1
Structured and Just-in-Time (JIT) Learning Are Complementary
- The group converged on a clear view: it’s not structured vs. JIT, it’s structured and JIT. Most orgs offer a “buffet” — prescribed paths alongside on-demand resources for different moments of need.
- What JIT means varies by persona and seniority. For salespeople, it’s a 4-minute clip in the CRM before a client call; for consultants, on-demand material alongside deeper credentialing. Entry-level hires need prescribed paths; senior employees self-navigate.
- Structured programs still win for skill mastery and practice. Live formats work best when the goal is applying a skill, not just understanding it — learners benefit from each other.
- The biggest risk of over-indexing on JIT: fragmentation. Too many bite-sized pushes create distraction rather than learning.
2
AI in L&D: Real Traction in Specific Use Cases, Still Largely Experimental
- Almost everything is still in experimentation mode — the landscape is evolving so fast that “you don’t create a tool and then deploy and forget.”
- Where traction is emerging: AI content creation, feedback on written & video submissions, and conversational chatbots for quick pre-meeting prep.
- Personalization is the broader AI prize: adaptive assessments that adjust to individual gaps, content tailored by role, and — further out — modality preferences that support neurodiverse learners.
- Key limitation today: AI defaults to positive reinforcement. That is useful for exploration and casual learning, but it’s not yet reliable enough for formal, credentialed programs where consistent evaluation matters.
3
Proving L&D Impact Remains the Hardest Problem
- Attribution is the universal frustration. Leadership always asks: “We have thousands of people certified — what does that mean for our client?”
- One approach: digital credentials validated by managers and SMEs give concrete, human-verified data for talent identification, project staffing, and career development — without requiring expensive ROI studies.
- Manager pre/post feedback surveys are an under-utilized but promising instrument. Qualitative signals from the people closest to the learner are often more credible to business stakeholders than aggregate completion data.
- A practical 3-step attribution framework: (1) Did the employees complete the training? (2) Did they apply the knowledge — e.g., engaging in C-suite conversations, using industry language? (3) Do those who apply it achieve better business outcomes?
4
Competing for Learner Attention Is the Underlying Meta-Challenge
- Employees are pulled in too many directions at once: compliance training, business unit requirements, functional mandates, and their own career goals — all competing for the same hours.
- The solution isn’t more content — it’s a cleaner employee experience. Learners need a coherent journey with a clear line of sight to “where are we heading and how is the organization investing in me” — not a growing pile of assets.
- Persona matters here too. Sales teams want speed and context (get me ready for this call). Consulting teams are more willing to invest in depth and credentials. Designing for both with the same infrastructure is the hard part.
- Non-mandated learning is an uphill battle. Without executive sponsorship, “it’s very hard for anyone to pay attention” — regardless of content quality. Mandate is often a prerequisite for adoption at scale.