business

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-10-13

Final complete day: 2026-10-13. Attention was 1.6% — this entity appeared in 5 of 313 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (7 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-10-11 14:51 UTCComment

   Glad to see this! I wanted to add more above but knew it was getting lengthy. Yes- SAM is another keyword to have on your resume. Key words are huge for getting interviews. And as far as going through the entire design process, I have yet to work with a team/business that puts any real emphasis on the Evaluation strategy in ADDIE. Most have used completion percentages as proof of success, which isn’t a real metric. It’s frustrating that the process always ended there. I push and push for deeper evaluation analysis, but there’s never enough buy-in (or time) with all the other projects. That’s the biggest mistake companies make. All that to say, you can get in the door if you know how to analyze trading needs, can create learning objectives, design wireframes or storyboards, and use Articulate Storyline & Rise.

2. 2026-10-11 13:08 UTCComment

   You all are doing needs analysis? LOL But seriously, I get maybe 30 minutes with a business lane to ask some questions if I’m lucky. To quote my boss “root cause analysis isn't going to happen here.” The business doesn’t actually give a shit about behavior change. Most days I wonder why we are even wasting our time with training at all. Most of the courses we put out could be an email saying do this or don’t do that anymore. Fun times.

3. 2026-10-10 16:22 UTCComment

   I did a bit of performance improvement training at my previous job. For corporate scenarios, I always leaned heavily on backwards design. Aside from that, it was largely attestation. The business wanted evidence that employees were aware of something for compliance and liability reasons.

4. 2026-10-07 21:09 UTCComment

   I have done both, and they have pros and cons. The major con is that people hate and distrust HR, and so it is hard when you have to reach out to learners for analyses. They don't want to say the wrong thing, and get into trouble. They also think you are surveiling them for performance reasons, not because you need to know what the job is. The pro is that you get a lot of insight into the business as a whole. You get inside that HR bubble and you hear the real story behind a lot of the initiatives. That really helps when it comes to deciding whether something is actually a training problem, or if a certain leader is just bad at what they do. Also, you have more leverage and are better connected with the whole business, because HR builds those relationships for you in part.

5. 2026-10-07 14:34 UTCComment

   It depends on the firm. My team develops product training as well and we are a standalone function/service. However our team is called L&E = Learning and Enablement. We have another team of IDs that develop internal training and they are much closer linked to HR. Though they aren't called L&D i would say thats the right name. Our teams have never been merged because we are very different animals. L&D = Typically masters of Rise. Tend to not be hugely interested in engagement as the content is mandatory. Anything that team makes is a cost to the business. Slow paced envionment. L&E = Typically much more complex content so storyline is the prinary tool. Product linked so agile environment and fast paced. Content is often chargable and optional to customers. So well designed engaging content is critical.