E.T. The Extra Terrestrial is a game for the Atari 2600 video game system based on the classic Steven Spielberg film of the same name. The film was one of the most successful movies of all time, and the Atari 2600 is one of the most successful video games systems of all time. The game was released during the holiday season at a time when the system and video games in general were very popular.
Despite the fact that this is the second post I have written in a week’s time with a video game as part of it’s topic, this blog is not about gaming; it’s about learning. My posting last week regarding Angry Birds explored what a successful video game might teach us about employee learning. This week’s posting is similar, with a more cautionary tone. Let’s explore why this game failed, and how we can avoid having our learning programs suffer a similar fate.
When something is being produced, there are three measurements related to the production: Time, Cost, and Quality, as demonstrated by the triangle on the left. The basic idea of this triangle is to show the connectedness of these three measurements, and the fact that you can not improve one measurement without adversely affecting at least one other.
There’s a bit of a paradox here. One one side, you have the stakeholders who want a quality program that effectively addresses the desired performance needs. One the other side, we have the L&D group, who often deliver the programs we can, rather than the programs we should, because the constraints of the project (low budget + quick turnaround) limit the degree of quality that can be delivered.
Why does this happen? Quite simply, because L&D professionals are not having the conversation in which they say “The constraints of the scope are going to affect the overall quality”. That may sound like a difficult thing to say, but it’s really not if you position it correctly.
When I’m faced with these situations, I almost always preset my solutions with this flow: “Here’s what we ca do based on the existing scope; and here’s what I think we should be doing that will better address your needs.” That flow almost always results in the stakeholder saying “Well I want the second option”, which is exactly what I planned for them to say. That opens the door for me to say “Then we need to reexamine the overall scope.”
I’m not completely opposed to cutting corners. Cutting corners all the time is an issue, as is cutting corners as a response to poor planing. Occasionally you may need to cut corners to adapt to unexpected shifts in the business needs, and while that may not be ideal, it’s realistic. When that happens, you need to be very careful to cut the right corners.
One of the stages of development that Atari cut was the actual testing of the game. That turned out to be one of the biggest mistakes Atari made. The game shipped with a number of bugs and more importantly, gamers found it frustrating and boring.
Do you test your learning and performance programs? You should, regardless of the medium. A live workshop should have a pilot; e-learning should be tested for both technical functionality and effectiveness before being launched; even a simple job-aid should be submitted to a member of the target audience before being publish or distributed.
Testing is critical to any production cycle, and is a stage that should never be skipped. Doing so, in learning and development or any other field, creates a serious risk of an inferior product and diminished reputation.
None of what made the film so endearing transferred into the game. Why? The design of the game missed everything that made the movie a hit. The story was absent, even when judged by the low bar set by Atari 2600 games. The low-quality graphics (again, even judged against Atari 2600 standards) did not allow any of the characters’ personality to show. Worst of all, the gameplay was monotonous and boring. It did not share the arcade action that was common in that time, instead focusing on a recovery mission approach that was completely lost on it’s target audience.
This same problem exists in learning and performance programs. You can have content that maxes out the scales in terms of importance and relevance to an audience. If that content is buried in a program that is poorly designed and does not engage the audience, the knowledge and skills associated with the content will not likely transfer.
NOTE: It is often said that the developers of the E.T. game actually did a very admirable job of design considering their six-week project timeline. Whether you agree or disagree with that is immaterial That’s a discussion of the skills of the designer. If you take the finger of blame and reasoning out of the equation and look solely at the design of the game, it can not be denied that the design failed to deliver on the potential.
Once you were able to find all the missing pieces, there was another step to get to the end of the game. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) most gamers never saw this ending.
It’s not as if the game was so challenging that players could not finish it. Gamers couldn’t bear to finish it. It was excruciatingly boring and worse, had bug-ridden controls. Most players turned off the game long before finishing it. In truth, many customers returned the game because of how disappointing it was.
How many of our learning programs do people ‘check-out’ of while still engaged in it? Are we designing learning and performance programs base on content delivery or engagement?
Think about your programs for a minute. In your live workshops, do you shift gears every ten minutes or so? Do you have engaging activities planned for after lunch to combat the post-meal desire to take a nap? Do your e-learning follow the same template that gives learners an almost identical experience each time with different content? Do you incorporate different types of activities to engage. And really… is some of your e-learning still a book displayed on screen with a NEXT button to turn the pages?
Learners have a choice, just as the players of E.T. did. The main difference is that learners can’t return our programs back to the store, though maybe they should have that right.
Point #5: Even Horrible Mistakes have Value if they Result in Actionable Learning
There is value in making mistakes, if you allow yourself to learn from them. That’s just what happened in the case of E.T. the video game. Many of the accepted practices in the video game industry of today originated from this colossal failure. One example is how a company’s now handle licensed games based on movies. These deals are now signed well in advance so that proper time is allocated to design and development. In addition, game companies and movie studios often collaborate to create a better product. E.T. the video game crashed and burned brilliantly, and from it’s ashes stronger and better practices were enacted that in many cases stand to this day.
Learning and performance programs sometimes fail. Even if the overall program succeeds, there are usually mistakes made along the way. We should always be taking the time to reflect on our programs, and especially our mistakes. These mistakes have tremendous value if we allow ourselves an opportunity to reflect in them.