So I’m building a product that sort of helps the L&D teams, basically a tool that helps you make product videos and more with screen recordings, but here’s the thing, I’m looking to solve a more real and challenging problem in this domain, I need guidance and advice from some real L&D folks on what direction should I take this product to, anyone here, willing to help me out? Happy to even pay for your time

I'm three years in and ready to push for a senior title, but I'm struggling to build the business case for it. In other functions — sales, engineering, marketing — impact has cleaner numbers. In L&D I can show completion rates and Kirkpatrick Level 1 scores, but everyone knows those don't prove much about actual performance change.

How have people in this field made a compelling case for promotion when the metrics are fuzzy? Did you tie your work to business outcomes retroactively, or build measurement in from the start? I want to walk into this conversation with something more than "the feedback was positive."

I have noticed some students are totally silent during regular lessons but then come in when the activity seems more natural or low pressure.

Sometimes simple things like small group challenges, picking a side for a debate or explaining something to a partner spark way more discussion than expected.

Meanwhile, some “fun” activities I spent a lot of time planning got almost no response.

What kind of classroom interaction do you find reliably brings quieter students into the conversation?

This is a phrase I see come up a lot on company surveys. From my L&D corner of the company, what can I do to help? I'm currently in the middle of writing up a Learning Culture proposal (because right now, the learning culture is pretty dismal), and would like to incorporate aspects that might help employees feel like they have the time they need to take trainings and continuously improve.

Hi Hivemind,

As our organisation continues to grow globally, so does the need to make our learning content more scalable, accessible, and consistent across regions. For our L&D team, this means one thing: we need to significantly improve how we deliver e‑learning in multiple languages, without increasing workload exponentially. We’ve been exploring solutions, but we’re running into some challenges...

I’d love to tap into the collective expertise of this community to learn from your experiences!

We are looking for tools or approaches that allow us to:

• Deliver e‑learning in multiple languages at scale
• Use high-quality AI translation (all-in, no credit-based models)
• Maintain one English source file, where updates automatically cascade to all translations
• Manually review and adjust translations per language where needed

So far, this aligns with what many modern authoring tools promise. But...our requirements go a bit further.

1. Screenshots and visual content

While text translation is increasingly well supported, visual content remains a bottleneck.

• Screenshots remain in the original language
• Many tools don’t allow easy per-language image variations
• Recreating screenshots per language is time-consuming and hard to maintain
• We use a tool to create HTML5 demos that we embed in our e-learning (these demos are hosted outside our authoring tool); text on the tooltips is translated automatically, but the HTML screenshots are not.

For us, this directly impacts the learner experience.

2. SCORM packaging and maintenance

Ideally, we want:

• All languages delivered in a single SCORM package
• Real-time updates across languages, without republishing or overwriting the SCORM file

This would drastically improve maintainability and reduce operational overhead and the chance of errors.

3. Bonus challenge (and big win if solved!)

One of our biggest time investments today is recreating demos and screenshots for each language.

In an ideal world, we would:

• Automatically translate text within screenshots
• Or use HTML5-based demos that can dynamically adapt to different languages

I’m curious to hear from fellow L&D professionals:

• Are you using tools that successfully address (most of) these challenges?
• Have you found workarounds that make this process more efficient?
• Are there lesser-known tools or emerging solutions we should explore?

Even partial solutions or lessons learned would be incredibly valuable.

I have seen that sometimes more branching, animations, interactions and choices can actually make learners more lost than more engaged.

Some of the easiest experiences that I created ended up having the best response from the learners because everything was more clear and easy to follow along.

Now all I keep thinking is where people draw the line between “interactive” and “overdesigned”.

Have you ever dumbed down a course and seen better engagement?

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?

I’m curious if others feel this too. As SME, I paticipated to the creation of serie of trainings. I was suprised to see that creating the content is not always the slowest part anymore. With AI, outlines, scripts, quiz questions, summaries, and even scenario ideas can be generated pretty quickly. But turning that into a real learning experience still feels messy.

1. You start with SME notes or documents.
2. Then you draft the course structure.
3. Then you build the slides.
4. Then you create interactions.
5. Then you rewrite feedback.
6. Then you test branching logic.
7. Then you check layouts.
8. Then you export to SCORM.
9. Then you upload to the LMS.
10. Then you test tracking.
11. Then you revise everything again after SME feedback.

And looks every step seems to happen in a different tool. For me, the biggest pain is not “creating an activity.” It is keeping the whole course coherent while moving between tools, formats, exports, and review cycles.

Is this also your experience? Where does your workflow usually slow down the most?

Curious how organizations here approach mentoring programmes.

Do you primarily run mentoring inwardly-using internal leaders/employees as mentors or outwardly, by bringing in external mentors, coaches, or industry experts?

And how structured is the programme in practice? Do you formalize matching, goals, session cadences, tracking etc., or keep it more organic?

Would love to hear what’s actually working well right now.

My company provides an annual education budget that is "use it or lose it." You have to submit your certificate of completion by EOB on the last day of the period, or the cost is deducted from next year's budget.

One year, I had a bit of budget left and started searching business school catalogs for options. It was such a tedious process that I actually gave up, and the money went to waste.

This made me wonder how others handle this, and it reminded me of marketplaces like Booking or Airbnb.

So, I started a side project to unify business school catalogs into a single marketplace, allowing people to easily search, filter, and compare programs.

