Where's all the learning vendors?

Back in September Jane Hart published her 18th annual Top Tools for Learning. The fact that's she's retired (?) and still doing this is a testament to what she continues to offer learning and development. Ironically at the same time I was writing a series of articles about how to build a transformational, performance improvement driven L&D team on a low budget and using in-house technology.

Naturally I took a look at Jane's list and was happy to see that many of the tools I was talking about in my articles were the same tools on Jane's list. But something else caught my eye, "where were all the learning vendors?"

The world of corporate learning is buzzing with discussions about the latest technologies and platforms that promise to disrupt the industry. Analysts like Bersin, McKinsey and Company, Deloitte, etc., often tout the potential of emerging technologies like AI, data analytics, and enterprise platforms as the keys to future success. But when we look at the tools that learning practitioners actually use, a different picture emerges.

Now, I don't want to be accused of using only one of Jane's annual lists as my source nor do I claim that Jane's list is representative of the industry at large. But the fact is Jane's been publishing this list for 18 years and you'll see a lot of familiar Microsoft tools on the top of this list each year. These tools are chosen based on their actual use and impact in real learning environments. The 2024 list features a familiar lineup as you saw in the top picture.

But what's striking about the list is the absence of many high-profile vendors and solutions that dominate industry conferences, webinars, and reports. Where are the platforms and technologies often promoted as the future of learning? Where are the big-ticket solutions that vendors push in their endless stream of webinars and whitepapers?

The Disconnect Between Practitioner Needs and Vendor Narratives

The lack of alignment between the tools on Jane Hart’s list and the vendors frequently championed by industry voices may suggest a deeper issue in the learning technology market. Many of the tools that make it onto the Top 100 list are those that learning professionals use every day. The everyday tools are practical, accessible, and easy to integrate into existing workflows. They don’t require massive investments, extensive training, or disruptive overhaul as most of them, especially Microsoft tools, are probably being used in the organization anyway.

Meanwhile, the tools and platforms promoted by vendors are often positioned as silver bullets that will revolutionize learning and development overnight. These tools may offer sophisticated features, but they also come with significant costs, implementation challenges, and lengthy adoption processes. And while vendors may claim to deliver transformative results, many of their products don’t meet the immediate, day-to-day needs of learning practitioners.

The Top 100 list highlights tools that are adaptable and immediately useful, providing value without the vendor-driven hype. For example, tools like Microsoft Teams and Zoom have become indispensable for hybrid work environments, allowing for seamless communication and collaboration. They weren’t sold to L&D teams as groundbreaking learning solutions; they became essential because they met the real-world needs of users.

This raises an important question: If the tools being promoted aren’t making it onto a list based on practitioner votes, are these tools truly as valuable as they claim to be? Or are they simply products of effective marketing?

The Real Disruption: User-Centric Tools and Continuous Learning

The reality is that the most significant disruptions in the learning are coming from tools that support continuous learning and performance improvement without the need for heavy investment. Practitioners are increasingly favoring tools that fit seamlessly into their existing work environments—tools that are already being used by employees for purposes beyond learning.

As the conversation about learning technology continues, we must ask ourselves why the tools that practitioners find most valuable aren’t the same tools being promoted by vendors and industry analysts. It’s time to recognize that the most effective learning tools aren’t necessarily the most expensive or the most advanced—they’re the ones that solve problems directly, provide immediate value, and integrate easily into daily workflows.

But Joe, you say, what about AI tools like Chat GPT? What about them? I use some, but I pay for them out of my own pocket to help design solutions and ironically most of the colleagues I'm associated with here on LinkedIn with whom I've talked about Chat GPT are also paying for it out of pocket as they also work for small-to-mid-size companies who aren't shelling out on all things AI just yet. So, even though I use them, I still have to figure out a way to integrate what I produce into the workflow.

But let me add this about AI, Microsoft Copilot is integrated directly into MS Teams and Office, making it a natural extension of the tools employees already use for collaboration, communication, and productivity. This deep integration allows learning and development initiatives to happen seamlessly within existing workflows, fostering continuous learning and support without requiring employees to switch between disparate tools or learn entirely new systems.

If the tools you're using—or being sold—aren’t making it onto lists like Jane Hart’s Top 100, it might be time to reconsider whether they're truly serving your learning needs, or if they're just another example of vendor-driven hype.

I don't know, maybe it's just me but if we want to disrupt the $340 Billion Corporate Learning Industry, we should start by using the technology and processes the employees in our organization use in their workflow. Maybe it's time we set the direction of the market instead of vice-versa; maybe it's time for real workflow practices and solutions at our fingertips.

Thanks for reading. Until next time...