The way we learn is changing. In his Predictions for 2015 report, Josh Bersin states we are in an era where corporate learning is going through as much change as we witnessed when eLearning hit the scene. Corporate learning strategies have always treated learning as an event. That’s not how we learn best. We learn continuously, on the job. We learn by making mistakes and solving problems. Your learners are asking you to shift away from formal training to more focused, ad hoc learning. How do you evolve your learning strategy to adapt to this shift?

Training focuses on learning and performance improvement, but we typically only access the knowledge aspect of performance. What about emotion? To truly improve performance, training in context is essential and that includes training employees to leverage their knowledge and control their emotions.

Given the choice, many learners will choose mobile abstracts over books, YouTube DIY over lecture, single-point lessons over ILT, and JIT mobile reinforcement over day-long training. This is a very real challenge most T&D departments are facing. While they all have legacy training courses that are traditionally a day longer or more, learners today do not enjoy or benefit by these long-form training methodologies.

While universities continue to explore the new possibilities of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in establishing global brand, learning research, and innovation, corporate training has begun a deeper look into using MOOCs for their own purposes. How would a landscape of higher ed–produced MOOCs being used by corporate training benefit both types of organizations?

In 2013, SunTrust Bank began a multi-year journey to consolidate its key mortgage underwriting business applications that would enable strategic growth and improved customer service. This new way of doing business required a pioneering approach to capability building and systems training for end-user adoption of their business application.

Rapid development tools, readily available templates, mobile delivery, social media. These advancements have opened up the eLearning industry to more than just learning professionals with deep skills in both instructional design and programming. An instructor with PowerPoint skills can now quickly and cheaply develop eLearning. Although technology has improved, has instructional design followed suit, or has it been undermined by conformity and complacency?

In recent years, learning has moved closer to the workplace. Classrooms have moved out of corporate learning centers and into training rooms co-located with offices. Online learning is delivered directly to the desktop more than ever before. The next challenge is to move learning directly into the workflow. To do this, we need to move beyond course delivery and into a broader, more comprehensive, and strategic approach that focuses not just on learning, but on performance and productivity.

There are several methodologies that can be employed in training development projects, but when time, cost, and quality are not negotiable, an agile development approach may be ideal. Dairy Queen recently introduced a brand-new product line to its 6,500+ franchise organization. In preparation for this momentous rollout, Dairy Queen needed to create an interactive training program to quickly prepare thousands of franchisees and their crew on the sales and operations of an entirely new product platform for worldwide delivery.

Training employees and clients is an ongoing challenge. People are busy. Training is expensive, time consuming and usually pretty boring. Athenahealth has a wide range of clients, from physicians and nurses, to front desk staff, and medical billers. Their schedules are chaotic, they have little time to train, and their focus is on doing what they do best, helping patients. The challenge was in moving from an eLearning-heavy approach to a more context-based, hands-on, just-in-time one to meet the needs of learners in this complex environment.

The importance of social factors in learning are well established. But knowing how to best influence and impact these factors remains something of a mystery to most organizations. A number of thought-leaders have suggested you can’t do much of anything to impact social learning in the workplace. They are wrong. You can design social learning opportunities and measure their impact. Drawing on research, and from our experiences of working with some of the leading organizations in the world, we’ve developed our own social-learning playbook. Now we invite you to develop your own, based on the framework we provide.

The traditional lecture-based classroom format of corporate training can be time consuming, inefficient, and costly. A number of companies have switched to an eLearning model, which is much more cost effective but can be a difficult platform to teach concepts that require the higher forms of cognitive learning.

Technical training solutions often lack the rigor that leaders want to see when they are trying to answer the question, “Is our technical field ready?” Even when training activities and resources do require learners to go deep technically and to be challenged, the measure of learners’ readiness is too often based on attendance at an event or consumption of training assets.

You can read the statistics yourself: Bersin reports that nearly 60 percent of CLOs will enjoy an 8 percent budget increase in 2015. But so what? About what are they thrilled? What keeps them up at night?

There is a huge difference between the traditional levels of interactivity for asynchronous eLearning and interactions. Levels of interactivity delineate the mechanical complexity used during the request for proposal (RFP) and proposal stages of business development, sales, and contracting to determine scope and pricing for an eLearning project. Interactions, on the other hand, have to do with the actual design of the eLearning project to bring about the desired performance change. We have interactivity (mechanical) and interactions (instructional). How do we work with both to achieve what we want for our learners?

We’ve spent years aiming our focus at being good business partners. We build our road maps around urgent and emergent business needs. We have begun to dispel the notion of learning styles. These are all good steps. But are we getting too far away from our understanding of the learner’s experience? Understanding the needs of our business partners is useless if we don’t understand how our work will land with our learners. How can we seek to understand how the learner’s experience plays out in our learning ecosystem?