article, Caliber was converting an
existing ILT course to e-learning. Therefore, we weren't working
from scratch and had plenty of key points to work from.
If there is an existing ILT course, does the courseware
exist in electronic form? Is it useable? The ILT course
was delivered using PowerPoint slides. It turns out that this
didn't help us as much as one might think because the ILT course
was developed using captured the screen images in text form rather
than image files, such as JPEGs. The ILT course was developed this
way for three reasons. First, if the screen content changed (and it
did), we could simply overtype what we had rather than go through
the screen capture process again. Second, the black-on-white text
uses much less toner than a colored image. Third, these text images
needed to be accessed by devices used by persons with disabilities.
When it came time to create the e-learning version, however, we
felt that the users needed to view the real screens, not
black-on-white representations of them. As a result, during the
conversion project, every scenario or screen shot had to be
captured as JPEGs. This was a tedious process, but at least we
already knew what screens to capture.
If there is an existing ILT course, how complete is
it? In other words, was the existing courseware complete
with speakers' notes, or was it simply a collection of bullet
points and lists? For example, in another course on programming, we
show how Modulus 11 check digits are calculated. The course text
and speakers' notes mentions the item, but does not show how to
complete the actual calculation. This type of omission increases
the time required to convert the course to e-learning.
Are there any hands-on labs in the ILT course? Will these
need to be converted? Is it feasible to do so? As
mentioned earlier, there were five hands-on exercises in the ILT
course. No attempt was made to convert these to e-learning: it
simply could not be done given the nature of the product. We have
discussed the possibility of allowing people to sign up for a "lab
day" in which learners would come to class for the sole purpose of
completing the exercises, and thereby get their hands-on experience
with the product.
Is the person doing the conversion familiar with the ILT
course? If so, the developer is at an early advantage for
making decisions about what to include or address in the online
version. In our example, because I was one of the co-authors of the
ILT course, I was already familiar with the content. If you're not
the developer of the ILT course, I recommend participating in the
ILT course before developing the e-learning version.
Is the person doing the conversion familiar with the
product or service being taught? If not, will subject matter
experts (SMEs) be available for consultation as needed? I
had no prior knowledge of the software product when I began writing
the ILT course, and that certainly had an impact on its development
time. However, by the time I began converting that course to
e-learning, I was familiar with the product and with its use within
our client's environment. Still, when I began the conversion
process I made a point to sit next to the employee with primary
responsibility for the new product, and a consultant who served as
the product administrator and SME. Both were immediately available
for assistance as necessary. This proved to be an invaluable
resource.
Will the person doing the conversion be dedicated to this
project exclusively? Once the conversion effort began, I
had the luxury of devoting entire weeks to it without interruption.
In my experience, some of the tasks, particularly capturing screen
shots from the mainframe and writing the scripts for the audio,
require a great deal of concentration and necessitate a work
environment free of interruptions.
How many people will be working on the conversion
team? I had the luxury of flying solo. If the conversion
project is large enough to require more than one person, then the
manpower required will go up as we factor in management overhead.
In other projects that require a team development approach, it's
important to determine roles and outline tasks before delving too
deeply into the project.
How much animation is required? Our product
required very little animation. Animation will increase conversion
time.
Is the scope of the conversion effort clearly
defined? Early on in this project I made it clear that the
conversion process was just that: a conversion process. I would be
converting the existing ILT course to its e-learning equivalent,
without extensive modifications or enhancements. I would not be
creating a new course or developing significant modifications to
the existing ILT course. Without question, having clearly
defined scope was the single most important factor in the success
of my project.
What is the approval process? Who will sign off on the
project? As with most development projects, this issue
goes back to the topic of scope. Fortunately for me, I had limited
the scope of conversion only. Likewise, most of the client's
associates who were involved with the product seemed more than
willing to let me do my own thing--they were just glad that
something was happening. They were already comfortable with the
content of the ILT course. Ultimately, there was only one person
who had to approve the end-product, and this was determined early
in the project.
How will the finished product be implemented within the
organization? Our client used a highly developed intranet
site to deliver the course, and the person responsible for that
site was very easy to work with.
