21
THE PROMISE IF MOBILE
LEARNING: IS THIS REALLY A
PARADIGM SHIFT IN
INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
EDUCATION IR IS IT DÉJÀ VU?
Guy Ellis and Chris O'Brien
Is this the future?
In Azerbaijan and Australia the latest batch of newly promoted team leaders receive a reminder on their PDAs that they need to meet up in 15 minutes' time and log into their next m-learning technical update session. Around the site they all sign out of their work shift and meet up in the canteen. Logged on, they all simultaneously receive a 15-minute online technical knowledge session from Head Office and are then presented with three new work scenarios which are based on the latest technical knowledge updates.
After logging off, each group has 24 hours to discuss the new work scenarios to identify the risks, challenges and opportunities. Once they have agreed the solutions, one of the team leaders submits their team's response. At the same time, each ‘delegate’ completes an online technical knowledge quiz. Two days later the respective line managers for the team leaders receive the teams and individual results from the m-learning session, which they can then use to shape work place technical coaching.
Is this the future of learning and the evolution of international management education in multinational enterprises (MNEs)? Does mobile learning (m-learning) provide not only the platform but also the accessibility for individuals anywhere and at any time “the ability to deliver or receive knowledge and/or practice skills via portable technology?” Or is this merely déjà vu with m-learning going the way of previously hyped learning technologies (e.g. e-learning) which promised a paradigm shift yet failed to deliver the organizational and learner benefits it promised?
This chapter explores the concept and reality of m-learning to see if MNEs can use it to systematically contribute to enabling employees and managers alike to deliver international management education more effectively. Using two established management theories — the Product Life Cycle and Hype Curve — and supported by case studies, we will map the current progress of m-learning and predict its future development.
What is mobile learning?
Mobile (m)-learning is learning that can happen anytime, anywhere: at an airport or in a taxi on the way there, at a remote site or at work, in a classroom or at home. M-learning is part of a wider change in the world of organizational learning where there is a clear shift away from didactic, traditional classroom-based learning and moving towards a blend of different and complementary learning interventions as well as methods and medias.
M-learning is one of the hottest/latest buzz words in both the field of education and organizational learning and development (L&D). So new that there is still widespread disagreement as to whether the term should refer to the technology used; how the user experiences the learning; or to the mobility of the learning and learners themselves.
Recent studies suggest that m-learning is becoming a significant and rapidly growing market (Ambient Insight 2011) and that management and leadership development is one of the top training challenges that MNEs are looking for on-line learning to address in the future (Towards Maturity 2011).
Portable technology includes, but is not limited to, mobile telephones, PDAs, tablet devices such as iPads, laptops and smart phones. Such technology can be used to collect responses, read e-books and websites, record thoughts, document off-site visits, provide organization and individually tailored content based on user specific variables, collect and analyse data and more.
While m-learning has many different definitions and is referred to in many different ways, it has in fact been around for decades. The early twentieth century saw two-way radios being developed while the First and Second World Wars saw the rapid and effective development of mobile communications. The mobile phone itself was developed by Motorola in 1973, but it was the development of pocket-size mobile phones and wide user acceptance in the 1980s and 2G technologies in the 1990s that opened up the opportunity for true portable learning.
However, it has only been since the beginning of the twenty-first century that the development of both physical technology (e.g. mobile phones, PDAs, laptops and tablets) and software/systems technology (e.g. on-line communities, interactive and predictive 3G/4G applications) has led to m-learning becoming a separate discipline in its own right and is finally able to offer a number of potentially huge benefits to the field of learning.
At its heart, m-learning increases the ability of MNEs to personalize and therefore increase the potential success of learning. M-learning can be used to enable learners to work interdepen-dently, in groups or individually; to work on common goals or meet individual needs; to allow both formal and informal training which can literally be delivered anywhere.
In other words, m-learning is occurring when:
• A manager takes a picture of a competitor's advertising on their phone and later transfers it to a presentation they are giving to their colleagues.
• A coach downloads a video from the Internet to show their client what the new behaviours they have discussed might look like in practice.
• Employees are videoed practising new skills that they can study after the formal training has finished.
• Employees complete an on-line test while practising new skills at an off-site assessment centre.
• A manager accesses their corporate intranet for the latest grievance policy and process before meeting the employee at an independent location.
• A new employee undertakes induction training on-line before they arrive in the office for their first day.
• A company uses mobile technology to assess consumers' buying habits and then offers them appropriate goods and services.
What are the potential benefits of m-learning?
M-learning is said to offer numerous potential benefits to the MNE and user:
• First, it uses familiar and pervasive technology — nearly everyone has a mobile phone and the growth of ‘smart’ phones is exponential.
• Second, mobile technology is highly portable and fits into the user's lifestyle — users can potentially access learning at any time and anywhere including traditional ‘down-time’ such as travelling.
• Third, m-learning offers an immediacy of learning and can deliver bite-sized chunks — users can access highly relevant content ‘just in time’.
• Fourth, users can have wide access to centrally held information, either organizational intranets or the ‘cloud’ — making it easier to share content with remote offices and communities.
• Fifth, m-learning is user driven and not organization led — the user is able to access content, people and other users when it suits them, not when the MNE can provide a ‘suitable’ time.
• Sixth, mobile devices offer two-way learning — users can record and respond to learning digitally including using non-traditional methods such as photos and voice records.
