I sometimes simplify things too much. But Clive Shepherd's posting about Epic's elearning debate got my head in such a spin that I had to reach for my equivalent of a bottle of booze, at 8.30am... I had to produce a 2x2 matrix to simplify it all (I'm a recovering management consultant...)

A lot of the debate about e-learning, (not just at Epic's event which sounds great...I wish I'd been there) seems to be around two dimensions:

• whether and how e-learning can cope with complex learning challenges, or is it just for boring stuff like compliance and product knowledge? Hence all the hype about "knowledge revolutions", transforming organisations etc. 
• how do we design/produce; hence discussions around ISD/ADDIE, rapid tools, prototyping etc.

My particular interest is around how we design, on the basis that if we get the means right, the ends will follow.

So...

I had a little doodle, mapped the two dimensions against each other and produced the matrix below.

I don't know if it's any use, but I like it. What it highlights for me is that we (or is it just me?) don't have a clear picture of how we're going to design "proper" e-learning; you know...the really complex, serious, life-and-organisation-changing stuff. 

Just to explain the dimensions a bit more:

 

• "Complex" means a whole bunch of things: complex skills, big "learning gaps", cultural challenges, technological issues etc. Simple is self-explanatory.
• "Old" processes are pretty much how we've always designed things: structured processes, ISD/ADDIE etc.; "New" processes are...well currently it's about agility, SCRUM, rapid prototyping etc, and all sorts of new ways that I'm struggling to grasp (while enjoying the search).