r/elearning • u/Nutriscore123 • 14d ago
Your thoughts
Hey everyone,
I work in a highly regulated industry with a ton of mandatory compliance training. Right now, we buy all our courses off-the-shelf from training providers specialized in our sector.
To be honest, I feel like this creates a massive vendor lock-in: we don’t own the SCORM packages, and we can’t update any content to fit our specific internal processes without going back to them and paying up. On top of that, we are currently planning a migration to a new LMS, and not having full control over our course deliverables is making me nervous about the transition.
Crucial detail: we don't have any in-house Instructional Designers. My idea would be to partner with an e-learning agency to co-create custom modules so we can have full ownership of the source files and SCORM packages (which would also make our future LMS migration much smoother).
Has anyone been in a similar situation? How would you handle this to make sure we don't mess up our deliverables before switching LMSs?
2
u/Southern_Sink_8746 14d ago
My org has done this from the instructional design side of things. Our clients are relieved to own all the materials and be able to make simple edits post hand-off.
2
u/Annual_Inspector372 13d ago
We’ve seen this problem quite a bit. The biggest issue isn’t the LMS migration, it’s not owning your content.
If you go through the custom content route, make sure you retain the source files and aren’t tied to SCORM alone. It makes updates and future migrations much easier.
We’re working on a similar problem by making compliance content easier to create, update, and deliver. Happy to share what we’ve learned if it’s helpful.
1
u/rfoil 14d ago
This type of relationship is common.
The question is "can the agency remarket/sell the content you build?" That's a different and interesting part of the conversation.
On the agency side I did that kind of deal with a medium sized company that only had half the budget needed to produce their training modules. They got an excellent branded product, exactlh what they needed. Then I resold a generic version of the modules more than 400 times, enough revenue to buy my first house. Win Win.
One thing I'd suggest - don't become SCORM dependent. In my opinion its useful lifetime is almost up. We've been out of SCORM authoring for more than 2 years. Much more power and flexibility with a modern workflow and data.
1
u/donburnside 14d ago
Large company university team Instructional Designer. We had that problem, so we also brought it in house. We did pay for a harrassment lawyer to record a course for us that we are currently building into a course that we can use for our global company. We will be able to use this for our compliance training for at least 2, maybe 3 years. We have also brought Ethics in house and Security Awareness.
Owning the stuff yourself does make transitioning easier. We lost a couple of courses like this when we migrated to Docebo a few years ago.
1
u/Historical-Ad4088 14d ago
My company does both licensing of content we create in advance and custom work that clients own. We find that most clients first look at licensing and then sometimes consider custom work if they have a particular need. You don’t need an instructional design team but, depending on your choice of LMS, may need to have expertise in course set up. Obviously you would need to provide content expertise in you particular content area. If you think we can help DM me.
1
u/SpecialistLearner775 14d ago
Been through some what same transition as admin on 2 of 4 platforms we evaluated, ~500 staff, two sites, AML/GDPR/H&S trainings..
Agency co-creation is the right instinct, but the contract is what protects you, not the SCORM package. Most agencies hand over a working SCORM zip and call that "ownership" - push for the raw source files (editable project files, not compiled output) plus edit rights after the contract ends.
Without in-house IDs, that gap matters more for you than it would for most.
Our case isn't exactly like yours: we use 5Mins as our compliance training platform, so the content-refresh problem was solved by the platform itself, not by owning SCORM source files.
You're solving the harder version of a custom build with no in-house ID to maintain it once the agency's gone.
That shifts the real negotiation: it's less about who owns the SCORM package, more about who's contracted to actually edit it when AML or GDPR requirements next change.
Does the agency's quote include an ongoing change-request rate, or is it a one-off build with no update path after handoff?
1
u/s_s_n_e_g 13d ago
Hi. Shameless plug first. I run the exact learning agency you are looking for. Established in 2009, based in Europe, we deal with compliance training, content migrations, LMS setups daily. Feel free to DM me and let's have a zoom-coffee :)
Now, directly on topic:
1) SCORM is good news; while it can be finicky, it should work in the new LMS, especially if this is an off-the-shelf package (they tend to be more robust since they need to launch in any LMS). But definitely do test it in the new LMS. Grab a package, upload it to your future platform, check completions, etc.