• Seventh, learning can be synchronized to users' diaries and other time management systems — allowing content to be delivered automatically based on diary entries.
• Eighth, mobile technology makes it easier for designers to combine the abstract theory with the practical application (e.g. link classroom work with on-the-job learning), allowing users to apply theory as they learn it.
• Finally, the rise of on-line networks (‘communities’) is supported by mobile technology and allows user-centred learning — users can drive their own learning and support each other.
In essence, m-learning allows designers to embed learning within work processes and procedures (especially those driven by technology) and user schedules using a variety of different learning approaches in order to allow users to gain the skills and knowledge that they need, as they need it.
The rise of m-learning and international management education
The organizational market for m-learning is growing rapidly and expected to continue. Ambient Insight (2011), a US-based research company, produced a report on mobile learning in May 2011 which highlighted that the almost US$1 billion market in 2010 is expected to grow by 13.7 per cent a year and to reach US$1.8 billion by 2015.
Ambient Insight categorized the US market as having exited the ‘market creation’ phase and entered the ‘value creation’ phase of the product lifecycle. Key highlights of their research were:
• While commercial organizations have been late adopters, current growth is nearly 30 per cent and increasing. The second greatest growth area is non-government organizations.
• Distribution channels, especially of Apps, are also growing and most app stores have dedicated education categories.
• Networks are getting faster and devices are getting smarter. Although the industry distinguishes up to nine different types of mobile learning products (from gaming machines to clinical assistants), these distinctions are blurring at a high rate of convergence. 4G (fourth generation) started rolling out in the USA in late 2010 and the USA is now considered to be leading the world in network deployment and there are plans to launch a satellite-based broadband service during 2012.
• M-learning content has also exploded over the last three years. It is predicted that packaged m-learning content will more than double between 2010 and 2015.
As m-learning grows rapidly, the use of the technology in the field of international management education is becoming more important. Towards Maturity (2011), a UK-based not-for-profit benchmarking practice, published a benchmark report in June 2011 on Reinventing Leadership Development on new approaches to leadership development programmes. This was based on research from over 180 organizations collected during April and May 2011, one-third of which were multi-national operations and 58 per cent were from the private sector.
The study reported that mobile learning is expected to rise from 31 per cent to 58 per cent in two years, with the greatest demand coming from middle managers and future managers. Future managers showed a preference for external social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn). For all types of managers (from senior management to future managers), mobile devices are in the top five preferences for learning approaches.
In addition, the study reported:
• 80 per cent of organizations introduced learning technologies to improve efficiency, improve productivity and increase agility; 75 per cent also wanted to reduce the time to competency.
• 80 per cent of respondents reported reduced costs, increased speed of engagement and reduced time away from the business. Two out of three organizations believed that learning technology is helping to deliver more consistent and faster application of learning back into the workplace, and is reducing time to competency and increasing adaptability; 60 per cent of respondents reported an increase in the sharing of good practice among managers.
• One-third of companies reported tangible benefits.
• There was a direct correlation between top leaders using learning technologies in their own development and reported business and staff performance (increases in overall staff satisfaction and engagement, efficiency and productivity improvement).
While it is only one study, its comprehensive nature and independence suggest that m-learning could become an important channel for international management education in organizations.
The relationship between m-learning and e-learning
Many textbooks have come to define e-learning as any propagation of knowledge via the internet and is a subset of technology based or digital learning, and many authors see m-learning as a subset of e-learning. However, we would argue that the rapid development of hardware and software has made this distinction needlessly limiting. Fundamentally, m-learning no longer needs to be internet driven: i.e. it can sit within a portable device and be accessible to the user ‘as required’. A better representation of the relationship between e-learning and m-learning could be shown as subsets of technology based learning with significant overlaps.
Critical differences between m-learning and e-learning are shown in Table 21.1.
Figure 21.1 The relationship between e-learning and m-learning
| M-learning | Overlap | E-learning |
Delivered via the internet/ intranet as well as housed by the portable device |
May be delivered by a laptop |
Delivered via the internet/ intranet |
Viewed on a portable device (tablet, smart phone, mobile phone, laptop) |
May be viewed on a laptop |
Traditionally viewed via a desktop computer |
Can be delivered anywhere, anytime, any location (home, work, travelling, globally, etc.) |
May be delivered at work or on ‘company’ time |
Traditionally delivered at work, either to the user's workstation or a dedicated training room |
Uses instant communication tools (e.g. messaging systems such as IM) |
Uses a blended approach dependent on learning need |
Uses non-instant communication tools (e.g. e-mail) |
User driven (e.g. ‘Google’ learning, self-paced) |
‘Smart’ user interaction software is possible with clear end goals (i.e. situation specific) |
Limited user-driven learning but often tends to be ‘linked’ to something (e.g. a specific topic) |
Informal |
Can be formal or informal |
Typically formal and structured |
Integrated into the user's life (e.g. via online diary) |
Used during semi-integrated, dedicated learning periods |
Stand-alone from the user's life |
These differences are critically important when we come to understand how m-learning can be used effectively by MNEs to deliver international management education.
