Tool Selected: Learning Launch

Challenge:

The question to resolve was “how to get fast the right information needed to conduct a task in the frame  our working space”.  This was the initial questions that my team in Training and Knowledge Management  collected from the different users in recent surveys. Since many years, this question has been addressed  from different perspectives and applied different solutions that, in the end, they failed to fully satisfy our  users. There is too much information that in the end, is not productive as they spend too much time to  select the right information source.

Selection:

We apply in an intuitive way, the four steps of the design thinking process “what is, what if, what wows,  what works”. We collected all the existing ways that we had to provide training/ information to users and  we analyze them in terms of the following criteria: 1) accessibility 2) speed to get the right information 3)  accuracy and updated information. When collecting feedback from users, they confirmed that they would  like a centralized system, with visual, voice and preferable examples given and that they can share and  re-use if necessary.

As mentioned in the Training video “Learning Launch Tool” by Angel Glenn, we decided to experiment rather  than building “theoretical Business Cases or ROI”. We decided to apply an Intelligent Fast Failure  approach where we were going to test/ fail/ succeed (Learning Launch). So we defined our hypothesis  and assumptions:

  in terms of value creation, we considered that users would need to reach the knowledge/  information to conduct their task correctly and fulfill most of their requirements

  in terms of execution, we wanted a quick and fast access to updated information and execution  (eg no need to login/ passwords, etc)

  in terms of dependability, we wanted to be able to manage by our team and no dependency of  other departments

  in terms of scalability, we wanted to reach in a short time (4 months) 80% of our population  (around 400 users worldwide)

We had different ideas but we retained two to test:   improve the “lessons learned” database that we  have with appropriate metadata to facilitate the research, to make it available in a centralized repository  and to update the information. The other idea we tested was to use micro-videos with a new tool that  allow us to tag the video with metadata that allows the research tool to look the inside the video in the  indexed data and that can be shared to other users with two clicks.

Application:

We tested both ideas for the “what wow/ what works”. We prepared communications and sent to the  users both tools explaining the changes and the benefits for them.

The Micro-Training video options very quickly showed that users preferred this option and data  confirmed our initial hypothesis/ expectations.  In one month, we passed from 40 connections to 200

connections and after 3 months we got more than 1000 connections that represented around 70% of the  population that at least 1 time connected to consult the micro-training video.

The first option, even if it was the improvement of the standard way that they have to use the learning  repository, was quickly replaced by the Micro-Training Videos and after 2 months, practically, abandoned.

Insight:

This was amazing as it was also recognized by other departments that contacted us to get more  information about our Micro-Training Videos and considered to join to our library and/or to develop a  similar tool. Users’ feedback was in majority (>95%) positive / very positive. The most value they found  is that combine voice recording, visual elements and the fact that the tool recognize the reach and brings  the appropriate answer to the search question.

In terms of tools, I can say that the fast launch to test was key to move forward, to accept that it can work  or it can fail and that we case that data would not confirm our expectations, we would need to change the  model if possible and eventually to abandon the test.

Regarding the first test, that we had to abandon it as the data showed that users did not adhere to the  tool, nevertheless, we did not feel “bad” or that we failed (it was not us who failed, just the idea).

Approach:

Next time, we would not hesitate to test more ideas, and to include users not only as part of a “voice of  customer” approach but also to integrate them in the design and selection of the tool. The more we  worked with them, the more they felt involved and the more we improved the service and, in the end,  the more number of connections we had.


Tool Selected : Learning Launch Challenge : The question to resolve was “ how to get fast the right information needed to conduct a task in the frame our working space ” . This was the initial questions that my team in Training and Knowledge Management collected from the different users in recent surveys . Since many years , this question has been addressed from different perspectives and applied different solutions that , in the end , they failed to fully satisfy our users . There is too much information that in the end , is not productive as they spend too much time to select the right information source . Selection : We apply in an intuitive way , the four steps of the design thinking process “ what is , what if , what wows , what works ” . We collected all the existing ways that we had to provide training/ information to users and we analyze them in terms of the following criteria : 1 ) accessibility 2 ) speed to get the right information 3 ) accuracy and updated information . When collecting feedback from users , they confirmed that they would like a centralized system , with visual , voice and preferable examples given and that they can share and re - use if necessary . As mentioned in the Training video “ Learning Launch Tool ” by Angel Glenn , we decided to experiment rather than building “ theoretical Business Cases or ROI ” . We decided to apply an Intelligent Fast Failure approach where we were going to test/ fail/ succeed ( Learning Launch ) . So we defined our hypothesis and assumptions :  in terms of value creation , we considered that users would need to reach the knowledge/ information to conduct their task correctly and fulfill most of their requirements  in terms of execution , we wanted a quick and fast access to updated information and execution ( eg no need to login/ passwords , etc )  in terms of dependability , we wanted to be able to manage by our team and no dependency of other departments  in terms of scalability , we wanted to reach in a short time ( 4 months ) 80 % of our population ( around 400 users worldwide ) We had different ideas but we retained two to test : improve the “ lessons learned ” database that we have with appropriate metadata to facilitate the research , to make it available in a centralized repository and to update the information . The other idea we tested was to use micro - videos with a new tool that allow us to tag the video with metadata that allows the research tool to look the inside the video in the indexed data and that can be shared to other users with two clicks . Application : We tested both ideas for the “ what wow/ what works ” . We prepared communications and sent to the users both tools explaining the changes and the benefits for them . The Micro - Training video options very quickly showed that users preferred this option and data confirmed our initial hypothesis/ expectations . In one month , we passed from 40 connections to 200 connections and after 3 months we got more than 1000 connections that represented around 70 % of the population that at least 1 time connected to consult the micro - training video . The first option , even if it was the improvement of the standard way that they have to use the learning repository , was quickly replaced by the Micro - Training Videos and after 2 months , practically , abandoned . Insight : This was amazing as it was also recognized by other departments that contacted us to get more information about our Micro - Training Videos and considered to join to our library and/or to develop a similar tool . Users ’ feedback was in majority ( > 95 % ) positive / very positive . The most value they found is that combine voice recording , visual elements and the fact that the tool recognize the reach and brings the appropriate answer to the search question . In terms of tools , I can say that the fast launch to test was key to move forward , to accept that it can work or it can fail and that we case that data would not confirm our expectations , we would need to change the model if possible and eventually to abandon the test . Regarding the first test , that we had to abandon it as the data showed that users did not adhere to the tool , nevertheless , we did not feel “ bad ” or that we failed ( it was not us who failed , just the idea ) . Approach : Next time , we would not hesitate to test more ideas , and to include users not only as part of a “ voice of customer ” approach but also to integrate them in the design and selection of the tool . The more we worked with them , the more they felt involved and the more we improved the service and , in the end , the more number of connections we had .