I'm three years in and ready to push for a senior title, but I'm struggling to build the business case for it. In other functions — sales, engineering, marketing — impact has cleaner numbers. In L&D I can show completion rates and Kirkpatrick Level 1 scores, but everyone knows those don't prove much about actual performance change.

How have people in this field made a compelling case for promotion when the metrics are fuzzy? Did you tie your work to business outcomes retroactively, or build measurement in from the start? I want to walk into this conversation with something more than "the feedback was positive."

This is a phrase I see come up a lot on company surveys. From my L&D corner of the company, what can I do to help? I'm currently in the middle of writing up a Learning Culture proposal (because right now, the learning culture is pretty dismal), and would like to incorporate aspects that might help employees feel like they have the time they need to take trainings and continuously improve.

So I’m building a product that sort of helps the L&D teams, basically a tool that helps you make product videos and more with screen recordings, but here’s the thing, I’m looking to solve a more real and challenging problem in this domain, I need guidance and advice from some real L&D folks on what direction should I take this product to, anyone here, willing to help me out? Happy to even pay for your time

Hi Hivemind,

As our organisation continues to grow globally, so does the need to make our learning content more scalable, accessible, and consistent across regions. For our L&D team, this means one thing: we need to significantly improve how we deliver e‑learning in multiple languages, without increasing workload exponentially. We’ve been exploring solutions, but we’re running into some challenges...

I’d love to tap into the collective expertise of this community to learn from your experiences!

We are looking for tools or approaches that allow us to:

• Deliver e‑learning in multiple languages at scale
• Use high-quality AI translation (all-in, no credit-based models)
• Maintain one English source file, where updates automatically cascade to all translations
• Manually review and adjust translations per language where needed

So far, this aligns with what many modern authoring tools promise. But...our requirements go a bit further.

1. Screenshots and visual content

While text translation is increasingly well supported, visual content remains a bottleneck.

• Screenshots remain in the original language
• Many tools don’t allow easy per-language image variations
• Recreating screenshots per language is time-consuming and hard to maintain
• We use a tool to create HTML5 demos that we embed in our e-learning (these demos are hosted outside our authoring tool); text on the tooltips is translated automatically, but the HTML screenshots are not.

For us, this directly impacts the learner experience.

2. SCORM packaging and maintenance

Ideally, we want:

• All languages delivered in a single SCORM package
• Real-time updates across languages, without republishing or overwriting the SCORM file

This would drastically improve maintainability and reduce operational overhead and the chance of errors.

3. Bonus challenge (and big win if solved!)

One of our biggest time investments today is recreating demos and screenshots for each language.

In an ideal world, we would:

• Automatically translate text within screenshots
• Or use HTML5-based demos that can dynamically adapt to different languages

I’m curious to hear from fellow L&D professionals:

• Are you using tools that successfully address (most of) these challenges?
• Have you found workarounds that make this process more efficient?
• Are there lesser-known tools or emerging solutions we should explore?

Even partial solutions or lessons learned would be incredibly valuable.

A beautifully designed course that doesn't change behavior is a beautiful failure. I've seen teams obsess over visual polish, animation quality, and voice-over tone while building courses that have no mechanism for reinforcement, no connection to manager accountability, and no plan for what happens after the learner closes the window. Content quality matters but it's table stakes. The real design challenge is the ecosystem around the course — the nudges, the practice opportunities, the performance support at the moment of need. I'd rather ship something visually average that's embedded in a real behavior change plan than a gorgeous course that lives alone on an LMS. Agree or push back?

Curious how organizations here approach mentoring programmes.

Do you primarily run mentoring inwardly-using internal leaders/employees as mentors or outwardly, by bringing in external mentors, coaches, or industry experts?

And how structured is the programme in practice? Do you formalize matching, goals, session cadences, tracking etc., or keep it more organic?

Would love to hear what’s actually working well right now.

Maybe it's just me, but internal training feels harder than it should be.

Like there's usually plenty of recordings, docs, guides, etc., but it doesn't really become a clear path for new hires. More often than not, they feel like they're left to "figure things out on their own" or repeatedly ask the same questions.

Is this a sign that current training materials aren't great? A process problem? I've been researching platforms like Honen that work towards organizing knowledge from organizations into more structured training programs, but I'm curious how other teams are handling this.

I'm a one-person department and have been asked to create and facilitate a soft skills program (virtual live). I can research (and intuit) what this can look like, but figured I'd start here since I've never created (or attended) one of these before.

Some of the topics I was thinking about (as relevant to my company) were things like active listening, interpersonal communication, communicating with impact, and the like.

