Courseware Satisfaction and the Training Business

Published 24 July 08 01:47 PM | JeffHora 

In my post last week I laid out the framework for a discussion around satisfaction with Microsoft Learning Instructor-Led Training (ILT) courseware. Several have certainly taken a look at this “entry” post, but no one has yet commented, so let me set this portion up by centering the view today on the Microsoft Certified Partner for Learning Solutions (or CPLS) customers.

There are well over 1,300 CPLS's globally. Some make training their sole business, others include it with a number of service offerings. Some specialize on a particular audience, like software developers or information workers. Some focus on a particular stack of Microsoft technologies, like Microsoft SharePoint technologies or Microsoft Platform and Management technologies. However their overall business is structured, wherever they are located, these Partners make training on Microsoft technologies using Official Microsoft Learning Products (OMLP) at least part of their business. A number of things influence their satisfaction with courseware, but the most basic is how attractive it is to their customers. Has Microsoft Learning developed the value proposition for OMLP and communicated it clearly enough to the CPLS community that they can likewise express it to their customers? To the degree we can do this, we can better enable their success, which I’ll bet makes them more satisfied with the courseware itself.

There are a LOT of other factors and components of their relationship with Microsoft overall and Microsoft Learning in particular which directly impact the satisfaction with us; however when looking more narrowly at the courseware itself I believe that, to the degree OMLP can help their training business grow and thrive, they are more satisfied with the courseware itself. I would invite CPLS stakeholders, MCT's, customers of CPLS’s and students who have attended classes that were taught using OMLP to relate their experiences here, particularly as they relate to the courseware itself (although if you want to comment on a particularly GREAT MCT, that would be OK too!).

Filed under: ,

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

# Thomas Lee said on July 29, 2008 6:26 AM:

CPLSs are of two broad types: MOC/MS only shops, and those for whom MOC is just part of the business. Their needs and their expectations are similar, but different.

Monoculture CPLSs are in a commodity business. There are so many CPLSs (at least here in the UK) that thee businesses compete heavily with other. But they probably know nothing else - to some degree they get what they get, and deal with it.

CPLSs with multiple programmes see the quality of other vendors, and sometimes have a differnet (higher) expectation from Microsoft.

But both CPLSs types rely on the MCT to bridge the gap between what MSL delivers and what the delegates expect/want/need.

While the marketing support is useful, don't confuse marketing with MOC quality. You can send out all the marketing bumf, but if what's in the classroom does not match the marketing promises then the delegates know. Fortunately for MSL, the MCT can often bridge the gap between the marketing promise and the delivery reality. Personally, I'd prefer NO marketing and great courseware than the other way around.

Some of the latest courses (Vista, OCS for example) are just plain poor. No matter how good the marketing (pretty pictures of smiling attractive young people, great words/promises, etc), the MCT has his/her work cut out in order to lift the material.

For OCS,we've rebuilt the labs from scratch, and have added all the subjects the delegates actually need to support OCS in real life. The class as written is just plain poor: badly structured, thin, and with an utter lack of real world technology (WHAT OCS customer would implement conferencing, for example, but not use a web cam or headset, speakers etc)?

To me, this is a problem with process. The dev process is broken - as so well illustrated by OCS and PowerShell classes. The former had a "broken" outline, and no one was prepared to fix it. PowerShell had a great outline, and great SMEs who 'did the right thing', and you ended up with better material.

If MSL want to fix the quality, they need to fix the development process, rather than spend more money on marketing.

I look forward to a discussion of the process!

And thanks for addressing these issues - they matter to the CPLS and the MCT (and the end customer)

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 

  
Enter Code Here: Required

Search

This Blog

Syndication

Page view tracker