Skip to main content

Hello, 

We created 2 yearly compliance learning plans, one for individual contributors and another for managers. Within these learning plans, they each have 3 courses that cover the same topics but they are versioned to either IC or manager. We are going to create a new learning plan each year and enroll all employees in Jan. We are not using the retraining app.

Example:

2022 Compliance Learning Plan - Individual Contributors

  1. Anti-Harassment for Employees
  2. Info Sec
  3. Managing Bias for Employees

2022 Compliance Learning Plan - Managers

  1. Anti-Harassment for Managers
  2. Info Sec for Managers
  3. Managing Bias for Managers

Essentially, the manager courses are the same as the IC courses, but with additional manager information. 

After enrolling employees into all of these learning plans and adding an enrollment rule, I have noticed we have 148 employees who are enrolled in both learning plans when trying to run a report for compliance. This is because they went from IC to Manager after the initial enrollment.

I am not sure the best way to approach this. Legal informed us that they need to only complete the version that matches their current role. However, we shouldn’t unenroll them from the IC courses because it erases all records that we enrolled them in the training and they did or didn’t complete it.

If I leave them enrolled in both, but we only tell them to complete the learning plan that matches their current role, I feel like it is a bad user experience. Also, it will look like they need to complete both on their My Courses and Learning Plans page.

How does your company manage compliance training for promotions/demotions? Do you leave them enrolled in both and manually filter the duplicates out in reporting? Do you mark them as suspended for the courses they no longer need to complete? 

Also, how do you determine your required audience for completion rates? We can’t use the # of users enrolled because the course has the duplicate users who no longer need to take that version of the course. Do you use your HRIS reporting to get the total # of expected people required to take the course and then do a VLookup to compare it to the people who completed the course in the LMS?

 

@Jessica Overby- Yeeeeap. Ye old container game and reality (you are working with a type of roaming target whose metadata is impacting your learning plan deployments).

Ok - so consider a few different ways to skin this one.

  1. course equivalents.
  2. Mapping via equivalents.
  3. manual unmapping.
  4. what happens when you do not manually unmap.
  1. Course equivalents could help to alleviate a pain point of it “you did A you do not have to complete B” by marking A and B as completed by completing A. (The downside is that all of A will be marking B as completed...probably not good).
  2. You could create another learning object for the year acting as an equivalent for A or B. By deploying C it can act to mark A or B as completed by leveraging a group that is listening to enrollment status. This sounds reasonable, but yields another record in the person’s training profile.
  3. Manual unmapping can work with a caveat . Dont shoo it away...it is probably the cleanest and can work when you have a few hundred folks or less to work with. The caveat you probably dont want to unmap people that have courses with learning in progress.
  4. If you do not manually unmap from the LP, you may run into problems with the validity date for an LP. In that case consider extending the LP until a person is done with it.

We are running into this with our new hire learning. Managers are being flagged as a manager after they start at the organization and within their first 30 days of learning. This is giving them both an employee packet and a manager packet. I have to tell you, I have been suggesting that the data handling needs to improve upstream? But not everyone is going to listen to rhetoric. The only thing that helps is to unmap the early enrollment.

What I think Docebo Learn needs as an improvement is a concept of enrollment rules “actions” improving to act as a group criteria is a) met AND b) when it is no longer met.

With something like this - your situation can be navigated as well as “ours”.

 

Hey @Jessica Overby not sure if this could work for you but if you move your content to the Central Repository your leaning objects will be marked as completed wherever they are used. Am thinking this aligns with your note above stating that the courses are basically the same. Might be worth testing.

Hey @Jessica Overby not sure if this could work for you but if you move your content to the Central Repository your leaning objects will be marked as completed wherever they are used. Am thinking this aligns with your note above stating that the courses are basically the same. Might be worth testing.

Thanks for the suggestion! We do have the items within the CR, but many of the courses do not have the same training material because of the different state requirements.

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings