TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: CBT v Training Redirect From:Ned Allison <ned_a -at- NS -dot- NET> Date:Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:16:12 -0600
At 10:32 AM 3/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
>It it *impossible* to build a CBT that can replace stand-up training?
E,
Maybe not "impossible" but certainly still "cost/staff" prohibitive. I've
been involved with Computer Interavtive Video Tape Training, developed for
the military and it was able to require full skills testing of the
students. Devices had to be fitted or connected in a correct order, etc.,
video was interactive and repeatable and so about as multimedia as you can
get, it required no computer specific knowledge as the system ran from
simple switch contacts in some cases. It still only reached an acceptable
level on 86% of tested trainees, and this was a military no-budget limit
deal, with motivated developers.
As an alternative question, "Why limit your organization to only ONE mode
of training?". Is it a control thing? Are you going to try to produce in
house training for a new program, job task, etc. which has just come up?
How many employees are you going to have to train before you justify custom
creation of a CBT? What happens when you have just one less than that, but
it is mission critical?
One thing in my consulting career that has stood out is that there is no
"ONE right way" for anything. Limits are damaging to organizations, and if
a way can be found to eliminate such damage, it is foolhardy not to take
it. Examine why this damage is being mandated, and see if flexibility
isn't possible, when it becomes the right persons/peoples idea.
By all means don't abandon CBT or the ability to custom create it, just be
careful not to force the solution into the system. That way lies pain and
anguish.
Ned
See you down the electron stream...-<=>- Ned
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ned Allison Principal Associate
Independent Computer Network<>Information Processing Technology Integrators
1731 Howe Avenue, M/S # 362 <> VoiceMail and FAX = (916)429-7202
Sacramento, CA 95825-2209 <> Internet E-Mail = ned_a -at- ns -dot- net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
