Is there a better way for corporate learning buyers and vendors to do business?

Martin Couzins

I saw a post on LinkedIn the other day by Martin Couzins and, after a few days’ reflection, have a few thoughts.

Customer Education
I’m not entirely sure that people in learning and development know what they want to buy. This is not a criticism; there is simply SO MUCH STUFF which can be purchased, knowing what will work best, in an individual context, is incredibly confusing. A few years ago it was VR/AR. In the last decade it has also been gamification, social, responsive, mobile, personalised, blended, curated, virtual, etc. That presents a few issues.

Firstly, are the vendors experts in those areas? I see lots of vendors ‘piggy-backing’ trends and developing innovations into marketable product. That isn’t wrong in any way – that’s how we develop products. Understanding a product fully from its design to deployment means understanding how it’s crafted, how it’s inspired and, most importantly, the pros AND the cons.

Secondly, if buyers are solely looking at what vendors say, they’ll not see the whole story. Independent research, with no editorial bias can be hard to find. Buyers need to know which sources they can trust for truly independent thought.

The language we use
Language is always changing and it seems as if there is a move towards simpler descriptions of what we do. This makes perfect sense but leads us onto paths where we conflate and interchangeably use different terms. For example, what’s the difference between induction and onboarding? I have a definition but is what I believe the same as the people I work with. Similarly, is that the same as what a vendor supplies? There may be functions I would expect to be switched on a platform before a user starts with an organisation (onboarding), that are unavailable if these functions are labelled induction (post start date).

Are you collaborating or cooperating?
There is a very subtle difference between collaboration and cooperation; collaboration has a shared objective, whereas cooperation has aligned, parallel, sympathetic but different objectives. There needs to be a partnership between the vendor and buyer which has, at its heart, a shared objective. Without it, there will always be a distance between the product and the organisation using it. An example would be in the data and reporting space. There are many vendors who can produce data for evaluation – what if the buyer’s preference is information for evaluation? The need to achieve contextualised data, relevant to the person accessing it, needs to be discussed with the vendor so a shared objective in terms of reporting can be produced.

There is also a way through this and that’s to use consultants like me. I’ve spoken with a few people before about this and consultants are in a brilliant place to be able to work with both groups. We are included at (most) events, conferences, and exhibitions and are regularly asked to support awards. We get asked to add our voice to what is happening in the market and profession and have knowledge and insight. Experience of working with a range of vendors means we can recommend providers. For information I don’t get paid ANY introduction fee, commission or payment for introduction of potential clients. and will not work with providers on this basis. Buyers I speak with know I have integrity and am working, as far as I can, without bias.

What do you think? How would you respond to Martin’s question? Let me know in the comments.