IIn October 2024, I identified what I saw/believed would be the trends to watch in 2025.
However, while the year has not yet been completed, I looked into the crystals I found on the ground.
You are here, I surmise, to find out what those latest trends are, and here they come, just like the unlimited fries at Red Robin (a US chain that charges extra for impossible meat—plant-based).
Trend 1
Who are you?
Clarity from vendors is a trend I consistently advocate for, as it empowers you to make informed decisions.
Who are you?
This asks who the vendor is from the standpoint of what they are trying to say and validate.
If a vendor has to hum and ha about this, they have no idea.
I’ve talked to vendors who show me all these exceptional capabilities and the names of their clients.
Great, but that doesn’t answer my question.
Who are you?
I won’t mention one vendor’s name, but at a trade show, they presented all this marketing stuff and spun an amazing tale, but for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out who they were because it was all jumbled.
A vendor should know – it is as simple as that.
If they can’t answer without a three-minute soliloquy, then trust me; they have no idea, either.
Trend 2
AI Skills mapping
AI skills mapping to either job opportunities (more on that in a second, okay a few seconds), mapping to content tied to skills tied to your learning journey (this one I like).
The skills mapping is a huge pain in, you know what, with you (uh, overseeing L&D or Training or even HR) having to bring in other stakeholders (you do not want to do this) or being pushed over by some other department (another yuck).
Then it is just the time you have to spend to do this.
That is the biggest gripe I hear, and it is valid.
AI can change all that, depending on the prompt.
I think too many systems ignore the prompt window (an important key). By having you select X skills and Y whatever, the AI outputs the skills recommended or required or the person is lacking or has, with the content or playlist or whatever—yep, even career opportunities, if a vendor offers them. The ‘prompt’ here refers to the initial input or query that triggers the AI’s response.
Anyway, the learning journey piece – think learning path – old-school term, is the crux here.
I find vendors lack the three parts—skills mapped to content (the content piece is relevant), to the learning journey (relevant) based on the prompt, and to continued prompts.
Nobody gets it perfect out of the gate unless you are very specific, which many people are not—because they are not familiar with how prompts work with AI.
Trend 3
The performance we can go. The performance we can go.
High Ho, Performance, we are going. (Use the tune from Snow White. I attempted it – probably poorly)
Employee Development – another word for performance management
Training Management – which means a 100% scheduling platform – Training Orchestra is the premium here.
Talent Management—Let’s take this back to the 1990s and early 2000s. You want legacy? Here it is. ‘Legacy’ in this context refers to the traditional or established practices in Talent Management that are still in use today.
Are you unaware of what legacy means?
There’s no need to look it up – it’s dated and old.
Performance Management, on its own, doesn’t tell me the real story.
What am I supposed to do here?
What is the angle, and how does it benefit me, the learner, not you, running L&D?
The key piece, which way too many vendors miss, is the term ‘learning’ in that statement.
Very few vendors include it, yet PM and even Talent Management recognized learning as the cash cow – the giant Dinosaur in the room.
I won’t mention the vendor who pitched in the 2000s. They were an LMS, yet privately admitted to me—when I asked them, “Aren’t you really a performance management system?”—that they said yes.
Did they tell the buyer? Nope.
If you are doing performance management, the word “learning” has to be there. I mean, you can only go so far with skills development for a job or opportunity—i.e., project manager—without having a way to identify those skills, rather than relying on Sarah, who says their skill in project management is a five out of five.
How do you know?
Hence, that learning-content side of the house.
One vendor who does a very good job of mentioning flat out that they are a performance management learning system is Acorn, which has as its product moniker Acorn PLMS.
I’m pretty confident that if I rumble over there, I can figure out what the “L” stands for.
The system matches all desired items in such a performance management learning system.
See how I added learning to the piece rather than just saying performance management?
I see one trend here around the old legacy term PM/TM: the leveraging of mentoring right into it.
Do you want to drop the mic here?
Add it.
Because it takes everything you are doing or want to do, especially if you are angling the jobs/opportunities/career aspect in your system.
Skills development encapsulates mentoring, which taps into career growth and only takes you so far without the mentoring side.
Or you want someone in a leadership development program, which could lead to higher career aspirations.
Skills – Coach – Development – focus on specific skills to be coached on – career growth (in theory).
Learning exists in all places.
Mentoring and coaching aren’t interchangeable, but if you see coaching as the same as mentoring, that’s okay.
Just as folks claimed to see a difference between Pepsi and Coke.
If you can’t tell the difference, get to the doctor ASAP – you have lost your taste buds.
Trend 4
AI and L&D confusion
This is a big one because it involves two sides of the coin.
On the one hand, there are people in L&D, Training, and HR who are still in the dark about the whole AI experience and are, in many ways, not seeing the quick picture, let alone the big picture.
The reality is that AI is going to play a significant role.
It is just the beginning, but it will be a game-changer in a year from now and beyond.
If done correctly, this plays into learning and training – we are just not there yet.
On the other hand, there is some knowledge around AI, which vendors are tapping into by making statements that are either confusing, not fully accurate, or give off a perception that it will align strongly with what you are doing or want to do.
Yes, some vendors get it, but I see many vendors who make claims and statements that are questionable at best.
Another issue I am seeing is that people in L&D, Training, HR, and other departments see the value and relevance of AI for their employees but ignore it for clients, customers, members, and any other external relations.
