A major challenge faced by learning and development (L&D) functions is the question of ownership of the content housed in a learning management system (LMS). This debate continues across industries in learning functions  for end users and stakeholders alike, with L&D personnel often caught in the middle even though guidance exists on how to avoid such situations.

Why? There are several reasons for this challenge. First, since learning functions typically own tools that house training like LMSs, it’s easy for stakeholders to assume that the content (and decisions associated with that content, like assignment parameters and assessments) is also fully owned by L&D after the training is set up and launched. Second, in some cases, the courses or curricula may require ongoing monitoring and maintenance by LMS admins, with direction given by content owners. However, from the end stakeholder point of view and training audiences, it is again assumed that the L&D team is responsible for all the content update decisions and activity. Third, when training initiatives have unexpected outcomes or fail, then L&D teams are often quick to receive blame. Stakeholder assumptions can create short- and long-term consequences for learning leaders when there are training content related issues, challenges, complaints and general feedback about the learning experience, even when the owners of the training are clearly defined within the training course descriptions. 

One common example is around training that is enterprise wide and required for new hires during onboarding, or the employee population at large on a periodic basis. This could encompass topics such as cybersecurity, human resources (HR)-specific subjects, and training that is audited such as compliance (depending on the industry). Since “required” or “mandated” training typically will be administered through a company’s LMS, it’s most often assumed that ownership is with L&D.

However, L&D leaders and admins are usually not well-versed in the “why” around the requirements for training content that they do not own, as they are not the subject matter experts (SMEs) and may not be involved in building the course materials. Instead, their focus is on the technical and logistical workings of course set-up in the LMS. Therefore, queries that do not pertain to technical issues must be sent to the aligned training owners for responses to guard against assumptions or accidental misinformation.  It’s important to identify a process for training audiences to send their queries to the content owners every time associated training is rolled out.

Such confusion about who owns specific training content in an LMS is a very real and an ongoing dilemma for L&D teams, as they often spend time triaging stakeholder questions after enterprise-wide assignments, parsing out technical questions from content related queries, feedback, and misunderstandings that may be caused by poor communication.

One may feel that the solution is simple, right? Simply list the owners and their contact info in the training description within the LMS so trainees know where to send their queries.

The reality, however, is that most people do not read the training descriptions or absorb that information at the outset of training or remember to look there for reference. They may even pass over relevant details or final contact information in a rush to complete the training as a check-the-box activity.

So, what should be done? There are several options for L&D teams to employ in both the strategy design and communication/change management planning:

• Agree with the training owner on a preferred method of contact for training inquiries and ensure that it is documented and promoted accordingly.
• Ongoing marketing and change management materials must direct users to the content owners for any feedback around the learning content, with clear identification of those owners as the SMEs.
• Create a streamlined process flow to direct any applicable training content queries that they receive to the stakeholder (like a directed email box).
• Communicate consistently with stakeholders across teams any messaging regarding content ownership. As an example, regular communication to front-line HR associates to inform them of which party owns a particular training initiative, as HR is often a first point of contact, is a best practice.
• Create a feedback loop between L&D and the business owners, so that updates are made to the content within the LMS as needed, and periodic transitions of responsible parties are also communicated to L&D (as applicable).

While the solutions above might seem simple, the main reason for this article is to highlight the rarely discussed impacts of misconstrued content ownership for learning functions, which include, but are not limited to overall wasted time or effort and resources, plus increased business relationship strain, as shown below:

• Time spent by the wrong parties toward troubleshooting because training queries are not sent to the right parties in the first place.
• Stakeholders receiving incorrect answers to questions if the wrong parties feel compelled to assist in the absence of SME engagement.
• Inefficient use of time when multiple parties attempt to triage or source information.
• Creating poor optics and publicity for L&D teams when stakeholders escalate or make assumptions that learning content is owned by L&D when there are negative training experiences and outcomes. This can have longer term impact around the company’s learning culture, trust and future LMS engagement.

Given the above implications, how can L&D adhere to learning content boundaries, while simultaneously establishing strong stakeholder relationships and creating progressively stronger learning cultures in their organizations? Here are some tips to consider:

• Learning leaders can — and should — be proactive in their consultative relationships with stakeholders from the beginning of their relationships by providing process, standards, guidelines and data to help drive toward strong, positive outcomes. This involves ensuring that content owners are set up for success with their change communications, and that content related queries are managed through a process.
• Stay in constant contact with the company’s aligned communication and marketing team(s) or equivalent structure, to ensure that any learning initiative’s change management process includes a plan to address training queries. The plan must address stakeholder questions using the same process consistently, under guidelines as set by the learning function.
• Anticipate that business and functional stakeholders will most likely not have a plan for addressing course related issues, queries and challenges. Therefore, learning leaders should always be prepared to provide consultation, and have a process and plan ready to share. This may include questions from stakeholders and learners alike regarding course functionality, which is often mistaken as an LMS or technical fix, when in fact the instructional designer or outside eLearning vendor may need involvement.
• Track data in coordination with SMEs to demonstrate the effectiveness of any established processes that efficiently address queries and satisfaction scores or feedback from end users and report the information to stakeholders.

Using the methods above will allow learning functions to be more efficient in their delivery of learning programs, maintain focus on their own areas of expertise, decrease time spent on unnecessary work, and support best practices around LMS learning content management. In the end, such actions will help develop a consistent approach to addressing content ownership and underscore the importance of L&D partnership and engagement in order for all parties to be successful.