Embracing technology is a big part of the training industry. Technology, of course, allows us to reach larger audiences of learners faster, more cost-efficiently and in more customizable ways. While the classroom is far from dead, the days of one-size-fits-whoever training are definitely numbered.
But even in an industry that’s embraced technology like no other line of business (disregarding IT, which was born of technology), there are limitations. Technology is a support mechanism and an enabler, but it’s still just a tool.
Answer: This long-running game show that celebrates big brains is about to demonstrate the power of technology in a pretty amazing way. Question: What is “Jeopardy”?
In case you haven’t heard the news this week (meaning you haven’t watched “Jeopardy” or CNN), in February, the popular quiz show will pit two of its top champions against Watson, a computer developed by IBM’s artificial intelligence experts. Will man beat machine or vice versa? You can tune in Feb. 14-16 to find out.
TV stunts aside, this really raises a central issue for the world of training. How integrated is technology in our world, and how much more integrated will it get? Will technology always be a tool we can rely on, or will technology someday take on a stronger role? If a computer can play versus a chess master (another cool display of IBM technological power), can it think strategically in other ways?
Let’s step outside the training world for a second, and play some baseball. America’s favorite pastime or not, baseball is a game of pure mathematics. Every time a player picks up a bat, there’s XX percentage chance he’ll make a hit. Some players, based on past performance, have a higher chance than others, but it’s all calculable.
Similarly, when the bat does connect with the ball, geometry will predict where it goes, by factoring in things like speed, momentum, wind shear and angle. With all that data in place, a smart computer – a Watson, in other words – could tell that person in seat 17a of the bleacher section precisely when to raise her gloved hand to catch the ball. Of course, all that data isn’t available until after the process is set in motion, so the game still has the wow factor (and people still get beaned by foul balls).
So now let’s go back to the training world. In an organization, a chief learning officer (by whatever title) is charged with the strategic application of training. He or she determines learning needs by a complicated process that takes into consideration organizational assessments, skills inventories, strategic objectives and budgets (among other items). In theory, a Watson-type computer could be the ultimate learning leader. It could quickly converge that data into an action plan, enter courses into an LMS, send invitations (and track participation), gather post-training data and report results. It could alert managers to any needs it sees, perhaps even before they see the need, and it could even reach out to find external training providers to fit specific initiatives.
Of course, anyone who’s ever seen the “Terminator” movies knows there’s a downside to technology getting too smart or having too much control. But in a learning sense, the future is wide open, and the “Jeopardy” matches could easily prove that power.
Once upon a time, people relied on people. Then it came to pass that technology relied on people. In a frighteningly short time, statistically speaking, we’ve arrived at the place where people rely on technology. The next step is clear: technology relying on technology.
If that’s the wave of the future, riding it (and steering it) is better than struggling against it. As computers get smarter and are able to do amazing things (like match wits with a guy whose won $3.3 million on a game show that pays fairly small prizes), it’s only a matter of time before the ultimate training partnership is formed.
At any rate, it’ll be fun to watch. For the record, when the IBM computer Deep Blue took on chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1996 and 1997, the results were mixed. Kasparov won the first matches, Deep Blue took the second (though Kasparov disputed the results). Nearly 15 years of research will have passed before Watson takes the “Jeopardy” stage, so the results are anyone’s guess at this point. But it’ll be interesting nonetheless, and win or lose, the implications are enormous.
The category is The Future. Alex, I’d like to make it a true daily double.
Stay tuned.