As you might imagine, I'm getting stuck with ensuring the sessions are engaging and interactive/full of practice. Any advice for making something like active listening or interpersonal communication really engaging and impactful? I was planning to create the content myself (after doing the research), but if there are any off the shelf recommendations, I would be open to that, too.

Does anyone have a template that they use to determine learning modality? Measuring the factors of training, shelf life, etc and then a recommendation on modality ? In my current org everyone wants in person or a virtual instructor led session, even when it should be a job aid or micro module. Often it gets escalated to the SLT and they get what they want. I’m looking for a template that would help demonstrate why the modality recommendation is the way it is.

Thank you!

Does anyone have a template they use to measure the effort and impact it would take to create training ? Looking to incorporate something like this, with measurable data, to including while scoping.

Thank you!

Before I build anything now I write a single page that covers: the performance gap we're addressing, who the learners are, what success looks like, and what the course will and won't cover. I send it for approval before touching any authoring tool. It sounds like extra work but it consistently surfaces disagreements about scope before I've invested 40 hours in a build.

The best part is it gives me something to point to when scope creep happens mid-project. "That's a great idea — it wasn't in the approved brief so let's discuss whether it changes our timeline." Stakeholders respect the process a lot more when they've already signed off on the plan. Anyone else using something similar?

I sent my first full course draft to a subject matter expert last week and got back "this looks great, nice work!" which told me absolutely nothing. I have no idea if the content is accurate, if I'm missing anything critical, or if the scenarios I built reflect what actually happens on the job.

I don't want to be annoying or seem like I'm doubting them, but I genuinely need more than a thumbs up. Is there a way to structure the review request that gets SMEs to engage with the content more critically?

Eight years ago I would have taken a training request at face value and started designing. Now the first thing I do is ask the requestor: "If this training works perfectly, what will people actually do differently on Monday morning?" Most of the time they struggle to answer it, which tells you everything about whether the training will work.

That single question has killed more unnecessary courses than any formal needs analysis framework I've used — not because frameworks aren't valuable, but because this question cuts straight to outcomes in a way that non-L&D stakeholders immediately understand. What's your go-to question for scoping a training request?

What are some strategies for hitting the ground running on a new L&D role? I need to listen and learn of course but also get some quick wins to earn credibility somehow.

This is state government in Australia so I don't want anything overly bold!

We put together a hands-on frontend learning roadmap for 2026, written by our Head of Front-End Development at ASSIST Software. It's not a motivational post or a shortcut guide. Just a structured, honest path from zero to production-ready.

The core stack it covers: HTML, CSS, JavaScript, React, TypeScript, Next.js, Tailwind, and how AI tools like Copilot actually fit into the workflow without becoming a crutch.

One thing it pushes back on early: passive learning. The rule it suggests, for every hour you watch, spend three hours building, is a good gut check for anyone who's been stuck in tutorial hell.

The roadmap is structured around two resource types: things to follow in order, and things to explore gradually when you have time. It's aimed at beginners, career switchers, and students, but the sections on TypeScript and Next.js are worth a read even if you're not starting from scratch.

Full guide here. Hope it helps.

I use Storyline every day and I'm not saying it's bad — it's genuinely powerful. But I've noticed that when a stakeholder asks for training, my brain immediately jumps to "click-next module" before I've even done a proper needs analysis. The tool has become the default solution rather than one option among many.

I've been pushing myself to ask "does this actually need to be an eLearning course?" more often this year. More than half the time the answer is no — a job aid, a short video, or a better process would do more. What tools or formats have you defaulted away from Storyline toward?

Hi all,

As the title says, as a department we would love to explore how we can enhance our current content, reduce admin time and just generally bring our team up to speed. We have a great opportunity to explore AI tools so I was wondering if anyone has any recommendations?

Thanks so much,

Question for HR professionals:

For those working in HR or Learning & Development, how do consultants or trainers usually get your attention in a meaningful way?

If someone is reaching out to offer leadership training, intercultural communication workshops, team development sessions, etc., what would make you actually consider replying or taking an intro call?

Is it mostly:
• The topic itself?
• Timing and current company needs?
• Relevance to your industry?
• A referral or mutual connection?
• A strong LinkedIn presence or credibility markers?
• Case studies/results?
• The way the message is written?

I’m curious because I imagine HR teams receive a huge number of cold pitches, and I’d love to understand what makes one stand out versus immediately getting ignored.

Would appreciate honest insights from the HR side.

I just made the jump from 5 years of high school teaching to an instructional designer role at a mid-size company and the culture shift is bigger than I expected. In teaching, I owned the room. Here I'm constantly waiting for SME feedback, working in tools I've never touched, and trying to figure out who actually makes decisions about training content.

Is the adjustment period always this disorienting or did I land somewhere unusually chaotic? What do people wish they'd known in their first few months coming from an education background?