Establishing solid foundations for assessing the future of m-learning in MNEs
The fundamental contention of this chapter is that the potential benefits of m-learning for both learners and organizations are significant if the lessons of previous learning fads and technologies can be applied. Using two well-known models (‘Product Life Cycle’ and ‘Hype Cycles’) to evaluate the potential benefits of m-learning will provide MNEs not only with the understanding but also the business case to make informed and measured decisions in respect of their investment in, and support of, m-learning technology (platform and content) for international management education.
Theoretical foundations
The Product Life Cycle was formally defined by Vernon (1966) to explain the development of products from their introduction to their decline. The concept has since gained a lot of traction and has been applied to a variety of related contexts from the development of multinational corporations to production. While there are a number of issues with the theory, it has been widely used to predict the marketing, production, financing, human resources and purchasing strategies, opportunities and challenges at each stage.
The concept of ‘Hype Cycles’ was introduced into widespread usage by the Gartner Corporation (Fenn 1995), although the core concept and name (‘Hype Curve’) was first published by Fosdick (1992). The ‘Hype Cycle’ (Gartner Group) graphically demonstrates the typical over-enthusiasm or ‘hype’ and subsequent disappointment that occurs when new technologies are introduced into a marketplace. Gartner suggests that the use of such a model can help MNEs to make decisions about when to invest in a new technology based on an MNE's risk profile and the understanding of the true business drivers and commercial opportunities of the technology.
Using the Product Life Cycle and Hype Cycle as templates, this chapter uses a range of short case studies and the author's personal and organizational experiences of the introduction of e-learning in organizations over the last 20 years to highlight how m-learning might develop in MNEs, key risks that need to be avoided and best practices to be encouraged.
Product Life Cycle
Vernon's work on the Product Life Cycle has made a significant impact on both academics and practitioners. Seeking to understand how international trade and investment shifted after World WarTwo, Vernon moved away from traditional economic cost models and focused on innovation, economies of scale and sociological factors as drivers of international trade.
Figure 21.2 Vernon's Product Life Cycle
The resulting model — the Product Life Cycle — has subsequently been applied to the development of individual products, markets and multinational corporations as well as functional strategies (e.g. marketing and financing).
According to Vernon, the Product Life Cycle follows four stages:
• Stage One: Introduction — At the Introduction Stage, i.e. when a new product is first introduced into a market, there is little demand and therefore sales are low. Although the product commands high prices, high development costs and low volume mean that producers make little money. However, there is little or no competition at this stage. Producers have to create customer demand by identifying ‘innovators’ and appealing to their sense of being ‘first users’.
• Stage Two: Growth — A new product enters the Growth Stage, as public awareness and subsequent customer demand increases, leading to rapidly growing sales. As volumes increase, product costs come down due to economies of scale. Although price starts to decrease as the number of competitors increases, profitability rises at a quicker rate.
• Stage Three: Maturity — The third stage is Maturity and this sees the sales volumes peak as market saturation is reached. Although production costs fall to their minimum levels through maximized production volumes and effective sitting of production facilities (often offshore), prices also drop due to the large number of competitors in the market. Profits therefore reduce to sustainable (or ‘normal’) levels. The product starts to become commod-itized and organizations emphasize brand differentiation and feature diversification to maintain or increase market share.
• Stage Four: Decline — The final stage is Decline. At this stage sales volumes decline as the product is replaced by newer technologies. As sales volumes decrease, costs per unit increase, prices are discounted and profitability declines. Although the market size as a whole decreases, market share can be maintained through distribution efficiency and mergers/acquisitions.
Although researched and applied to numerous scenarios, the Product Life Cycle has its limitations:
• It is difficult to judge the exact stage and growth timescales of any specific product as sales per se do not necessarily indicate growth or decline; and market determinants (e.g. as indicated by the Hype Cycle) can vary considerably depending upon the organization, competitors, economic cycle, country and other factors.
• While many products are recognized to follow this cycle, there are a number of well-known exceptions (e.g. cola drinks — which might have very long cycles!) and in many situations it is difficult to separate a product from its underlying market (e.g. specific types of clothes such as jeans are difficult to separate from the underlying apparel market as the perception of their use changes (work wear to leisure wear)).
• It can be perceived as overly simplistic and therefore not a good predictor of a cycle for a specific product. Recent adaptions have introduced the concepts of a Product Creation and Development stages to replace the Introduction stage; a Decline/Renewal stage to show how products need not go into decline but can be renewed through the use of innovation and other strategies.
However, while these criticisms are valid, the underlying concepts are so well accepted that they form a fundamental teaching on many business university courses.
Figure 21.3 Gartner's Hype Cycle
Gartner's Hype Cycle
Gartner's Hype Cycle (or more correctly ‘Hype Curve’ as it does not return to its starting point) is a model used to assess the introduction of new technology into a marketplace. It has been a mainstay of Gartner's methodologies for nearly 20 years and, despite being theoretical in nature and empirically untested via peer evaluation, it has entered mainstream parlance due to its high face validity.
The model is used by Gartner to answer two key questions: (1) how can senior IT manager separate the hype of new IT technologies from what is potentially commercially viable and/or user sustainable; and (2) when is the best time to deploy new technology in the light of an organization's attitude to risk and specific business goals?
According to Gartner, the Hype Cycle highlights the five key phases of a technology's life cycle.
• Technology Trigger: A potential technology breakthrough starts the cycle. Early proof-of-concept stories and media interest trigger significant publicity but often no usable products exist and commercial viability is unproven.
• Peak of Inflated Expectations: Success stories produce wide publicity while the many failures do not. Many potential producers often enter the market. Risk-tolerant organizations take action but most do not.
• Trough of Disillusionment: Interest declines as implementations fail to deliver the expected results. Producers of the technology reduce significantly through failure, merges or takeovers. Product improvement is the key to continued survival.
• Slope of Enlightenment: Improved quality and more realistic views lead to the benefits of the new technology being understood more widely. Providers create second- and third-generation products. Larger organizations begin to use the technology, although often in limited ways such as pilots.
• Plateau of Productivity: Mainstream adoption begins. The criteria for assessing the benefits of the technology and providers are more clearly defined. The technology's broad market applicability and relevance become clearly understood. A critical mass of users has been achieved and most organizations begin to use the technology.
Gartner have ‘mapped’ numerous examples of technology introductions to this cycle and use this to reinforce the underlying theory.
There are numerous criticisms (e.g. Veryard 2005; Aranda 2006) of the Hype Cycle including:
• The lack of scientific support (although the very nature of the topic makes comparisons difficult with changing definitions and technology interdependencies).
• The unrealistic underlying assumptions (e.g. the concept of multiple producers is often at odds with the dominance of big IT developers such as Apple and Microsoft); or the interconnected nature of many products (e.g. the rise of PCs) was driven in part by the emergence of the Microsoft operating system.
• The use of very emotive words which cannot be described objectively in either positioning current technology or in how technology can be moved along the cycle.
• The suggestion that there is always a positive outcome and that all technology will reach a ‘plateau of productivity’.
• The examples that are given by Gartner seem arbitrary, have very different timescales and, when they don't seem to ‘fit’ the model, are dropped from later versions.
However, despite these very valid criticisms, Gartner's commercial version and Fosdick's original paper suggest that the success of new technology is based as much on sociological factors as on the technology itself (i.e. new technology succeeds because of what it enables users to do and not because of what it is).
An excellent example of this in operation is the VHS versus Beta-Max format war of the 1970s and 1980s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war for further details) and these popular ‘urban’ stories go a long way towards explaining why the Hype Cycle continues to be popular.
This popularity (high face validity) makes the Hype Cycle an ideal model to test the emergence of m-learning and use the experiences of the introduction of e-learning as a benchmark.
Understanding where m-learning is currently
Applying the Product Life Cycle and Hype Cycle models will help organizations and the broader learning community to understand where m-learning is currently, who the potential buyers are, what are their buying behaviours and their key concerns.
Product Life Cycle and m-learning
Based on the original model outlined by Vernon, the introduction of m-learning can be firmly established at the ‘Introduction’ stage but rapidly moving towards the ‘Growth’ stage, except for the USA which is better characterized as already being at the ‘Growth’ stage.
At this point in the PLC, the product is seeing more competitors entering the market, driving down prices but spreading development costs and improving quality. Customer awareness is increasing and the market is seeing the entry of ‘early adopters’ (having moved through those companies characterized as ‘innovators’) which is leading to greater volumes and greater profitability for producers.
M-learning products and services are essentially bought by organizations and, as they are typically more conservative than individual consumers, face a critical and often higher hurdle at this point in the PLC. However, if producers can gain a critical mass of buyers, that conservatism often leads to a greater take-up.
The key concern for MNEs at the Introduction/Growth stage is to spread the risk of introducing a new product so that any investment loss is minimized. MNEs would typically do this through the use of pilot schemes (i.e. introducing the product into a subset of the MNE) and/or flagship projects (i.e. projects which are heavily supported (or subsidized) by a producer). Typical customers often have a history and culture of innovation.
CASE STUDY: MEDICAL PRODUCTS MANUFACTURER
The organization needed to minimize the time that its sales reps spent in the office yet ensure they received critical training that was both engaging and interactive in short time frames. The success of a mobile learning management system (LMS) meant that the manufacturer was then able to proactively engage hospitals by offering them technical training that could be viewed on every mobile platform (hardware and software) but also enabled auditable documentation of trainee completion. (With thanks to NetDimensions.)
This is a good example of how m-learning can be introduced into the end-user organization (e.g. hospitals) with minimal risk. For hospitals, there are few extra risks involved (e.g. ensuring the technology platform is adequate, uploading the LMS); but many advantages (e.g. able to test m-learning, gain user feedback and the appropriateness of the channel). For the third party, m-learning provides a distinctive competitive advantage which, if successful, not only raises the costs of entry to other competitors but could lead to further business.
CASE STUDY: INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM
The organization was looking for innovative ways to increase efficiencies to support busy lawyers and their teams. Initial offerings were based on self-paced content or short webinars. However, credibility became a key development criterion for the next stages of the platform and tools were developed that allowed internal and external experts to use face-to-face, TV and video conferencing as well as shadow learning to expand the offering.
Through focused and relevant support, internal experts became drivers of the process, resulting in shorter and more focused learning modules structured around user demand. Sixty-five per cent of formal learning is now e-enabled, there is significant reduction in the time out of the office and less pressure on billable hours.
Looking forward, the firm is already testing even shorter modules, supported by Smart Phones and Tablets. They have learnt that when introducing social media technology, business relevance, user buy-in and building learning capability slowly will enable employees to truly ‘train on the train’. (With thanks to Towards Maturity.).
