LH #121 A Make Or Break Year? 2025 in review with Myles Runham

This podcast is supported by World of Learning Summit. This leading L and D event returns to Olympia, London on the 3rd to 4th of February 2026. Two days to learn, discover, interact and network with the best in the business. Register now. It's free@learnevents.com this podcast is supported by Synthesia. Training videos shouldn't take weeks to make Synthesia lets you turn text into professional multilingual training videos in minutes. It's fast, scalable and so simp well. Anyone can use it. You can write an email, you can make a video.

Hey there, my name is Alex and I'll be guiding you through this training session.

70% of Fortune 100 companies use Synthesia to modernize onboarding, simplify compliance and scale global training. Podcast listeners get an exclusive 30 day free trial. Go to synthesia IO greatminds. Don't miss it. This offer won't last.

There has been a growing realisation over this year that the sort of status quo is kind of running out of fuel and that things need to change.

Welcome to the Learning Hack, a podcast about the people and technologies creating the future of learning. I'm John Helm.

Now guess what? Learning is cool. Learning is cool. I'm learning. Learning is fun and knowledge is power. Knowledge Education.

It's that time of year again when we look back over the past months and ask ourselves what the f happened. But to stick with events in the learning and people profession, well, it's been another year of tightening budgets, tougher buying cycles, shifting vendor positions and the ever present hum of AI in the background. Sometimes helpful, sometimes unsettling, always moving faster than anyone feels comfortable with. To help bring a bit of mature analysis and insight to this complicated picture, I reached out to a friend of the podcast who sits at one of the best vantage points in the industry.

Hack Facts Miles Runham is Senior Analyst at Fosway Group, Europe's leading HR talent and learning analyst firm. He specializes in the digital learning and learning systems landscape, advising large organizations on market trends, technology strategy and supplier capability. Before joining Fosway, Miles held senior roles in digital strategy and product leadership, including at the BBC and in the private sector learning market. He brings more than 20 years of experience in online learning, product design and organizational change and is a regular speaker at industry events across the UK and Europe.

We talk AI, real capabilities versus hype. We talk budgets, who's spending, who isn't and why Value is harder than ever to prove. We talk skills, data and the future shape of the L and D team itself. And yes, we Ask Miles the big question. What will be your karaoke go to at parties this season? Miles, it's a great pleasure to have you on the podcast again. Welcome to the Learning Hack.

Thank you for having me. Thank you for having me back.

In fact, Fosway covers a wide area, mostly UK and Europe geographically, I think it's true to say, but you cover hr, learning talent, cloud HR and so on with your many nine grids. But I want to start with a learning related question as that's kind of mostly what this podcast about. At the Learning Technologies Conference earlier this year, conference where you spoke as well, I think Danny Johnson of Red thread said that 2025 would be make or break for L and D. So from where we're sitting now, looking back at all the market data and client sentiment you've gathered, I have to ask the question, did we make it or break it?

Yeah, I don't know. I think we're probably still making it and breaking it. I have a suspicion that 2026 will a make or break year, I guess, and I imagine I wasn't at that session. So I'm not quite sure exactly what Danny was referring to, but I guess it's sort of the impending disruption, influence and threat of AI on sort of existing practice in learning and development. And I think sort of there has been a growing realization over this year that the sort of status quo is kind of running out of fuel and that things need to change. So I'm sort of assuming that that's what that quote referring to that, you know, that, that the preoccupation with learning as an activity of, of production and distribution and, and management of learning, it, you know, now has some limitations. I think, I think though perhaps it's clear that the AI and technology is disrupting that. But I think, I think kind of the, the two to three years of economic hard times and tough markets, tight budgets, focus on value, etc, I think that's also putting pressure on and adding to this sense that, you know, things have to change. And I think that's true in a lot and we see that a lot in our corporate research with budget holders needing to demonstrate value for their budgets, longer decision cycles to acquire and have budgets agreed, longer and more complex approvals for buying decisions, which puts pressure on vendors as well. So I think that's an important part of the story that's played out this year, but also has played out, I think in the last two years as well.

