With COVID-19 forcing more and more training online, L&D departments are inundated with urgent requests for training. In trying to meet these demands with what might seem to be suddenly inadequate resources, it is difficult to maintain a high-quality output. How can we balance quality and urgency?
As we know from our experience pre-COVID-19, there are those in our organizations who enthusiastically embrace eLearning and those who find every possible reason (or excuse) to avoid it. With the onsite training option removed for the foreseeable future, at least in most locations, more people are being forced to try eLearning than ever before. Though none of us would have wished COVID-19 upon us, I, for one, am excited about the newfound, even if reluctant, openness to online learning.
A knock-on effect of this reality has meant that those of us in L&D are inundated with requests to speed up existing course development projects, create new courses that needed to be ready yesterday, train new facilitators, update systems, and much more. In trying to meet these demands with what might seem to be suddenly inadequate resources, it is difficult to maintain high-quality output, at least in terms of what we did before.
While compromises may be necessary for the short term, I wonder about the long-term consequences. In an emergency or even crisis mode, it may not be popular to think long term, but it is important, as the decisions we make now will impact us and others in the future. Though we can hypothesize about many likely or unlikely consequences, positive or negative, I have a particular one in mind. Might it be possible that resistance to online learning could increase if the colleagues who were already resistant to online learning now have less than positive experiences? Could they become even more entrenched in their onsite preferences post-COVID-19? It is one thing to resist something you have never tried and quite another to resist something after an unhelpful experience.