In this example the firm gradually increased their exposure to m-learning over time and following what had been learnt from the successes (and failures) of the initial offerings. Critically, expansion was driven by employees and based on real business need, not the whims of Head Office or the producer's sales team.
CASE STUDY: GLOBAL MANUFACTURING AND SALES ORGANIZATION1
The company recognized that its global marketing training programme was becoming tired. Although award winning and supported by e-learning technology since the early 2000s, inspired by the 70:20:10 idea of learning, the organization wanted to shift its energies from the 10 per cent formal delivery of learning towards the 70 per cent (direct experiences) and 20 per cent (role models and coaching). There was concern that the centralized approach was resulting in lower rates of usage, which in turn could lead to end-markets designing their own training.
This required a significant shift in how things were done — away from a ‘big book’ approach, which had become the only way to do marketing; and formal training courses (e-learning and workshops). The project team sought and got feedback which suggested a much lighter touch was required.
In the place of the ‘big book’ came less text and more video, shorter modules, greater use of regional experiences and content, as well as reliance on end users rather then centrally appointed ‘Subject Matter Experts’. Significantly, the learning process became two-way — users were able to rate presenters, present their own material (issues and solutions) and gain access to a much wider library of information outside of the organization. An internal blog was started and became a primary source of information within the marketing function.
The organization learnt that there were a number of keys to the success of the new programme.
First, involve key stakeholders and users — they help keep the programme real and the training relevant. Continually seek feedback.
Second, recognize and allow local businesses to input, adapt and share global content — this not only helps them to suit their needs but also can lead to innovation.
Third, awareness is important — start small and build the programme. Technology understanding and acceptance varied significantly among users. Toolkits, coaching and informal communication were all part of the induction process.
Fourth, reinforce the personal ownership of development — provide clarity of role development but don't make it mandatory.
A classic growth stage example where the organization, having successfully introduced early forms of m-learning, recognized that user needs had moved further than the delivery channels could offer. Building on the success of earlier m-learning initiatives, examples of what other firms were doing and user feedback, the company implemented an award-winning m-learning programme which took advantage of many of the unique features of m-learning — user driven, informal, integrated into daily life and instant.
Gartner's Hype Cycle and m-Learning
As defined by Gartner, the introduction of m-learning can be said to be moving from the ‘Technology Trigger’ stage to the ‘Peak of Inflated Expectations’. While the ‘Peak’ does not yet seem to have been reached, the widening customer awareness and growing number of early users suggests that it is not too far in the distance!
At this stage in the Hype Curve, greater numbers of producers are entering the market and, like the PLC, this is driving down prices but spreading development costs and improving quality. However, there are still multiple technology platforms (driven in part by multiple mobile platforms, e.g. Android, Apple), and conflicting claims of what constitutes ‘best’ and little industry consistency towards assessment, pedagogy and design. While customer awareness is increasing, producers are still ‘selling’ their products based on (positive) case studies rather than clearly measureable business benefits.
Like the PLC, the key concern for MNEs between the ‘Technology Trigger’ and ‘Peak of Inflated Expectations’ stages is to spread the risk of introducing a new product so that any investment loss is minimized. However, the Hype Curve suggests that the measurement of these risks is made more difficult due to the natural emergence of sociological factors such as users' expectations and industry marketing.
CASE STUDY: GLOBAL FMCG ORGANIZATION2
The organization describes itself as being on a transformational Learning Journey — having globalized its general and leadership skills, the recent introduction of its Learning Academy has enabled it to set ambitious targets for learning to drive business growth. This involves making learning a key business resource, making learning an Employee Value Proposition (EVP) (especially in its Far Eastern markets), using business analytics to ensure business alignment and ensuring learning resources are directed to areas of greatest need.
Every employee has a Learning Passport and is able to participate in programmes such the Business Challenge Game — an online real-time global business game, mobile learning and global collaboration.
The Learning Journey is critically supported by technology;
First, analytics link content to business strategies and feedback to future demand
Second, enable cross-over from traditional delivery channels to e-channels
Third, create new channels — multi-media delivery
Fourth, enable global sharing and collaboration
Fifth, help achieve the organization's environmental sustainability strategy.
This example shows how m-learning can itself become the story. While the company involved is clearly passionate about learning, it has gone for a ‘big bang’ approach with little evidence of how the stated goals will be achieved. This ‘story’ was also released to external media and our own experiences and knowledge of the company involved suggest that little thought was given to how this programme was going to be implemented and what support or encouragement employees were going to be given to use the new ‘tools’ and games. For us, this is a classic ‘hype’ from a company which wants to be known as employee centric yet in reality continues to be strongly paternalistic.
CASE STUDY: UNITED—CONTINENTAL AIRLINES
United—Continental purchased 11,000 iPads for its pilots to replace in-flight manuals, citing increased efficiency in accessing flight material and an estimated fuel saving of 326,000 gallons due to reduced on-board weight (Hamburger 2011).
Hype at its very best.While we have no doubt that the rationale and business benefits are very real (i.e. reduced costs and increased efficiency), this press release is clearly designed to demonstrate the ‘wonderful’ benefits of m-learning.