Without throwing shade on Danie Johnson, who I admire a lot. I'm always Suspicious of those kind of this year is going to, we're going to do it or we're not type of pronouncements or, you know, we're at a crisis, you know, things need to change pronouncements. But thinking about it, I'm giving it a bit more thought. I think it's quite possible that she's right in that L and D had to make adjustments this year that, you know, might not really show up in terms of change practice for the next few years or either change practice or bad effects like obsolescence over the next few years. So I suppose what you're saying there is its external influences have caused that, but also kind of changes of mindset. And perhaps your verdict would be that, you know, both of those things have to change, especially the change of mindset. It leads on quite well to the next question. Fosway tracks both corporate learning buyers and solution providers. What are the strongest signals you've seen this year about where the market is heading? Are organizations in people industries spending smarter or simply less?

I think. Well, yeah, I suppose. I think it's a bit more of a yes and answer, but I think it sort of does build on the previous part of the conversation. So I think there is, there is pressure to either. Well, I think, I suppose spending less is because the holders of the purse strings are just simply keeping budgets where they are or reducing them. So that's sort of that, you know, that's a circumstance that's rather given to L and D within most organizations. Some L and D teams and leaders have more influence over winning that extra budget than others. So I think that's a sort of just a factor of the economics of many markets that L and D teams find themselves in. But I think there is a real need to spend smarter and I think that's not just sort of getting more for your money, although I think that's an important consideration as well. So, you know, wrapping more and bundling more solutions into an existing budget, you know, is part of that, but I think it's seeking, it's seeking greater value as well. And I think the economy has brought L and D to that place finally, where sort of evidence of value or the ability to demonstrate value that you're from your buying behavior has become a much more commonplace factor. It's not true for everything. So I think L and D buyers are going to the market not just to find good value for their money, but also to find evidence of that value or the ability to demonstrate and explore that value from their providers. As well and are a bit sharper about what that value looks like as well. So it's not just necessarily efficiency, you know, greater bang for your buck. It's sort of, it's, it's what, it's, it's, it's a sort of a closer attention to fulfillment of objectives as well.

To widen it to sort of HR as well. Did you find that a similar sort of dynamic or is it, or is it different hr, global talent, you know, recruitment, so on?

I think no, it's a good question. I think one of the things I think in learning that's perhaps different from the other people professions and this is much less true of the learning systems market, more of the digital learning solutions providers is that there's efficiency in process is less of a consideration or not the only consideration. If you're going to market to buy learning solutions for a particular program or change activity or particular transformation objectives which a lot of kind of custom providers or solution providers would focus on, then I think there's more at stake there and there's more. What a successful outcome looks like is probably more variable, more nuanced and therefore more difficult. So I think there's a more focus on demonstrating that the budget used for those objectives or the budget is being used wisely and well, I think perhaps where in the other HR professions there's probably more a focus on efficiency now as well. So simply, you know, process efficiency. And I think there is pressure on headcount there as well. And there is the anticipation, I think that, that certain parts of, you know, certain skills or capabilities could increasingly be automated and are being automated. I think that's probably more promise than reality, but that's an anticipation and I think that anticipation is actually playing out in the kinds of decisions that people are making about budgets and headcounts in their planning as well. There's a kind of anticipation that you can keep resources at a certain level or lower them because AI will be able to fill that gap even if it hasn't yet proved that it can do. So I think that's a kind of tricky dynamic at the moment, a tricky situation for leaders to navigate.

Yeah, there's a couple of things there we could unpack a bit. One of them is that you're making, if I hear you right, you're saying there's a difference with learning because it's not simply kind of process orientated and you can take those roles and break them down into workflows and automate them. You've got to be really careful with Learning that you don't just do it 80% as good and cheaper and somehow throw the baby out with the bathwater. You're making me think of something I read of yours recently about friction and how perhaps this is a defining difference between say, although it's a bit broad brushed to say this, that that there is a difference in learning, that learning inherently has got friction to it. It's hard and there is kind of cognitive effort has to be expended in order to make it actually work. So when you look at efficiency, getting rid of friction without decreasing quality, convenience trumps quality. Is. Is the saying that learning is slightly different, am I right there?

