Is Learning 2.0 a long tail?

Tony Karrer has posted a very thought-provoking article about the Corporate Learning Long Tail and Attention Crisis. It's an interesting corollary to the impact that Web 2.0 and Learning 2.0 has on our learning audiences. Tony says, in part:

The list of issues [in this article] represent what can truly be considered a crisis for corporate learning organizations.  It's a crisis born of the Long Tail and the Attention Economy. ... Corporate learning functions will either continue to focus on the front of the tail and an ever smaller portion of the total information needs of knowledge workers or will look to expand into the long tail.

I agree with what Tony is saying about the deep impact that today's attention requirements is having on training. Today's learner expects on-demand, the whole on-demand, and nothing but the on-demand training resources.

This means that today's training needs are spread out more - there's less need than ever for long training that covers everything and more and more need for short bursts of information that meet the learner's requirements at the moment.

But is that really a long tail? I know that Chris Anderson would argue that everything in a marketplace has a long tail, but I think that the office organization creates a limited marketplace. The tail is lengthening and flattening - as trainers, we're under demand to produce more and more training pieces that are faster and meet more specific needs - but I don't think that the tail is infinite. We've gone from a hamster tail to a mouse tail, but there's still an end to the tail. Our learners need training that meets their needs quickly and helps them in their job. But it's limited by the needs of their job, so I think there's a limit to those needs.

Just a small addendum (and I'm open to hearing otherwise if people think it's wrong) to a main point that I heartily agree with: The learning market is changing, and all of us are facing the challenge of meeting those changes or becoming irrelevant to our audience.

Comments

[Tony Karrer]

Good post and I think I understand your point where the crux is that the - "office organization creates a limited marketplace"

There is something interesting about a smaller marketplace, but I'd claim that the spread is still very large and continually growing even within an organization.

Actually, I'd first challenge what are we counting. Your graph says "topics" - are you only counting topics that we could possibly cover through traditional means? Or are you counting all possible topics (information that a knowledge worker may need)? Clearly there's a limiting factor on the first. And I'd say the argument is almost circular.

But then your graph says that "but not here" so I may be confused.

[Beth Griese]

Hi Tony, good point about defining what we're referring to. I'm thinking of "topics" as anything that an organization's people would want to learn about for their jobs. I'm not limiting that to the "traditional means" training topics, but I do limit that to things that are job-related, which is why I think the tail has a limit.

Your original point about the crisis-level challenge this presents for us as a training industry is right on the mark either way. I'm thinking that the scope of the demands from our learners are finite and still within the means of a training department (with the help blending training programs and of the social knowledge of the company properly harnessed), rather than requiring the power of an Amazon-sized retailer to meet a near-infinite long tail of interests.

I have a feeling that doctorate theses (or at least a really interesting conference session or three) could be written about this interesting nut you've cracked.

[Dave Ferguson]

Beth and Tony: I think this is a crucial issue for people in the corporate world; it's one that relates to questions I've been mulling (or allowing to simmer on the mental stove).

I've been working in heavily regulated areas lately (e.g., pharmaceutical manufacturing). The companies have daunting collections of standard operating procedures that can specify down to the level of "wipe with an alcohol solution, starting at the top of the hopper and working down." That's because the cleaning procedure has been certified or validated; the relevant training has to comply with the SOP.

Are there other parts of the job that people need to learn? Of course -- but limited time and resources will go toward the obvious/essential/required, which I think to the client look like the parts of the tail closer to the body.

I'm glad I came across the discussion.