CASE STUDY: UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD, UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS MEDICAL SCHOOL AND MIMAS (NATIONAL DATA CENTRE HOSTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER)
Universities have been at the forefront of mobile learning. JISC InfoNet have published a Mobile Learning InfoKit which draws on case studies from these three universities. Uses include SMS text messages of upcoming seminars, an app with links to information on resources including academic, study support, computer rooms and maps, and an app that links students on placements with their tutors.
Key learnings include:
First, starting small and building capability — technical expertise, user confidence and stakeholder acceptance
Second, recognizing that academic staff need to be included from the very beginning — although not necessarily users of the technology, academic staffare both critical supports and provide valuable content
Third, define the problem carefully — build the business case to address specific issues in order to gain general acceptance of its value
Fourth, mobile learning can be a Trojan Horse for wider change — the introduction of mobile learning can encourage wider acceptance of new ideas and develop a culture that is prepared to adapt to changing circumstances.
You would expect universities to be often at the forefront of the m-learning marketplace with the users (students) having a high comfort level in using cutting-edge technology. While MNEs can learn a lot from the experiences of universities, it is important to recognize that there are key differences which could significantly impact upon the introduction of m-learning. For instance, most MNEs have a broader range of employees with very different levels of technology experience, knowledge and comfort, the learning needs are often more varied, multinationals face a range of different regulatory frameworks and so on. While using universities as examples does add value to the development of m-learning as a channel, it also adds to the hype.
Looking forward — where next for m-learning?
As the Hype Cycle attempts to explain, any brief exploration of the history and evolution of technology based learning will identify that too often the promise of new technology is rarely matched by the reality. If m-learning is to become a mainstream delivery model for international management education, then applying both theoretical explanations and learning from the introduction of e-learning will help the broader learning community to ensure that the mistakes of old are not repeated.
Outlined below is a summary of a number of challenges that the field of m-learning has to overcome in order to deliver the potential benefits to MNEs.
User attitudes
One of the biggest issues facing MNEs wanting to use m-learning is that of user attitudes. Numerous studies (see JISC InfoNet and Towards Maturity for examples) have indicated that users do not perceive their portable devices to be learning tools.
In particular, users report that they see their mobile phone, even where provided by their organization, as a personal device which they wish to only reluctantly use for organizational reasons. Users are more likely to perceive their mobile phone as a personal tool that is used for communication and escapism (e.g. using Apps).
CASE STUDY: GLOBAL FMCG ORGANIZATION
The introduction of a new approach to how training and development was delivered relied upon employees sharing their experiences and specialist knowledge with their global colleagues. However, the greatest hurdle was convincing internal specialists to share their thoughts on-line, despite widespread support for the new approach.
Following limited success using traditional corporate methods such as inviting people to video sessions, the project team resorted to more radical tactics. Ambushing experts at their desks, the team used the expert's own company mobile phone to record their views before posting them on the company's intranet. In the same way, internal experts were shown how to post comments, write short blogs and add their best practice documents before being expected to do so while the team stood at their side to assist them.
Despite many formal attempts to show users how easy the process was, internal experts did not see their mobile phones as tools for sharing their knowledge. However, physically showing them with their own phone and then helping them to do it for themselves led to a tenfold increase in expert content. Once a critical mass was reached, other experts also became more comfortable in posting knowledge on-line.
Technology and cost
As we have already established, m-learning is best described as being in an ‘introduction/early growth stage’ in its life cycle and therefore faces a number of traditional technology issues. These include the following.
First, system issues such as a variety of different technology platforms (Apple, Blackberry and Google all have established platforms), different portable devices (smart phones, tablets and laptops are very common but e-book readers have also begun to offer wider applications), high and complex cost models for downloading content — especially internationally (mobile phone companies offer a range of different rates depending upon call time, data usage, international location, length of contract, etc.).
Second, physical restraints such as size (which restrict the ability of the user to read poorly designed or ‘pdf’ style content), limited battery life and button size (which can restrict text entry).
Third, user perception that m-learning is a cheap method of learning. While distribution can indeed be significantly cheaper, effective design and creation will cost as much (if not more) than more traditional forms of learning as m-learning allows the provider to offer not only visual content but also auditory and touch.
Fourth, security concerns — although software security is widely available, hardware is easily lost and can become temporarily inaccessible.
CASE STUDY: GLOBAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS MANUFACTURER
The UK company of this global organization prided itself on being at the cutting edge of employee development and the introduction of e-learning in the early 1990s offered an opportunity to deliver personalized development tools — records, planning, training and development self-learning — to the workforce.
Following a substantial review of emerging technologies, the company decided to build a dedicated employee learning centre and based its training suite on laser discs. Three years and hundreds of thousands of pounds later the company replaced all of its training material as the learning providers had stopped supporting that medium and had moved on to solid state materials.
Although potentially viewed as a misuse of resources, the company concluded that the employee motivation and retention benefits of offering employees training and development material that they could use when it suited them far outweighed the cost.
Organizational understanding
Organizational decision makers do not always understand the opportunities that new technology can offer and can view such technology in terms of what it can add to existing systems rather than taking a radical step forward.A great example of this came in the early adoption of e-learning (and we have seen it again in m-learning) where initial training courses were based on pdf ‘flat page’, i.e. information was presented to users on a screen in the same way that they would have been given a piece of paper. Over time, e-learning came to include video, interactive options and even gaming technology.