Yeah, I think. Well, I think it's sort of. It is, but it also needs to be. So I think. But I think there is, I think both of those things are happening. So I guess at that point about friction, and you're right, I would agree that challenge is really important to a good learning experience. You know, one that's going to stick and you know, improve performance tends to require effort and challenge, you know, and that can be. That creates friction and we shouldn't sort of try and rub away or optimize that friction away because it's an important signal of value as well. If there's friction in an organization, it also shows you where things where you need to turn your attention, whether that's in sort of sentiment or behaviors or performance or stubborn resistance to change, et cetera. So I think that is really significant that we don't overlook that sense of deliberately making things difficult for people because that's kind of a good quality learning experience. But at the same time there is a huge focus on optimizing the design and production and management of particularly digital learning and sort of following, I guess that sort of the digital marketplaces where optimization has been such a driver. So I think both of those things are happening at once. One of the things I do think is really important though, and this feels to me like a significant gap in the focus in the market, probably on the provider side, but also on the customer side. I think there's a real preponderance of optimizing the experience of self study. So it's becoming much more convenient and efficient to find moments of self study, whether they're with sort of a coaching tool now or whether they're with some content or a course. But the market tends to focus on us studying alone. And it's not necessarily that that's wrong, but there are significant limitations to that. And I think a lot of organizations now And a lot of learning leaders that we speak to and work with are really interested in supporting and facilitating meaningful connections as part of, you know, as part of the kind of work experience, as part of learning as well. And I think that there's quite a significant gap there, I think in the market at the moment. So I think there is opportunity there, but also I think there is a bit of a challenge and a problem there as well.

Yeah, I have heard that similar theme from various people over the last year. At one of the eventif events I did that was coming across very strongly as well. People are a bit worried about the kind of communal side of learning getting lost in the hyper individualization, all the personalization going and so on. I should say about the question I asked there, I don't want to overgeneralize about other areas of, you know, the people industries. I mean recruitment, you can do it a lot quicker and a lot cheaper. But if you end up with a load of muppets then you know, it's been kind of self defeating, you can shoot yourself in the foot. But I think that feeling that we think there's something special about learning has to be justified.

We've suffered from, I suppose, an over promise in what these new technologies, particularly AI can achieve and how quickly. So I think a lot of the infrastructure that we work with and current practice, whether that's kind of policy or technology or ways of working, they're very, very well established for a long prolonged period of time. It's going to take quite a lot to change them. But I think a lot of the rhetoric and the positioning around AI particularly is that all of a sudden these new practices are going to be available but progress isn't in a straight line. It will be messy and it'll take some time. And I think we're seeing that particularly perhaps this year, we're seeing much more meaningful adoption and implementation. But we're also seeing the resistance and complication of making that work and making it work well. So that was inevitable. I guess progress takes longer than we expect or longer than promised perhaps is more realistic.

Yeah, we're moving towards talking about AI and I think one of the things that induces a real sort of uncertainty at the moment is, you know, we can see that business is going to be re engineered and is being re engineered around the capabilities of AI. But it doesn't feel because of the pace at which AI is developing, which is really quite dizzying, it doesn't, although perhaps a bit slower than some people suggest in terms of business Cycles. It's fairly dizzying. It doesn't feel like this is going to be a one and done sort of thing that, okay, we re engineer the organization around AI and then we've kind of swallowed that, we've taken that on board and then we're back to kind of we're getting the productivity benefits and so on. Because re engineering it round AI, we're re engineering it around AI 2024 but by 2026 it's going to have moved on a bit further as well. So it's that thing of constant perma change I think that makes people very unsure. But focusing on the last year, what have you seen that's genuinely transformative about AI? And let's talk about what's actually happening now rather than what will happen. What still feels like smoke and mirrors.

Yeah, well, I suppose we did quite a sort of large scale review of the sort of market assessment with the extent to which AI capabilities were live or on roadmaps earlier this year. I suppose the data we gathered was really for learning systems and digital learning was the winter of last year, so sort of December, January, February. So that data, we're updating that as we speak for the spring of next year. But that showed at that time that almost that the messaging was far ahead of the reality. So roadmaps weren't as developed and sophisticated as it seemed. And certainly live capability was quite rare. I think in the digital learning it was only 11% of all of those functions and features that we were tracking were actually live at that time. But as you said, things are changing quickly and we'd expect that to change. So I think that was something that, it was quite sobering sort of of the reality and the sort of, I suppose the free bar nature of the conversation around AI were quite different. I think one of the things though that I think we are seeing is that one of the transformations is just the efficiency. So the efficiency of design, production, distribution and management of digital learning is a transformation and I think a transformation mainly because of the economics, you know, so the economics of the industry are being, are being rewritten and you can, I think you can really start to see that much more clearly this year than you could before. So and I think we're starting to see so maybe some of the implications of that poking through. So I do think that that efficiency, that sort of economic efficiency will be, will be genuinely disruptive and it will probably be quite uncomfortable as well. I think what's kind of interesting, I suppose you know, from that previous conversation about the Optimization of self study. I do think there's some really interesting applications of the reality of being able to actually sort of practice rehearse and get feedback on, on your skills and proficiency levels within learning experiences. That feels really interesting and new and I think that's, that's adding a. I suppose it's, it's not necessarily transforming what learning is about but it's, it's transforming the, of value and the effectiveness of those solutions and starting to see that become much more commonplace as well. I think one of the things I think that we have seen though, and I think this is really tricky for marketing folks and for chief product officers on the service provider and the vendor side is everybody's using the same technologies to do very similar things. So sort of sustainable differentiation both in terms of salience of your marketing but also generally in terms of your capability and your model is really, really hard to achieve. So I think that's a really interesting factor as well. So I think you can see it. I think as you've said before John, the foundation model providers don't seem to be able to gain much of an advantage for long either. So OpenAI do something impressive with GPT5 or with Sora 2 or whatever it might be and then Google or Anthropic are the same weeks later. So it's very hard for anybody to sort of, you know, to sustain a lead I think, which is, which is kind of an interesting dynamic in the market as well.

If you're looking to connect with the top minds in learning and talent, there's no better place than an iventive event that's I V E N T I V. Since 2009 they've hosted nearly 300 interactive conversational events exclusively for senior leaders like Global Hitler Learn. I've been a sponsor myself and found these events invaluable. Less about sitting and listening, more about real impactful conversations. It's an unmatched opportunity to collaborate with leading chief learning officers on the challenges they're tackling today. Join the conversation visit iventive.com learninghouse that's eventive.com learninghack just to update us some of the statistics. There was some October research by IBM that says 66% of UK enterprises say they're already experiencing significant AI driven productivity improvements. And it briefing again in October said only 45% of UK enterprises provide company wide or role specific AI training despite the productivity gains. You got to comment on those.

Yeah, I suppose. I think one of the earliest areas that L and D focused on inevitably was AI skills themselves, such a sort of high area of demand, particularly for the, you know, the content service providers. So I think there was an enormous amount of investment to build AI skills for their customers, you know, for workforces and workplaces. But I think probably some of that is catching up. But there's also, you know, that's a kind of feature race in itself. You know, as you said, every new release needs a new module or new content to support it. So I think, I think we've seen learning and development respond pretty quickly. Actually. I think it's quite impressive how quickly. You know, a couple of years ago, I guess those providers brought some of those, those services out. I do, yeah, I, I won. I, I always get a bit nervous about productivity data and how, how accurate it is within an organization and how robust and detailed that, you know, that product productivity data is. So I think there's sort of, maybe there's a bit of a difference between survey answers and actual, you know, commercial and business data as well. Where I think, I think those productivity measures, particularly in the uk, we haven't covered ourselves in glory in the availability and the real usefulness of that data. So I think we need to be a little bit careful. I do think, as I said, I suppose within the learning and development world, I think we are starting to see whether you think of it as a benefit or a threat, but we're starting to see the real change in efficiency and speed in terms of design and production. So, you know, as I said, I think that will start to make a difference. I think it was. One of the things I think is difficult and complicated is for some of those kind of skills proficiency data to find good, detailed, robust sources of that data to apply, sort of benchmarking your workforce, et cetera. I think that feels like an ongoing challenge, although there is being, is progress being made there. Although that answers a slightly different question, hopefully without evading your original one.

I don't think so. But also usefully, it does kind of take us onto skills, which is the next question. However, before we kind of park AI for now, what are your feelings about effects of AI on the job market? Probably it's a bit early to re. Say this, but younger people, certainly, anecdotally, there is a lot of evidence, well, a lot of anecdotal evidence that it's having a big effect on first jobbers. You know, I have an illustrator daughter who say that AIs definitely have an impact on her work as a freelancer. People finding it harder to get jobs, to change jobs and so on. I got a study from King's College London. I haven't quite got the date there. Oh yeah, again in October. So firms whose workforces are highly exposed to AI capabilities reduced total employment by an average of 4.5% and junior roles by 5.8% in UK study. Now there are plenty of people who, like David Sachs for instance who would say there is no, nothing in the job figures says that people are losing jobs because of AI. Young people, I can tell you feel very differently.

Yeah, well, I think perhaps it's not necessarily that people are losing jobs, it's they're finding it harder to get work.

I think, I think in the first place.

