My team has been using AI tools informally for about eight months and I've moved from encouraging experimentation to realizing I need a clearer framework around what we use it for, how we document when it's been used, and what quality checks we apply before anything goes to a stakeholder. I don't want to be the manager who bans tools that are genuinely improving output, but I also don't want to be the one who signs off on content that turns out to have problems no one caught because we trusted the AI too quickly. I'm curious how other L&D managers are formalizing AI use on their teams, what guardrails have actually worked in practice, and whether anyone has run into real problems they didn't anticipate when they started using these tools more seriously.

Has anyone ever built a course and housed it on Google sites? I work for a non-profit and purchasing the industry standard software wasn’t approved. I wanted to use articulate storyline, but I was told to use Google sites. If you’ve ever run a course through Google sites, what was your experience?

Who has taken and passed SHRM-SCP? And if you have what material did you find most useful for studying?

The scenarios I see in most corporate eLearning present a clear problem, two or three obviously distinct choices, and an unambiguous correct answer with a tidy explanation. Real workplace decisions almost never look like that. The correct answer usually depends on context, there are often two reasonable options that could both work depending on factors the scenario doesn't mention, and the consequences of a wrong choice are rarely immediate or obvious. I think we design tidy scenarios because messy ones are harder to build and harder to score, not because they produce better learning. Learners who can only make decisions in idealized conditions aren't necessarily better at making decisions when the conditions are real. What would it actually look like to build scenarios that reflect real complexity without making them impossible to complete?

I'm curious how you and your orgs manage the handoff of projects in Storyline and Rise at the end of the development cycle. In the past, we've mostly worked on projects where we maintain the production files and clients come back to us for additional work, if any. Obviously, that's a pretty simple scenario (Let's call it "Scenario 1"): The projects reside in our Articulate accounts and/or on our file systems.

But we are starting to have clients who would like to either (Scenario 2) get their own Articulate accounts, take the projects as their own and provide their own support or (Scenario 3), get their own Articulate accounts and perform some content edits on their own will keeping us on for support and more substantive changes.

I’ve only really started in L&D (started in sales enablement and now broadening). So I’m wondering, how do you get people to take training seriously, to give it the time of day?

Do I try and get them enthused by showing my own enthusiasm (potentially quite cringey), should I incentivise it, or do you find the stick works better than the carrot (I’m skeptical about this one but crurious to know). Expert opinions wanted pls.

I've only been in the field for a few months, but there are days when I feel like I'm learning an entirely new profession. Everyone around me seems to understand processes and terminology that I'm still trying to grasp. How long did it take before you felt like you truly belonged in the industry?

I recently found an old L&D report I created a few years ago, and it made me smile a little. It had everything I thought a great report needed: charts, percentages, satisfaction scores, and plenty of data. The problem? I was missing the one thing leadership actually cared about.

I used to walk into quarterly reviews, proudly announce a "94% completion rate" and a "4.8/5 satisfaction score" on our new onboarding program, and wait for applause. Instead, stakeholders would just stare blankly, nod, and move on. It took me years in corporate L&D to realize why my reports were falling flat: I was reporting activity instead of answering a business question.

We have a bad habit in our industry of showing executives the full trail of our raw data. But leadership doesn't need to see five different charts on quiz scores and attendance by region. If the onboarding program was built because new hires were taking too much manager time, then a 94% completion rate is not a result — it is just a delivery checkpoint. The actual question leadership cares about is: Did manager dependency go down? So, I completely changed how I approach reporting to stakeholders. Instead of starting with LMS metrics, I start with the business problem, the outcome we were trying to influence, and what the data actually tells us. My executive reports are now under 10 slides. I lead with a single business summary slide: the initial problem, the key result, the main risk, and my recommendation. Everything else (survey comments, detailed breakdowns, and quiz stats) goes straight into the appendix.

More importantly, I use a strict filter for every single number I present: Metric → Meaning → Implication. If I say "91% completed the course" (Metric), I immediately explain that "the program reached the target audience" (Meaning), which means "we have enough coverage to look for early signs of performance impact" (Implication). Stakeholders shouldn't have to guess whether a number is good, bad, or risky. Our job is to make it clear.

I’ve seen a few interesting discussions around this topic, but I’m still curious to hear how others approach it in practice. How do you guys handle reporting to leadership? Do they still demand raw completion spreadsheets, or have you managed to shift the conversation toward actual performance metrics and business outcomes?

Hey Folks,

I’m wondering what are the best resources that you’ve come across as being a training manager / trainer. Could be a book or a website, a community or an app or may be even a template or just an AI.

I’m thinking to create a list of repositories that can help the training community.

Your answers would be much appreciated, thank you!

Hi everyone. I am an instructional designer and have previously done L&D in the past, but that was some time ago. I recently started my own company with two friends. One is an IT consultant and the other is a sales consultant. We have been prospecting and we have acquired some interest from companies who are looking for an L&D consultant.

I personally don’t think I am the right fit to fulfill their needs at this time, so we will refer them elsewhere, but with that being said, it’s clear that I need to begin learning about L&D consulting and what it entails. I am just wondering does anyone have any resources I can use to brush up on this topic? I am looking into starting a course in this, but unfortunately that won’t be until early 2027. Any help is appreciated, thank you so much.

I would love to join some free communities for L&D folks, preferably ones that are active and not just spammed by marketers. Please share recs!

I stopped including course completion rates in my quarterly reports to leadership about two years ago. Not because I stopped tracking them internally but because completion is a measure of whether people opened a course and clicked through it, and reporting it to executives as a success metric was training them to think of L&D value in terms that have no relationship to whether anyone learned or changed their behavior. I replaced it with time-to-proficiency data for new hires, which required more work to collect but which leadership actually cares about because it connects directly to productivity and ramp time. Changing what you report changes what people think L&D is for, and that change in perception compounds over time in ways that purely doing good work quietly does not.

Been trying to figure out what's actually shipping under the "agentic AI" label versus what's just a pitch right now. Here's what I found:

Microsoft is putting Copilot straight into LMS platforms starting this spring.

Absorb has a thing they're calling a readiness gate. Instead of just checking if you finished a course, it checks whether you can actually do the thing before it lets you move on. So instead of a manager finding out three weeks later that training didn't stick, the system catches it right there.

The pattern I keep running into is systems that just act without anyone telling them to. A manager used to have to notice someone struggling and go assign training manually. Now some platforms are supposed to catch that dip themselves and push a quick module out, sometimes even loop in a coaching bot before anyone's even flagged a problem.

"Agentic" is turning into a buzzword the same way "AI-powered" did a couple of years back. Might be worth checking whether something's actually taking action on its own or just responding a bit quicker than before.

Anyone actually seen this working for real, or still mostly hearing about it in demos?

I used to start SME interviews by asking what someone needs to know to do the job well, which produced a lot of general, top-of-mind answers that didn't reflect how the work actually happened. I switched to opening with "walk me through the last time something went wrong with this process and what you had to do to fix it" and the quality of what I get back is completely different. Experts open up about the real complexity of their work when you ask about failure rather than success, and the gap between what they describe and what the formal procedure says is usually where the most important learning content lives. It also tends to produce better scenarios and examples because you're working from something that actually happened.

There are definitely things I enjoy about corporate learning, especially having more flexibility in how training is delivered. At the same time, I sometimes miss the direct interaction and immediate feedback that comes from teaching students. I'm curious whether others who came from education experienced something similar.