Towards Maturity reported the greatest barrier to successful e-learning adoption is the lack of knowledge about its potential use (65 per cent). In essence, sponsors do not see portable devices as potential learning tools and will not push the development of learning content based on such a delivery model. However, there are a growing number of stories which suggest that the introduction of the tablet — machines with the advantages of smart phones but screen size of small laptops — has begun to show senior managers the distinct offering of m-learning.
CASE STUDY: THE IT BUSINESS OF A GLOBAL PETROLEUM COMPANY
Following joining, a key challenge for new employees is to quickly learn not just key knowledge but also the cultural and social ways in which the organization works. E-learning is often seen as a good way of delivering key knowledge to new entrants in a regulated way, i.e. to ensure that individuals complete certain core modules within specified periods of time.
However, our experiences with a large IT Division of a Global Petroleum Company in the early 2000s helped them to understand that e-learning can also deliver critical knowledge about the cultural aspects of the company to new employees, as well as reinforcing to longer serving employees the importance of core values and ways of working. Not only did it allow new employees the chance to ‘revisit’ modules at a time that suited them, the use of videos (using actual employees) to give examples of values in action made the information more relevant and understandable than a simple written document could ever do.
Helping the business look outside the accepted way of delivering this induction training considerably helped new employees understand the ‘softer’ aspects of the new employer and role.
Content and delivery design
Linked to technology and organizational understanding issues, e-learning suffered initially from what we call the ‘classroom’ challenge, i.e. translating traditional design straight into the e-learning platform. Initial feedback from the industry suggests that m-learning is seeing the same problem — that designers are simply sending pdf files to portable devices which are then difficult to read, are not interactive and do not use/recognize the huge benefits of the technology.
M-learning offers not only portable learning but the ability to use visual, auditory and sensory output (i.e. users can see, hear and touch) to make the learning experience more relevant and appropriate to the different learning styles of different users.
CASE STUDY: INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES PROVIDER
In the early 2000s, the organization recognized that the development of e-learning had progressed to the stage of having stable learning platforms and was perceived by the general marketplace as a valid learning medium. At a time when the Learning and Development function was being asked by the organization to justify the heavy infrastructure spend of its Learning Management System (LMS), the senior team were tasked with finding e-learning material to populate the LMS.
Unfortunately, two significant issues arose. The first was that the training managers tended to be very possessive of their courses and were reluctant to convert the workshops into blended learning programmes. In addition, the team realized that if existing training is to be converted into blended learning (which included e-learning), then it was important not to just convert workshop material but to use the full abilities of each learning channel. One of the key reasons why so much initial e-learning failed is that it became merely a repository for information and that technology by itself is not sufficient to create enduring learning.
The project to convert existing training material into e-learning did not deliver the anticipated benefits because the company saw it as a cheap method to deliver existing material. What they learned was that whatever the learning required, it is essential to match the needs with the most appropriate learning methods, e.g. knowledge is best delivered via e-learning, behavioural practice is best delivered via workshops and coaching, while developing skills and learning processes can be delivered through a combination of workshops, workbooks and e-learning.
Underlying theories
While this chapter hasn't sought to take a academic approach to m-learning, it takes little research to recognize that there is still no commonly agreed underlying theory of m-learning. This lack of a unifying theory affects the ability of producers and users in the m-learning field to accurately assess the benefits, define its pedagogy and design programmes.
The future for m-learning
So what does the future for m-learning hold? While assessing the future of any product is fraught with danger (even more so for technology based products), we can predict the following trends.
The Product Life Cycle suggests that the next development for m-learning is the Growth stage. This suggests that quality will continue to improve and as volumes increase, unit costs will decrease. This will lead to profits increasing, at least until the product starts to become commoditized.
In terms of buyer behaviour, the Growth stage sees the entry of more risk-adverse companies. These Early Adopters are still willing to take greater risks than many of their competitors, but have waited to see how the first buyers have fared and where the technology is going before committing resources. Like the Innovators before them, entry is often through pilot schemes. Entering the market via a lighthouse option, i.e. where implementation is supported by the producer, is becoming less common as the product is able to draw upon a greater number of case studies to support its business worth.
Innovating MNEs, i.e. those companies that were among the first to use m-learning, will be building on the knowledge they have already gained. In some cases this will require them ‘starting again’ as they discover that the market and product development has not occurred in ways they forecast. Often Innovator MNEs will begin to develop in-house expertise and drive their own development in ways that can be unexpected by the general marketplace.
Mainstream MNEs will continue to wait until the technology is both proven and there is direction in terms of ‘established’ technology, programmes and processes. The sign of these mainstream companies entering the market indicates that m-learning is entering the Maturity stage of the PLC.
The Hype Curve suggests that the next stage in the development of m-learning is to reach the Peak of Inflated Expectations before heading towards the ‘Trough of Disillusionment’. This will occur when stories of failure, whether they are implementation issues or not achieving the anticipated business goals, start to become widely circulated. The number of m-learning producers will begin to significantly reduce as they go out of business, merge or are taken over by more successful competitors. Those producers who do succeed will do so through product improvement and the gradual movement towards a set of more standardized technology platforms and products.
