Apparently, Articulate has just launched Frontline, a product aimed at helping teams such as sales, support and IT turn their existing knowledge into structured online training WITHOUT having to involve the L&D team. Its wider message is that training creation no longer needs to sit solely with L&D or instructional designers. It’s caused quite the stir (some may say panic) in certain corners of the L&D community.

I’ve long said that creators of digital learning platforms aren’t REALLY in the L&D business. They’re in the tech business, and therefore, their goal is to sell their platform to as many people as possible. L&D teams = small market. Any team that ISN’T L&D = huge market.

But cynicism aside, I can see the attraction. Subject matter experts often know exactly where people struggle and what good performance looks like. They can also update technical content more quickly than an L&D team that has to queue every request.

Giving experts easier tools is not the problem. Confusing access to an authoring tool with the ability to design effective learning is.

Two parts to designing great learning

A subject matter expert knows the subject. A learning designer brings a different kind of expertise: identifying the performance need, deciding what people genuinely need to know, creating a brain-friendly structure, using accelerated learning techniques, building in meaningful practice, managing cognitive load and actively involving the learner in the journey, not just treating them as a passenger along for the ride.

Good learning design has never been about the whistles and bells. It’s about the fundamental purpose, structure and methods.

Experts understandably see their subject as a whole. They know the exceptions, history, terminology and technical detail, and the vast majority feels important. Their difficulty is rarely a lack of knowledge. It is deciding what somebody else needs in order to perform a particular task, at a particular level, in a particular context.

They suffer from the curse of knowledge and that’s where an impartial consultant can ask vital questions that the subject matter expert may never even consider:

• What must people be able to do differently after this?
• What do they actually need to know as opposed to simply do?
• Which mistakes matter most?
• What decisions will they need to make?
• What can be left out?
• Where will they need to practise, receive feedback or discuss judgement?
• What in the working environment will help or hinder them afterwards?

A good designer is not there to dilute the expert’s knowledge. They help to make it usable.

Learning science can’t be bolted on via a features list

Learning science is not a button that can be toggled on and off from a menu of optional features. It is central to judgement.

Managing cognitive load, for example, means considering how much unfamiliar information people can process at once. But the principle cannot tell us, without context, which technical detail is essential, what prior knowledge a particular group already has or how to explain a complex decision without oversimplifying it.

Retrieval practice can strengthen learning, but that does not mean adding a few multiple-choice questions at the end of a module will produce competent performance. The practice needs to resemble what people will actually need to retrieve, decide or do.

And when the aim is behaviour change, we need to look beyond the learning activity itself. People need the capability, opportunity and motivation to do something differently. A beautifully constructed piece of online learning cannot compensate for conflicting processes, lack of time, unhelpful systems or a manager who rewards the old behaviour.

Tools can explain useful principles well. They cannot fully understand the organisation, the audience or the performance context.

Get the best of both worlds

My biggest concern is not that SMEs will create digital resources. For updates, technical guidance, reference material and straightforward knowledge, that may be entirely appropriate. Indeed, when I deliver my ‘Expert to Enabler’ service, I WANT the SMEs to update and tweak the content to make sure it stays current and relevant. I do not expect them to write the workshops in the first place. It’s about me working to my strengths, and them working to theirs.

The greater risk seems to be that organisations will start with a slide deck or document, add an interaction or two, and assume they have replaced live learning.

A workshop is not a slide deck brought to life with a few discussions. It creates opportunities to try something, hear different perspectives, explore grey areas, make decisions, receive feedback and learn from the facilitator’s response to what is happening in the group.

That especially matters when the subject involves human judgement: management, communication, customer conversations, safety decisions, handling resistance or applying policy in a messy situation. People may need to say the words aloud, notice how another person reacts, compare approaches and adjust.

An experienced designer who has also facilitated groups can anticipate where people may become confused, sceptical, quiet, overconfident or defensive. They know that an activity which looks perfectly clear on paper may fall flat in the room. They can distinguish between interaction that merely requires a click and interaction that requires thought.

Online learning can support this work. It may introduce knowledge, provide examples, help people prepare or offer follow-up practice. Sometimes it can carry the whole requirement. But the format should follow the need, not the convenience of the tool.

The better model is partnership, not protectionism

I’m not suggesting that only qualified learning designers may create anything. That would waste valuable expertise and create unnecessary bottlenecks. SMEs should be closely involved. In many projects, they should own the accuracy, examples and real-world credibility of the learning. With the right support, they may also facilitate it themselves.

But collaboration produces a stronger result than handing either party the whole job.

The expert brings depth, credibility and experience. The designer brings impartiality, learning science, structure, challenge and an understanding of how people respond in real learning environments. Together, they can create something that is accurate without becoming overloaded, practical without becoming simplistic, and engaging without relying on gimmicks.

This is the principle behind my Expert to Enabler service. I work alongside internal experts to extract what matters, define useful outcomes and shape live, interactive training that they can deliver confidently. I take their knowledge, craft it into something that will actually deliver learning, write it in detail, and then help them to understand what I’ve done and why.

This allows them to amend with knowledge, and deliver with confidence.

A useful question for organisations

The arrival of tools such as Frontline is an opportunity to reconsider how knowledge and expertise is shared within an organisation. That is worthwhile.

The question is not, “Can our experts now create training without L&D?”

It is, “What combination of subject expertise, learning design and delivery will help people perform better?”

Sometimes the answer will be a short digital resource created by the expert. Sometimes it will be live practice and discussion that only the L&D team can deliver. Often it will be a blend. The important thing is to make that decision deliberately.

Giving more people the ability to create training could be valuable. Giving them access to experienced design partnership will make that ability far more useful.

If your organisation has experts whose knowledge needs to be shared more widely, but you want the result to be practical, interactive and genuinely usable, my Expert to Enabler service may help. Get in touch and tell me what you are trying to achieve.