What a timely topic. I was asked the exact question yesterday when I presented to a group of potential clients and my answer was right in line with your points. My honest answer was that it is easier, quicker, less work and less expensive. Also creating interesting engaging content requires understanding the content and the audience. In most instances that requires a strong relationship between the content developer (most often an eLearning vendor) and the subject matter expert/s (client). You also need an eLearning developer/vendor who understands the value of having an initial needs assessment and brainstorming session to determine what the objectives of the course are and how these can be achieved. Some business users/customers are scared off by the process as they see it as too time consuming and detailed. Developing a creative course also requires the business users/client to think outside the box and use creative/fun graphics and some humor – many companies are too conservative/PC to think outside the box.

Keep up the good work,

Quintus.

Seen on a wall recently: “If you’re thinking outside the box, the box is still defining your thinking.”

I like Brian Eno’s Oblique Strategies: http://stoney.sb.org/eno/oblique.html

Today’s was “Faced with a choice, do both.”

It seems that compliance courses are even less likely to be done creatively, possibly because they exist mainly because of fear (of lawsuits, regulatory trouble, etc. etc.). When we’re motivated by fear we’re even less likely to consider creative solutions.

One thought I have is that the first clever idea that comes into your head (or at least into mine)… isn’t. Boredom can stem from predictability. If I never see that 9-dot, think-outside-the-box puzzle again, I’ll be much happier. And I deeply believe the training world doesn’t need another Jeopardy game. [Especially if you're not working on recall.]

A related idea: don’t be too literal. Even if you choose a Jeopardy format, the Constitution does not require answering with a question, nor do you have to let the winner have the first shot at the next question.

The heart of the matter is: how can I encourage a person to interact with the material? I worked on mandatory ethics training for a federal agency. Fortunately, the ethics attorney who was my chief source believed in using difficult cases, rather than ones in which a vendor offers someone a suitcase of unmarked $20 bills. In our vignettes, possible responses included what I think of as highly orthodox correct answers, perfectly acceptable correct answers, and plausible but unacceptable answers.

The range of responses, coupled with the individual’s ability to cycle back and see feedback for other responses, went a long way toward the “don’t do this or else” approach.