Does the organization use a learning management system
(LMS)? If so, will this product be required to interface with that
LMS? Our client had recently acquired an LMS, but my
stakeholders were not concerned about tracking which employees had
- or had not - taken the course.
How will learning be measured? I was lucky here. I
included some true/false or multiple choice questions at the end of
each section, and that was sufficient for my approver. Responses
are scored but not recorded.
Is the person doing the conversion familiar with the
e-learning software? Does the person doing the conversion have
prior experience with similar projects? I used Captivate
to create the e-learning product. However, prior to this
assignment, I had spent just one day "using" it. Fortunately, as
most Windows-based products, Captivate is fairly intuitive. But
there is a definite learning curve, particularly for a conversion
effort. My project was divided into two phases. The first phase was
to convert an "intro" piece, which was the first chapter of the ILT
text and was presented during the first hour of the ILT course.
Phase II was to convert the remainder of the ILT text, or the
"advanced course." The following data would not necessarily apply
to all projects, but should serve to demonstrate the learning
curve.
Additional Tips
Use bite size pieces. It shortens load time, and
allows the user to drill down to desired information after the
fact.
Where feasible, do all screen captures in 800x600 resolution. I was
surprised to find that many people prefer this resolution as it
makes the screen easier to read. So if the screens will fit, change
your monitor to 800x600 before doing screen captures.
If possible, write your own code. Many authoring tools generate a
crude HTML file. When possible, write your own HTML and use
JavaScript to make expanding lists.
|
ILT slides
(h:mm)
|
Days to convert
|
Slides per day
|
|
Phase I (Intro)
|
88
|
11
|
8
|
|
Phase 2 (Advanced Course)
|
464
|
14
|
33
|
|
Total
|
552
|
25
| |
Benefits of e-learning
The benefits of e-learning are well documented. Nevertheless, there
are two benefits for which our experience can provide hard data or
an anecdote: reduced training time and improved documentation.
Reduced training time. Here are some hard numbers
that should serve to demonstrate the reduction in training time
realized by using e-learning instead of an ILT course. (The ILT
time shown here includes instruction time only, no exercises,
breaks, or lunch.)
|
ILT Time
(h:mm)
|
E-Learning Course
(h:mm)
|
|
Phase I (Intro)
|
1:00
|
0:48
|
|
Phase 2 (Advanced Course)
|
6:45
|
2:26
|
|
Total Time
|
7:45
|
3:14
(58% savings)
|
For our case, significant reductions in training time were realized
when the bulk of the training time was spent in actual instruction.
Exercises, when included, likely require the same amount of time in
ILT or e-learning.
Improved documentation. This benefit is best
illustrated with an anecdote. Although, Caliber had been referring
to Phase I as the "intro" and Phase II as the "advanced course,"
the client actually considered calling Phase II "the missing
manual." Because the software product is highly modified for
individual installations, there is no documentation on how to do
certain tasks. However, the e-learning course was able to address
such modifications.
In addition, because we were creating the e-learning course with
Captivate, it was important to keep the clips short. Not only did
they load faster, but smaller chunks typically made content more
palatable. On the index page, the length of each clip was noted. As
one learner said, "Anyone can find time for five or ten minutes of
training." Also because the course is available on the clients'
intranet, anyone can go back and review a topic at any time.
Cost of conversion
For this course, we will address cost is a function of labor. This
should be helpful in providing similar estimates in your
organization. Of course, estimating is a dynamic process, and that
process should be reevaluated after each project. (Keep in mind
that the following data is for the conversion of an existing ILT
course with which the author was extremely familiar, and conducted
in an environment that enabled him to devote large chunks of
uninterrupted time to the project.)
|
ILT course duration in days
|
2
|
|
ILT PowerPoint slides
|
552
|
|
ILT instruction time
|
7 hrs 45 min
|
|
E-learning time
|
3 hrs 14 min
|
|
Reduction in instruction time
|
58 percent
|
|
Labor required to convert ILT to E-learning
|
28 days (224 hours)
|
|
Labor required per hour of ILT instruction
|
29 hours
|
|
Labor required per hour of E-learning
|
69 hours
|