I'd love your honest feedback on it and whether what I'm building makes sense.

I've been working on this for 5 months and am already gaining some traction on Google. This isn't just a weekend project; I'm taking it seriously.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to share the link directly in the post, so I will add it later in the comments if permitted!

L&D is under increasing pressure to demonstrate impact, but some metrics are harder to validate than others.
Please select the option which is correct.

Option 1: Business value of learning
Option 2: Behaviour shift after training
Option 3: ROI of workforce training
Option 4: Learning applied on the job

Share your thoughts.

I’m starting to think the future of digital learning may shift away from giant linear courses toward smaller interactive learning objects. Instead of: 1-hour modules, long slide sequences, massive exports, we may see: reusable simulations, decision activities, adaptive exercises, contextual practice blocks. Feels closer to how people actually learn during work. It can be also inserted any time in people journey and not only during formal trainings !

Please let me know your thoughts

Maybe it's just me, but internal training feels harder than it should be.

Like there's usually plenty of recordings, docs, guides, etc., but it doesn't really become a clear path for new hires. More often than not, they feel like they're left to "figure things out on their own" or repeatedly ask the same questions.

Is this a sign that current training materials aren't great? A process problem? I've been researching platforms like Honen that work towards organizing knowledge from organizations into more structured training programs, but I'm curious how other teams are handling this.

I'm a one-person department and have been asked to create and facilitate a soft skills program (virtual live). I can research (and intuit) what this can look like, but figured I'd start here since I've never created (or attended) one of these before.

Some of the topics I was thinking about (as relevant to my company) were things like active listening, interpersonal communication, communicating with impact, and the like.

As you might imagine, I'm getting stuck with ensuring the sessions are engaging and interactive/full of practice. Any advice for making something like active listening or interpersonal communication really engaging and impactful? I was planning to create the content myself (after doing the research), but if there are any off the shelf recommendations, I would be open to that, too.

I was recently looking back at some of our L&D data from the last quarter, and it hit me just how much we still rely on the standard roleplay scenario. You know the one: two people who sit three desks away from each other pretend to be a skeptical buyer and a determined rep while everyone else watches and tries not to look at their phones.

It’s often referred to as the "Cringe Gap" that awkward space where the training is technically happening, but no one is actually learning because they’re too busy being self-conscious.

The Reality of the Safe Space Problem

We talk a lot about creating a safe space for failure, but in traditional face-to-face roleplay, failure feels social, not educational. If a junior rep freezes up in front of their manager, that’s not a "learning moment" to them, it’s a core memory of embarrassment.

I’ve seen a few interesting shifts lately in how teams are trying to bridge this gap:

The Avatar Effect: There’s some fascinating research on how people are actually more honest and take more risks when they are represented by an avatar. When you aren't you, the fear of looking stupid disappears.

AI-Driven Feedback Loops: We are finally moving away from subjective "I liked your tone" feedback toward actual data. Platforms like Virtway are doing some cool things with immersive AI roleplay where reps can practice against different buyer personas in a 3D environment. The takeaway for me is that the AI doesn't get tired of practicing the same objection 50 times, and it removes that layer of human judgment during the messy "learning" phase.

The "Gamified" Burnout: On the flip side, a big problem I’m seeing is the over-gamification of L&D. If the training feels too much like a mobile game, the "stickiness" of the lesson vanishes. The goal shouldn't be to get a high score; it should be to handle a rejection without a cortisol spike.

The Friction Points: The biggest hurdle I’m finding right now isn't the technology it's the adoption. It’s hard to convince a legacy sales director that their team should spend 20 minutes in a virtual environment instead of just hitting the phones.

But the math is starting to change. If a rep burns a lead because they weren't prepared for a specific objection, that cost is tangible. If they burn that same lead in a simulation, the cost is zero.

Our company creates all their own softwares. Most are web based. We have something called a “test environment” but I can’t use it for training unfortunately. Looking for a way to create some basic simulation, preferably in a quiz type format. I don’t even know how to start my search for this when it comes to corporate compliance and approval

Before I build anything now I write a single page that covers: the performance gap we're addressing, who the learners are, what success looks like, and what the course will and won't cover. I send it for approval before touching any authoring tool. It sounds like extra work but it consistently surfaces disagreements about scope before I've invested 40 hours in a build.

The best part is it gives me something to point to when scope creep happens mid-project. "That's a great idea — it wasn't in the approved brief so let's discuss whether it changes our timeline." Stakeholders respect the process a lot more when they've already signed off on the plan. Anyone else using something similar?

I sent my first full course draft to a subject matter expert last week and got back "this looks great, nice work!" which told me absolutely nothing. I have no idea if the content is accurate, if I'm missing anything critical, or if the scenarios I built reflect what actually happens on the job.

I don't want to be annoying or seem like I'm doubting them, but I genuinely need more than a thumbs up. Is there a way to structure the review request that gets SMEs to engage with the content more critically?

Recently I have been realizing how much time can be spent rebuilding the same learning activities over and over again.

Even if the basic structure is similar I still find myself changing layouts, rewriting interactions, changing feedback and reorganizing flow for different topics or learners.

Sometimes it feels like the real learning design takes less time than rebuilding the activity itself.

I have been wondering how others do this without the courses becoming repetitive.

Do you tend to reuse and adapt activity structures or do you prefer to create new interactions for each course?