Yeah, yes, or to find work and I suppose work slightly different defined. Differently defined. It feels like there is genuine pressure on graduate entry jobs, particularly in those kind of knowledge based segments where the graduate milk round was such an established feature. That feels like that's being disrupted. I think that feels true. But I think it's also in a sort of perhaps a more flexible work market where it's not just about getting a job, it's about finding work. Like you said your daughter works as a freelancer. Then I think there is pressure on those roles on that work and I think there's more likelihood that corporate buyers of those inputs will be trying to manage those internally now using their own, you know, upskilling internal teams and using, using other tools to try and sort of manage some of that internally for the more, perhaps the more business as usual and less complex needs. I think that's a factor. I think one of the things that does seem to be happening as well though is that kind of freelancer rates might be under pressure as well because as more of, as more of those business as usual kind of tasks or activities within a particular workflow are automated that, you know, that's putting pressure on those kind of daily or hourly rates for some of those, for some of those roles as well. So I think those, those things are, I do think are starting to happen. But again, I think the thing is we sort of have, tend to have a slightly binary public debate about it as if it's going to happen all of a sudden. Whereas I think, you know, it's going to happen unevenly and it will be unevenly distributed but you can start to see some of those effects happening. I think, and I do, I think it's tough, I think it's very tough for young people. As a parent of young adults, I worry for them, you know, for that. I think that it's a rapidly changing environment for them and they're poorly supported generally, I feel.

So freelancers rates dropping. You're scaring me too much now, Miles.

Well under pressure I would say, you know. Yes. Okay. It's still a sunny day here in South London. Just to be a bit more optimistic.

Always sunny in Brighton. Everyone's been talking skills for several years now. But this year it really showed up in your research as the top of mind priority. Are we any closer to achieving meaningful skills intelligence? What do the data and the analyst view tell us about progress or fatigue around the skills narrative? I have to say actually I also looked at the priorities in HR and they're very different. Priorities in HR are about reported by, I think McKinsey are about employee experience and leadership development and so on. Skills doesn't seem to figure in that research. And then when you look about priorities for employees, it's keeping their job.

Yes, no, I think that's true. It's keeping their job and having a decent job. But I suppose, but keeping your job and doing well at it to support your ability to keep. It tends to be more skills focused now so that you can demonstrate that you're growing into it as jobs change as well. So it's probably a bit more complicated than that. And I think, you know, our own, our data suggests that this skills is still a major objective. This, the quest to be a skills based organization, whatever that might mean is still a very, you know, it's a very high priority, way over sort of 85 I think in our data, in the HR realities data. But then I think it's actually under 20% of organizations feel that they're there or have made significant headway. So there's kind of significant gap I think on the provider side that's an opportunity but it still creates pressure and there is still a priority. I think, I suppose in terms of skills intelligence. It tends to be the specialist providers who are focused on that which tend, they tend to be sort of AI native providers as well who are looking to provide that kind of rich and scaled skills intelligence for both recruiting and for skills development in organizations. And I think they tend to be leading the market. But the extent to which then maybe the big HCM sort of big box providers are catching up is changing as well. So I think that's an important factor. I think a lot of those leading providers though, they seem to be focusing on looking at tasks as well as skills to be a bit more sort of granular and focused on what it actually takes to perform a Skill and what those skills are made of and therefore kind of how you can kind of observe them and measure them, which I think is kind of an interesting change. There's also an interesting change there where they're sort of preparing for the arrival of AI in the workforce. Sort of maybe some kind of AI capability in the form of sort of agents performing tasks in workflows. And I think it's kind of important, I suppose, in that respect that you need to break a skill down. Because AIs don't learn skills, they perform tasks. So identifying where those automated or automatable tasks are is kind of important as well. Which is one of the reasons they're focusing on tasks to a greater extent than they used to as well.

Yeah, seems to get more and more granular that because, you know, tasks make up skills, skills make up. Yeah, competencies, competencies make up capabilities and.

So on and they all make up the workforce soup. Yeah, yeah, it's very, it's true. I think, I think one of the things that's kind of interesting, I suppose there's a bit of a sort of competition or debate about what are the most useful signals for skills intelligence as well. Is it, you know, is it sort of scraping of social media, LinkedIn profiles and CVs, how useful is that versus, you know, maybe employee listening, which you might get. You know, some of the reward and engagement providers have some quite sort of rich sources of skills data in terms of people being, you know, congratulated or celebrated for doing particular well in a particular project that might signal certain skills, capability and potential as well. So there's all of these different data sets that, you know, that sort of make up this very complex picture of what the skills in an organization look like and you know, and therefore where there's strength and weakness. I think it's interesting to see how that will play out as well. I think we don't have an answer to that yet, but there's kind of, it's interesting to see different businesses suppose are positioning themselves with strengths in different places from different data sources just to.

