LMS Migration

Role

Learning Systems Lead

Ownership

• Stakeholder discovery
• Vendor evaluation
• Migration planning
• Administrator training

Decision Authority

• Defined evaluation criteria
• Recommended the selected LMS
• Established the migration strategy

Collaboration

• Executive leadership
• IT
• Department managers
• Branch managers

The Challenge

The existing LMS at Deseret First Credit Union couldn’t keep up with the business needs and evolving employee learning model. DFCU had recently changed from a traditional teller and loan officer model to a Member Service Representative with levels ranging from MSR I (a more traditional teller role) to MSR IV (a loan officer and assistant manager position).

With the current LMS, reporting was lacking and the customization of learning paths was non-existant.

Discovery

Starting with the discovery of additional pain points in the current LMS, various stakeholders and field admins (department and branch managers) were consulted to provide additional insight.

Stakeholder Feedback

• Reporting automation and robustness
• Enrollment rule simplification
• Milestone and completion automation
• Course organization and learning paths

Admin Feedback

• Reporting simplification—need automated, quick summaries of vital information
• Notifications of completions and milestones reached
• Next steps and enrollments visible and easily understood

Process

1. 01

   Gather LMS Candidates

   Taking the feedback and requirements for a new system, new LMSs were identified. Systems were demoed to gauge LMS capabilities against the outlined requirements.

2. 02

   Compile Evaluation Data

   Evaluation results were consolidated into a common comparison framework so each system could be assessed against the same requirements.

3. 03

   Present Recommendation

   The findings were synthesized into a recommendation for leadership, including the business rationale, implementation considerations, and expected impact.

After compiling the data, Absorb surfaced as the clearest candidate. The data and recommendation to implement Absorb as the new LMS was presented to Executive Leadership.

The total migration timeline was set for two months. This allowed for the existing LMS data and content to be imported into Absorb. Annual compliance course data and historic course completion was preserved.

1. 01

   Content Migration—5 weeks

   Existing content was migrated into new learning paths. The learning paths were customized by role using the existing SCORM content, custom assignments, and assessments to supplement the existing training. Enrollment rules were set for annual compliance courses to assist in automation and setting learner expectations and notifications.

2. 02

   Admin Training—1 week

   Live-online sessions were hosted to demonstrate the new LMS and key workflows.

3. 03

   Admin Sandbox—2 weeks

   To allow admins to get comfortable with the new system and reporting capabilities, they were given access to a sandbox environment to supplement the training.

The Solution

Implementation of Absorb LMS. Shared reporting was built to track learner progress and milestones. Automated notifications set up for both learners and field admins to notify of any due actions or courses awaiting completion.

Outcome

Learner Engagement

• Annual compliance on-time completion increased by 5% with the increased automation and learner notifications.
• Custom billboards to feature courses.
• Reporting automations and robustness allowed additional manager involvement and coaching opportunities.

Admin Capabilities

• Time spent compiling manual reports decreased significantly.
• Increased clarity around learner enrollments and next steps.

Sustainability

• Custom learning paths set up for additional roles.
• LMS still in use after leaving for another opportunity.
• Pricing negotiated to accomodate for growth in workforce without significant increase.

Lessons Learned

RFP Process

An official RFP was not issued for this project. Instead, individual research and outreach was used. Some bias was probably introduced due to the research process and LMS demo scheduling.

Implementing the project now, I would suggest an RFP process. By going through a more formal RFP, it would allow for a more equal comparison and reduce the manual work for compiling the data.

Admin Training

The admin training could have been improved by giving the admin a more structured approach to the sandbox. Field admins were primarily branch management, so time was a major constraint in planning and executing the training. The live-online facilitation of training couldn't cover all aspects of their admin functions, so the self-directed, exploration approach was used.

The sandbox experience could have been improved by giving branch management a list of tasks to explore or a workbook. If implementing it now, I would have the original live-online training, send the workbook to field admins and have them explore on their own and then at the conclusion of the sandbox stage have an admin huddle and host open hours for questions.

The huddle would be a formal meeting, probably 30-minutes long where we would gather additional information about what resources were needed for admins. I would avoid answering one-off questions and encourage admins to attend an open hours session to get one-on-one coaching.

Post-Mortem

What I consider a miss is that this implementation never received a formal post-mortem. Looking back now, there was a lot of potential in sharing the measured outcomes and for looking for opportunities to improve the implementation process enterprise-wide.

Agile Configuration and Beta Testing

Initially, the scope of the implementation was underestimated. There was an increased focus on branch staff. This left departments such as the call center using the learning paths set up for branch staff. Even though the title of the role was the same, there were some missed opportunities to configure a custom learning path for call center employees.

Taking a more agile and iterative approach would have caught some of those issues sooner and highlighted the possible deficiency. Getting a varied group of beta participants would have also checked the assumptions made about the LMS use. Both these would have made it a much smoother implementation for non-branch employees. At the time, most departments had their own onboarding processes outside of the LMS and only used the LMS for annual compliance course tracking. This would have been an excellent opportunity to start the discussion for centralizing all employee learning into one system.