u/deceivinglycrazychee

A beautifully designed course that doesn't change behavior is a beautiful failure. I've seen teams obsess over visual polish, animation quality, and voice-over tone while building courses that have no mechanism for reinforcement, no connection to manager accountability, and no plan for what happens after the learner closes the window. Content quality matters but it's table stakes. The real design challenge is the ecosystem around the course — the nudges, the practice opportunities, the performance support at the moment of need. I'd rather ship something visually average that's embedded in a real behavior change plan than a gorgeous course that lives alone on an LMS. Agree or push back?

Eight years ago I would have taken a training request at face value and started designing. Now the first thing I do is ask the requestor: "If this training works perfectly, what will people actually do differently on Monday morning?" Most of the time they struggle to answer it, which tells you everything about whether the training will work.

That single question has killed more unnecessary courses than any formal needs analysis framework I've used — not because frameworks aren't valuable, but because this question cuts straight to outcomes in a way that non-L&D stakeholders immediately understand. What's your go-to question for scoping a training request?

i start strong with new topics, then lose motivation after like a week or two.
anyone figured out how to keep going?