My thought here was that it won't be a single place to go a get training content. There will be other integrated systems that provide links to the training within the context of some other task. I am thinking that project-based learning (job performance) and social networks (friends) will drive content selection and LMSs will be there to account for your interaction with that content.It will most likely will not be a destination. It is there when you need it and gone when you don't.I almost agree with Lee on this, but I do think there will be destination or at least a guide that can be brought up to provide suggestions about learning opportunities, resources, additional content that relates to what you are viewing.
It will track or pull data from many different web services. i.e. your feedreader, flickr, or youtube.I agree that it will be somewhat agnostic about the content that will be considered part of learning, but there will be a big issue about tagging pages and events that are considered part of learning. It won't be sufficient to visit any page about a topic in order to get "credit."
True, the line between formal and informal learning will be discussed, blurred, argued, and debated. I'm not sure how, but assessment and "credit" concepts will have to move to performance. If you are doing the job or job competency better then you were prior to the intervention, then it worked. I realize this puts a lot of pressure on the assessment and evaluation of interventions and their direct ties to performance and I can't articulate how to do that, but I think it needs to be done.
It will not be an HR system.Not sure I get this. It can be driven by HR, learning or a business unit.
My thought there, obviously incomplete, was that the LMS as an application would not be part of a Human Resources system. It would integrate with, but be separate from an HR-type application. To be honest though, I am in a small business environment and I don't have a lot of insight into enterprise systems. I learned at Learning 2006 that everyone at large organizations had to ask about security and policy before the could discuss effectiveness, so I am guessing that integrated systems that adhere to corporate policy is mandatory.
Tony, thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. I am still considering what the new LMS will look and act like. I would like to see it be more for near realtime support of workflow performance support and less for "tracking" training. I realize the huge demand for tracking regulated or required training and the importance of that accountability, but what if the new LMS was a tool that people actually wanted to use to help them with their job. That offered support at a personal or individual level. That would be cool. I wonder what that would look like. How cool and intuitive would that system have to be for you to say, "Man, this LMS thing really helped me learn how to program in Ruby" or "Wow, by using this LMS I was really able to focus on the key components of the project management. It helped me understand how to get focused and meet my deadlines."
As I type those comments, they don't sound right. Who would say that? I don't think anyone would. The LMS just has to work.