 |
 |
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
| 1 |
|
training has to be important to
organisation |
| 2 |
|
Trainees must recognise the potency of
elearning |
| 3 |
|
Course conversion costs should level
off |
| 4 |
|
More ASP adoption |
| 5 |
|
| |
| 3 |
| 1 |
|
oligopoly in general |
| 2 |
|
trainers and educators setting the
agenda |
| 3 |
|
the inability to try new stuff - take
risks |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 4 |
| 1 |
|
proliferation of compelling content |
| 2 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 5 |
| 1 |
|
Recognition of its contribution and its real
place |
| 2 |
|
Cost of eLearning development |
| 3 |
|
Poor quality of eLearning materials |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
| 1 |
|
lack of knowledge about learning |
| 2 |
|
short term revenue focus |
| 3 |
|
hype before substance |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 8 |
| 1 |
|
correct awareness, education |
| 2 |
|
top management commitment &
initiative |
| 3 |
|
increase budget by 20 times |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 9 |
| 1 |
|
Outdated decision-making habits in
training |
| 2 |
|
Lack of real examples of best
practices |
| 3 |
|
Alienation of human trainers |
| 4 |
|
Insufficient theorizing of human
action |
| 5 |
|
Inadequate training of
e-teachers | |
| 10 |
| 1 |
|
Management averness |
| 2 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 11 |
| 1 |
|
focus on the learning experience |
| 2 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 12 |
| 1 |
|
Subject Matter Expertise |
| 2 |
|
Accountability |
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 13 |
| 1 |
|
Exec buy-in and budget allocation |
| 2 |
|
Acceptance of elearning effectiveness
|
| 3 |
|
acceptance of ROI |
| 4 |
|
buy-in of IT as major change
project |
| 5 |
|
| |
| 14 |
| 1 |
|
Better partnerships |
| 2 |
|
Better standards |
| 3 |
|
Better e-Learning content |
| 4 |
|
Cultural issues |
| 5 |
|
| |
| 15 |
| 1 |
|
Successful Implementations! |
| 2 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 16 |
| 1 |
|
defining it more broadly |
| 2 |
|
understanding with e-l strategy is |
| 3 |
|
overcoming LMS as god |
| 4 |
|
more sophisticated, professional
buyers |
| 5 |
|
trng's history of ineffectiveness in
companies | |
| 17 |
| 1 |
|
Less hype from vendors |
| 2 |
|
More genuine interoperability |
| 3 |
|
Wider understanding of elearning |
| 4 |
|
Fear factor among stand-up trainers |
| 5 |
|
Lack of objective guidance to the
market | |
| 18 |
| 1 |
|
poorly designed materials |
| 2 |
|
more style over substance |
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 19 |
| 1 |
|
organizations valuing learning |
| 2 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
| 1 |
|
Integration with legacy systems |
| 2 |
|
low/no cost upgrades |
| 3 |
|
pricing |
| 4 |
|
features and functionality |
| 5 |
|
| |
| 22 |
| 1 |
|
Demonstrate effectiveness |
| 2 |
|
Must contribute to bottom-line |
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 23 |
| 1 |
|
ease of use |
| 2 |
|
compelling content |
| 3 |
|
learning integrated with daily work
routines |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 24 |
| 1 |
|
Ease of use |
| 2 |
|
REALLY desirable content |
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 25 |
| 1 |
|
infrastructure/bandwidth |
| 2 |
|
standards |
| 3 |
|
better design (more interactive) |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 26 |
| 1 |
|
Identifying what works in each
niche |
| 2 |
|
improving technology |
| 3 |
|
Better expectation selling |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 27 |
| 1 |
|
step by step plans for Small to medium
businesses |
| 2 |
|
see spot run documentation for
e-learning |
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 28 |
| 1 |
|
Consistent adoption of a set of
standards |
| 2 |
|
Integration of eLearning into core biz valu
chain |
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 29 |
| 1 |
|
proof of benefits |
| 2 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 30 |
| 1 |
|
Cost effectiveness must be proven |
| 2 |
|
On-line student services must match instr
services |
| 3 |
|
On-line library services must match instr
services |
| 4 |
|
College adm understand demands of on-line
environ |
| 5 |
|
Better design of eLearing tools, content,
etc. | |
| 31 |
| 1 |
|
Must optimize existing enterprise
software |
| 2 |
|
Must demonstrate true added value to
learners |
| 3 |
|
Change management issues must be
tackled |
| 4 |
|
End-users need to see the return on time
invested |
| 5 |
|
| |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
| 1 |
|
quicker content design |
| 2 |
|
more knowledgeable people involved |
| 3 |
|
better demonstration of results |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 34 |
| 1 |
|
Majority adoption of DSL bandwidth. |
| 2 |
|
Need guides for repurposing existing trng to
web. |
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 35 |
| 1 |
|
technical infrastructures that help; not
impede |
| 2 |
|
better manager&learner skills w/web &
elearning |
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 36 |
| 1 |
|
eLearning has to work |
| 2 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 37 |
| 1 |
|
managerial courage/commitment |
| 2 |
|
maybe '03 budgets will be more
hopeful |
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 38 |
| 1 |
|
wbt-only approach |
| 2 |
|
cost of solutions |
| 3 |
|
cultural divide of teachers and
trainers |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 39 |
| 1 |
|
Turn-key solutions from one vendor |
| 2 |
|
Affordable content collection |
| 3 |
|
Mindset Change in Corporations |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 40 |
| 1 |
|
lack of evaluation for effectivenss |
| 2 |
|
lack of funding for innovation |
| 3 |
|
belief that e-learning is "courses
online" |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 41 |
| 1 |
|
low-bandwidth solutions |
| 2 |
|
more accessible content (no client
install) |
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 42 |
| 1 |
|
adoption of industry wide standards |
| 2 |
|
easy-to-use compression software |
| 3 |
|
more faith vendors will stay in
business |
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 43 |
| 1 |
|
To
be aware of learning being startegic |
| 2 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 44 |
| 1 |
|
Cooperation about infrastructure (State
issue) |
| 2 |
|
Cooperation in LMS/administrative systems
|
| 3 |
|
Listen less to unserious newcomers |
| 4 |
|
Willing to learn from those who have
success |
| 5 |
|
....over
time | |
| 45 |
| 1 |
|
pedag coop metacogn potential |
| 2 |
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
| 5 |
|
| |
| 46 |
| 1 |
|
seeing it as something different than
learning |
| 2 |
|
focus on vendors/products |
| |