In terms of buyer behaviour, this period still sees mainly Innovators in the m-learning marketplace, although Early Adopters begin to enter the market as the Trough of Disillusionment stage bottoms out and starts moving towards the next stage. Due to their very nature, Innovators are prepared to take the risks of picking the wrong technology in order to achieve other critical goals — cultural fit, employee engagement, etc. — and a number of MNEs will be affected by the reduction in producers.
While we are still at risk of repeating many of the mistakes of the past, the development of m-learning has progressed rapidly enough to make some assumptions about the potential areas of product development, namely:
• Individual assessment/surveys — User research is the lifeblood of many firms and industries but when faced with chances to give their feedback (often with ‘prizes’ attached), most users choose not to do so. M-learning offers an opportunity for firms to provide a more enjoyable user experience, at least until such feedback again becomes the ‘norm’ and user fatigue sets in!
In addition, m-learning offers companies the opportunity to offer bespoke products and services to consumers based on the needs. For example, a company might offer tailor-made clothes and use mobile technology to have the customer take a picture of themselves. This would allow the tailor to assess the customer's key measurements.
• Employee performance support (knowledge, process) — Performance management (and its offspring ‘performance reward’) is a cornerstone of Human Resource Management techniques, yet more and more research suggests that it is failing to deliver on its promises. M-learning has the potential to deliver relevant learning when it's most needed and, critically, measure the results. M-learning also allows the user to record good performance as it occurs, and to alert their manager when changes in the environment require updated training and when performance is not reaching desired standards.
• Training scheduling /notifications — As m-learning becomes more user driven and less driven by corporate agendas, we predict that m-learning software will become more proactive in working with users. While learning will be capable of being delivered anywhere, anytime, systems will become more insistent on ensuring that the necessary learning is actually delivered.
• 3D displays — Borrowing technology from cinema and television, mobile devices will become capable of delivering 3D pictures. At this point, m-leaning technology will be able to deliver an even greater user experience and open up another facet for m-learning developers.
• Gaming — Gaming technology has been in existence for many years; yet its use in e-learning has been restricted by systems constraints (e.g. the amount of memory required and ability of hardware to display it). As mobile technology becomes more powerful, these constraints are being lifted and we are already starting to see the emergence of m-learning programmes that look and feel like ‘normal’ games, yet with a learning purpose. Looking forward, the emergence of gaming technology in m-learning will only be restricted by the designers' creativity.
M-learning will face challenges as well as opportunities as it becomes better understood. It is our contention that a considered adoption of m-learning by MNEs in the delivery of their international management education agenda should provide significant benefits to both learners and organizations.
Conclusions
This chapter has sought to explore the concept, reality and future of m-learning — learning that can happen anytime and anywhere. Delivered through portable devices, we believe that m-learning is part of a wider change in the world of international organizational learning where there is a clear shift away from didactic, traditional classroom-based learning and towards a blend of different and complementary learning interventions as well as methods and medias.
Using the Product Life Cycle and Hype Curve and supported by case studies, we have sought to build on industry experiences of the introduction of e-learning to map the current progress of m-learning and predict its future development.
Despite the hype and the almost inevitable realignment towards realistic views of the benefits that m-learning can deliver, we believe that the development of both hardware and software technology now allows a separate and unique type of delivery media that will enhance international management education into the future.
Notes
1 With thanks to Svetlana Omeltchenko and Towards Maturity.
2 With thanks to HRO Forum.
Bibliography
Ambient Insight. 2011. The US Market for Mobile Learning Products and Services: 2010 to 2015 Forecast and Analysis (www.ambientinsight.com). Retrieved July 30, 2012.
Aranda, J. 2006. Cheap Shots at the Gartner Hype Curve (http://catenary.wordpress.com/2006/10/22/cheap-shots-at-the-gartner-hype-curve/). Retrieved July 30, 2012.
Fenn, J. 1995. Word Spy: Hype Cycle. When to Leap on the Hype Cycle. Gartner Group.As summarized by Word Spy (www.wordspy.com/words/hypecycle.asp). Retrieved July 30, 2012.
Fosdick, H. 1992. The Sociology of Technology Adoption. Originally published in Enterprise Systems Journal (http://rexxinfo.org/Sociology%20of%20Technology%20Adoption/SOCIOL_1.HTM). Retrieved July 30, 2012.
Gartner Group (www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp). Retrieved July 30, 2012.
Hamburger, E. 2011. United and Continental are Giving every Pilot an iPad (www.businessinsider.com/united-continental-ipad-2011-8#ixzz27azsLDCb). Retrieved August 23, 2011.
HRO Forum. 2011. Presentation given at the 2011 Forum (www.hrosummits.com/hrosummiteu/). Retrieved December 1, 2011.
JISC InfoNet. 2011. Mobile Learning Info Kit (http://mobilelearninginfokit.pbworks.com). Retrieved July 30, 2012.
Towards Maturity. 2011. Reinventing Leadership Development (www.towardsmaturity.org/leadership). Retrieved July 30, 2012. Data also taken from Boosting Business Agility Towards Maturity 2011–12 Benchmark which can be downloaded at www.towardsmaturity.org/2011benchmark. Organizations can also benchmark themselves against peers at www.towardsmaturity.org/mybenchmark.
Vernon, R. 1966. International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2): 190–207.
Veryard, R. 2009. Technology Hype Curve (http://rvsoftware.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/hype). Retrieved July 30, 2012.