Worry at that difference between HR and L and D priorities for a second. Does that mean that skills are seen as L&D's jobs? Because skills problems are a kind of, you know, board level worry. We still have skills gaps. There's a worry that the workforce doesn't have the right digital skills and so on for everything. But is this kind of delegated to L and D, as it were, or am I just taking two very different data points and constructing A narrative out.

Of them and joining them together? No, I think it does, I suppose that you know, organizations or they tend to be, you know, construct themselves in different ways, I suppose but in larger, larger enterprises where you, you know, the people functions are better resourced and no one ever feels well resourced, but better resourced and they've got different, more I suppose specialist capabilities then it tends to be talent, I suppose that leads the skills strategy because talent is also skills supply into the organization through recruitment as well as sort of the management and development of skills within the workforce as it transforms and changes and tries to put the right people in the right places within the workforce as well. I suppose where learning and development works well there it's often in partnership with or as part of those kind of talent led initiatives and strategies. I think that's a broad trend. It's not true for every organization. I think L and D also learning tends to have many, many other preoccupations as well. So you've got compliance and onboarding for example, are two kind of consistent areas that tend to stand alone a little bit as well that, that don't go away. So that takes L and D kind of resource and focus into other areas as well.

So one of fosware's perennial themes is learning impact and performance alignment. AI should make it easier to measure outcomes in theory at least. Has 2025 seen any breakthrough in how organizations actually measure the value of learning? Or are we still stuck in the same old doom loop of not evaluating?

I feel the pressure, John, of not being sunny and optimistic enough, but I'm not sure I'm going to pull it off with this question either. I mean, I think for me the whole data analytics theme has been the Achilles heel of learning and development since I can remember. So that's sort of 20 odd years in my own career in some form of learning role or responsibility it feels like. Actually I think L and D never really grasped the digital transformation nettle in this respect. Now transformation was built on connection and connected experiences and data and I don't think L and D ever really, really grasped those things properly. So there's a lot of kind of catching up to do with data capability. But having said that, I think there is a real acceptance and understanding that using data well and smartly and finding valuable data sources beyond typical learning data as well is really important and there is progress in that regard. So I think it is being taken much more seriously and it connects up to that. First, you know, at the beginning of the conversation as well, the Pressure to demonstrate value means that you need a strong data or stronger data capability to, you know, to be convincing and to do that and also to, you know, to sort of demonstrate that you're worthy of extra budget as well. So I think, I think that has changed. I think one of the things, the opportunities from AI and we're starting to see this, although I think it is just, just to start, is there's richer data that you can gather from these AI experiences so that you can get a better read in detail on individuals behavior within learning experiences and you can see then more clearly whether they are making progress or whether they're closer to a stronger result, et cetera. And you can offer that feedback as well. So I think there is real potential in that richer data set and sort of breaks out from the scorm dungeon a bit. So I think there is potential there and we're starting to see that. But I don't believe that we've seen a transformation of that in 2025 as yet. No. Although it's only the 13th of November, so it's still a month to go. I'm trying to be optimistic. John.

Okay, glass half full?

Yes.

Let's go supply side. What trends have stood out in the systems and tools market this year? Obviously the SANA acquisition by workday was a big more generally, are we seeing consolidation, fragmentation, or a new generation of platforms emerging around AI and data? I should say about the SANA story, it's quite an interesting one because at the beginning of the year, what I was hearing from sort of Don Taylor and George Burston and so on is that we were getting a bit of a repeat of the early 2000s thing where you had incumbents in those in the training industry facing off against born on the web companies, and not only training, but in all industries facing up against born on the web companies. So this was kind of Google versus the big media companies and so on. And there was this thing that companies formed in a garage five years later were dominating the market because of this dynamic. And what people were saying was that this is being repeated in the kind of learn tech market that we had born AI companies like SANA facing up against the incumbents like Cornerstone. Now since then I kind of had to revise that picture because my podcast co host Donald Clark told me that he knew of SANA from quite early days and had done some consulting from them. And that's not really the story with them. They weren't necessarily born AI. They've been through some changes. I mean, definitely their marketing is very Silicon Valley, but the picture isn't quite as simple as that. But did acquisition of SANA mean that we're heading towards a kind of acquisition story where the incumbents are so well entrenched they just kind of buy up the born AI companies and absorb them and that becomes the face of the industry? Or on the other hand are we seeing kind of entrepreneurial startup shoots that are going to mean that a learn tech provider starting in a garage now is going to dominate the market in five years time?