The latter is a concern.
The former is relevant; however, the information is not being presented and updated to their employees, so the idea that everything AI produces is accurate is false.
I used ChatGPT research to provide information on a topic in a recent test.
The info it presented included cites.
It seemed impressive enough; however, some citations did not exist on the web page it noted.
Equally, there were citations in journal articles that the writer never presented.
Here is part of the angle.
Unless someone goes and checks each citation – highly unlikely, even at the university level, the assumption will be 100% accurate.
On a further test, I added my PDF – thus content seeking to extract and go to key points on another topic.
Result?
85% accurate.
I provide these data points to show that presenting this information to your employees in some course or content is essential.
This is the only time I would ever say that assigning is necessary.
The latest trend shows that less than 1% of vendors who have AI in their system state that it may create fake or false information, and you should verify the information before accepting it.
I recall a vendor who told me that none of their clients said this was inaccurate, and none of their employees told the L&D people it was wrong.
Thus, it is 100% accurate.
Think about that.
Trend 5
Upskilling and Opportunities
If there was a trend in quarter one, it was opportunities.
This appears even in systems not focused on PM, let alone stating talent development.
How it is being seen is similar as a whole.
- The learner has the skill or skills; if they lack them, they can take content to skill up (however, the latter doesn’t appear in every system, as it relates to “content.”
- Learner’s skills match an opportunity (some vendors list a percentage by it or identify the strengths of specific skills)
- The learner sees the opportunities (some vendors list all the opportunities, even if the learner doesn’t have the skill set(s) for them)
- Learner applies for that opportunity.
- Manager reviews the opportunity (This I find is weird because often it is the current manager, not the hiring person. In the current manager reviews the opportunity item, they either accept or deny)
- Assumption opportunity is a go – it goes to the hiring manager (For those systems that do not require the current manager to accept or deny)
- The hiring manager or whomever either accepts the learner to go to the next step or denies it (often, the learner does not see the results. Rather, it is offline)
- The approach angles not to those higher up, seeking opportunities that may align to them, say, director, senior director, VP, and so forth (I haven’t seen this in any of the opportunities, although I assume there has to be at least one system that offers it)
- Some systems use AI in this aspect, ignoring fake or fake information and AI bias – an issue. Equally, some states require specific approaches – i.e., applying for a job, even if it is internal. There are vendors unaware.
How it should work, which, again, I have yet to see.
- Learner’s percentage of skill knowledge – Manager reviews the skill and validates or not (the latter is common, but the rate isn’t)
- The assumption automatically that the learner’s skills or skill is 100% accurate – If I am a manager with 50 people or more under me, am I going to know the skill proficiency of my employees, especially if they are in various job roles on topics I am unfamiliar with?)
- Content recommendation to boost that skill (I have seen this part, but again, even if listed, it doesn’t state the recommendation percentage, and more than standard, it becomes an assigned piece, which shouldn’t be the case. We are talking about learning and training, not you are a robot and here is a widget, so learn it – without any insight into what you already know parts of the widget)
- Interests are often ignored even though systems have them – not all; it isn’t common.
- There is never a skill for empathy, yet in a study I did with CEOs, the most common requirement they sought was empathy.
- A pre-assumption that if someone is perfect for that opportunity, they will either get that opportunity or go to the next step.
I know this is not the case, but nowhere does it state that.
Trend 6
This isn’t so much a trend, but it does present a reality that is vastly being seen with vendors who have a built-in content creator—they often list it under the legacy term of “authoring tool.”
It’s becoming increasingly evident that many course creators lack the fundamental skills required to build a practical and effective course.
Thus, the course/content they publish is, well, bad.
Then, the learner sees it and complains that it is terrible and boring, which leads the person overseeing the department to believe that this is the system’s issue when, in fact, it is theirs—i.e., whoever is creating the content.
It’s imperative that every vendor with a content creator provides the necessary instructional design basics for creating an effective and engaging course.
Or you could use simple skills (hey, something that is listed as upskilling in a system for others) to create content.
Here is my post on how to do this.
However, I will challenge every vendor with a built-in content creator, whether they are using AI – which still requires basic knowledge around effective content development – that is engaging.
The challenge?
Provide this information, and I will post it on a separate page on my blog.
You can link to it on your site – which virtually no vendor does, or create a PDF and have me link to that.
What the person sees when they come to my page is your name and the steps you provide for effective content creation.
Your name and steps.
This will become a PDF on my side, where people can download it for their own use or come back to my page when the vendor sends information due to an update.
It’s that simple.
My prediction is that less than ten vendors will do it.
If a vendor is launching their content creator, then when launched provide the information OR send it before hand, with the launch date.
If the vendor wants to show it as a video, I still ask for some text steps, and the video should be videos.
Text is relevant because some people cannot host them, nor will they watch them.
If you wish, take screenshots with the text, and that will be published.
Let’s truly see who is committed to you when it comes to content
creation.
Bottom Line
Trends.
If you watch, you will see.
If your identify, you will modify.
And learning is really about synthesis.
Knowledge driven not by hypothesis, rather by action.
Action, these trends show
Are here and by recoginizing them,
You can say
Okay.
And decide what you will do next.
It’s always about your choices.
Always.
E-Learning 24/7