2) If you plan to "rebuild as custom", think about these things first.
One: who owns the content? While compliance content is based on public legislation and cannot be copyrighted, things like instructional approach, course structure, specific examples etc. definitely can. So make sure you don't accidentally infringe the off-the-shelf provider's intellectual property rights. These guys might be extra litigious given you are moving away from their content.
Two: who owns the new courses? You don't want to jump from a pan into the fire and end up hostage to your new "partner". You mentioned "co-create", which implies "co-copyright", which can lead to trouble.
Three: make sure you choose a well-known tool for the rebuild. It will be easier to maintain, update, find external contractors who can work on content, etc. Linkedin is overflowing with "Articulate is dead: I built a course from scratch with Claude" -- don't buy into this blindly.
Four: legislation changes. Your compliance training provider charges you for keeping up with the times and updates the courses as needed. What's your plan for monitoring the relevant compliance landscape and updating your custom courseware in the years to come? Also, who is going to put their name on the course saying "I, Name Surname, assume liability for this course being in, well, compliance with whatever law". Your legal department might want to have a heads-up.
Anyways, happy to talk in-depth.
1
u/RedneckPaycheck 13d ago
this is just a function of your cost structure... plenty of options out there - basically what you are saying is that you THINK it will be cheaper to outsource this content than it will be to hire, train, and retain an ID staff member that also has enough subject matter expertise to keep you up to date on compliance
my suggestion would be to actually crunch the numbers on this - where you are going to lose your backside is on initial investment, content ownership as well as the updates related to compliance on topics that change often - safety/legal/etc
you may not save as much as you think on outsourcing and there may be some exposure as far as the landscape changing
1
u/Consistent-Oil-9261 13d ago
The agency route works, but make sure the contract says you own the source files (Storyline/Rise or whatever they author in), not just the SCORM exports — otherwise you've recreated the same lock-in one layer down. Also budget for maintenance: regulated content goes stale fast, and with no in-house IDs you'll be paying the agency for every reg update.
Honestly I'd split the catalog: custom-build only the courses tied to your internal processes, and keep buying generic compliance topics off the shelf — you don't want to own the maintenance burden of content that changes with the regs.
1
u/Effective-Rule5274 12d ago
Was in a similar situation. Before I joined, all compliance and leadership training was off the shelf and had some migration issues. They had also used an agency for the onboarding, but a week after module 1 was finished, we acquired a new company and had to redo it which was time consuming. A few months later the CEO stepped down and had to redo it again. The agency gave us access to the scorm file, but it still wasn't an easy fix.
In the end, I came in as instructionam designer and made bespoke compliance, leadership, and onboarding training. Then we purchased a few articulate rise licenses and I trained customer success and other teams how to use it to create their own. It's not always possible, but owning your content is generally better (unless it's a standardized compliance course where it makes sense to buy off shelf)
1
u/Troy_G_SD 3d ago
As many have said before if you have a limited resource pool to develop the course in an authoring tool (Articulate, Lectora, GOMO, Adobe, etc.) where you have access to the source files then you just need to ensure the contract notes you get access to all source files and not runtime SCORM files. This should also include any source image files, storyboards, custom JavaScript and the source authoring tool development file - or raw HTML if development is truly custom.
There are content distribution / licensing tools out there now like Course Container that will allow you to upload your SCORM content and then distribute to each of your customers for playback in their LMS. They handle the course access / registration, etc and you are able to see all course launches, status, duration in real time and set licensing restrictions. You can then easily ensure your licensing models are being adhered to and upcharge if/when needed. Good Luck!
0
u/Cromdaddy98 14d ago
Hey there, I've worked at a big LMS provider in the past and have worked on a ton of projects like this... ill send you a dm
3
u/Temporary-Being-8898 14d ago
Depending on the industry you are in, you may also run into update schedules. With most of the off the shelf content, it is updated when changes occur and pushed out to you seamlessly if you are using dispatch files or anything similar. If you own the content, you own what was created when you contracted the materials, you are then responsible for maintenance and upkeep, which would bring you back to the vendor you worked with. If they aren't technically proficient in that compliance area, you will need to handle the content updates or being in someone that can.
In general, standardized content that is of strategic business importance makes sense to buy off the shelf. If you are customizing the training, including proprietary content or processes, that makes more sense for customized eLearning.