I think we're seeing consolidation across different segments I guess and maybe certain capabilities being absorbed and we'll probably see more of that. I think it's probably partly to do with value for money for acquisitions as well and investors looking for an exit. It maybe, you know, so in the current climate as well. So I think that's part, you know, that's part of the story. I think one of the things that we've seen with, with learning systems providers is that they are encroaching more in the content markets now as well. So I think, I think that's sort of extending the capability to, through partnerships but also I think through acquisitions to offer off the shelf content, but also authoring and content management and editing capabilities capability as well. So I think we're going to see more, probably more consolidation in that area. We saw that with Learning Pool closing their acquisition of elucidat just I think earlier this month or at the end of October, see how easy generator and relationship with cornerstone etc. So I think we're going to see more of that. And my colleague Fiona, who follows the learning systems market more closely, I think we talk about this quite a lot that we're seeing Fiona, look niche. We're anticipating to see more of that more content capability being wrapped in to learning systems providers. I think partly because it's a way of sort of retaining loyal customers but also as maybe a way of attracting others, perhaps smaller customers mid side the mid market where you can wrap in more service, more solutions to one contract as well. So I think we expect to see more of that. I think we are starting though. I think it's, you know, it's always, perhaps it's been a bit slower than anticipated, but I suppose these sort of AI native startups feel like that, you know, they're encroaching on the market. We've seen sort of maybe in the last 12 months, you know, some, some of those new AI native authoring tools. I think that they look very interesting and potentially disruptive. I think some of the synthetic media providers are much more focused on, on the learning content market in a way that they maybe hadn't been perhaps 12 months ago as well. So I think there's probably sort of some new entrants there. They might not be sort of fresh native startups in that respect, but I think there is some sort of disruption there as well. And also I suppose in the digital learning market, probably one of the biggest acquisitions of the year has been Mine Tools and Kineo, which I think doesn't necessarily change the nature of the market, but it certainly indicates that there's appetite for consolidation and within that market at quite a reasonable scale as well. So I think we'll probably see more.

Yeah, and I think there's a dynamic that's been in the market for a long time that's continuing. When you talk of those last couple of acquisitions that it used to be that January you would go to the learning tech exhibition and see who is on which stand because there is such a lot of movement around and you know, Lucidat, a Brighton based company, and learning Paul, ex client of mine, you see these faces cropping up with different lanyards and, and so on. And long may it continue because it means there's mobility in the market. Based on your conversations with senior practitioners, how is the role. Let's get a bit parochial again. How is the role and shape of the L and D team evolving? What I'm kind of moving towards here is asking you to sum up where we're going with L and D in terms of making it and breaking it. Are we seeing a reskilling of L and D to keep pace with the tech and the strategic demands of the moment? Or is it genuinely headed for obsolete obsolescence, as some would say?

Wow, I feel that the pressure that definitely the pressure for the cup half empty or half full challenge on this one. I suppose there does feel there's a sort of sharper point to the question of what learning and development is for now than there has been because of the ability for AI to kind of automate so much of that kind of meat and potatoes making of learning. Very, very crudely put. I think that means that it's very much a live question. I think we returned with the Froswave symposium back in September and we run a number of roundtables with our corporate learning leader network throughout the year. And I think you can feel that this question of what's my role and my department for now and what will it be for feels much more of not Just a homework question and an idle chat over a coffee. This is very, you know, it's part of sort of a much more meaningful part of planning, I think. I suppose, I think one of the things I think that's going to be a really interesting thing to monitor is the extent to which, you know, so what's learning development funded to do? There's a strong tendency for it to be funded as a function, you know, and functions are there to perform a function and that tends to be sort of the management and delivery of training. And I think the people who fund learning functions tend to think of learning as, you know, a bounded activity that's funded for a certain volume and amount and quality of output. I think if you're going to, and I think, and I absolutely understand and buy into the idea that we shouldn't be learning and development shouldn't be an output focused function. It should be an impact focused function. But it's much harder to fund for impact because impact, you know, can mean so many different things. It could mean efficiency, it could mean mobility, it could mean skills development, it could mean sort of leadership impact, it could mean managing through change. And all of those are very, very valid and important outcomes. But it's very, it's much harder, I think, or less clear how you fund an internal resource that's focused on those outcomes. And I think, you know, and how do you resource it as well? So I think, so I think there is a sort of interesting L and D needs to tell a different story, but needs sort of recognize that, you know, what, what tenders has been funded for has been to, you know, has been based on output and output volume or efficiency and you know, quality of output and output volume. So I think that that feels like it's the sort of at the heart of the, of the, the, the challenge, you know, for the upcoming chapter of learning development is, you know, how do you make that shift whilst also being as efficient and effective as possible in managing those outputs as well. So I think that feels like the heart of the matter for me and I suppose whether that points to obsolescence or not, I don't think we really know. I think the challenge is we don't really know what that kind of reimagined future would look like. But automation of those production workflows is coming and is happening, you know, So I think that, you know, there's, and there's, I feel that there's a more widespread recognition of that now as well and that's creating some sort of more urgency in that thinking and response as well.

Yeah, it's really interesting reflections. And because we keep talking about glass half empty, glass half full, I just have to bring up the joke about it, which you may well have heard, which is an optimist says that the glass is half full, A pessimist says the glass is half empty, an engineer says the glass is wrongly designed. I'm the son of an engineer. And what I mean by that is that perhaps the question which I keep asking and I've been asking throughout this interview is kind of wrongly framed. One thing I've noticed this year is people backing away from the label of L and D. You know, Clos I talk to Will say, well, you know, actually I'm not, not L and D, I'm in organizational design or I'm in this or in that. Which one way is to kind of make themselves sound more important, strategic. What I thought at the time, but now seems to me that maybe there really is a type of thinking abroad that wants to redefine the category and the way that we kind of carve up the turf in people industries and maybe to kind of get into a bunker and say, we've got to save L and D, we've got to save L and D. I mean, if L and D went as a category, I don't think we'd shed as many tears as we would if the BBC, for instance, went a very UK focused perspective there. Anyway.

No, I was just thinking about what do those budget holding stakeholders think about L and D and do they really mind or not? And I think that probably they're not worried about the future of L and D and saving L and D. They're worried about solutions, those problems and challenges that we've been talking about. And I think sort of you need to. So the challenge is to be relevant to those preoccupations and needs and those problems. But that needs to be more than.

Just.

What the service is called. It needs to have a real focus on that value and those outcomes. And I think that feels like that is the challenge because it's been such. We've spent 20 plus years as we were talking about optimizing design and development of training and then digital learning. So it's a big change that needs to happen.

So finally your go to karaoke song. This is always revealing of character, I've noticed. So choose wisely.

Yes, okay. Well, yeah, I don't often karaoke and I think singing is a sort of health and safety risk for myself for most of those who would be around me But I do, I do play average guitar in a band and we've got a gig coming up this weekend and I would say that one of the things that I'm enjoying playing the most and I would sing if I could, is Teardrops by Womack and Womack. So that would be my wannabe carry.

Oh yes.

If that's not avoiding the question.

Yeah, I wouldn't try to sing it. You know, my karaoke favorites are all things that you know are on three notes or sung by non singers like David Byrne or Bob Dillard.

Yeah, I'd probably go for the Clash. If I had to sing, I'd go for Should I Stay or Should I Go? I think because you can. I think you can passably just raise your voice to that one.

Yeah, for me it might be another Clash number, but again, I don't think at my advanced stage I could rise to that level of adrenal output to address a vocal in the way that Joe Strubber did. Anyway, it's been brilliant to hear your reflections on L&D HR and all the rest of it. Thank you very much for coming on again and taking the time.

No, it's been great. Thank you for having me, John. It's been a fascinating conversation. It's made me think quite hard, which I do value, although sometimes uncomfortable. But thank you very much.

That's all on the Learning Hack podcast for this time. Many thanks to our guests and to our sponsors. The Learning Hack is completely independent and transparently funded by sponsorship. It is produced by John Helmer and hosted by him and also me, Mariana, a Synthesia AI avatar. If you want to help others find us, please like, follow, rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts or on YouTube. Until next time, stay curious, learning people.

Now I finally get it. The Learning Hack podcast is supported by Learning News, the learning Sector's newswire. Rob and his team are good friends of the podcast and we really value the help and advice we've had from them and they do a great job. For the very latest news from around the learning sector, for interviews with learning leaders, the latest from Learning Sector vendors and features on workplace learning, go to learningnews.com.