Less Content,
More Capability

Learning portfolios rarely become complicated as a result of one major decision. Complexity accumulates gradually: for example, a new programme is created for a transformation initiative, then another is added to that to address a skills gap. Meanwhile several teams develop their own materials on related subjects, and all the while the initial older resources remain available because no one is clearly responsible for retiring them.

Over time, the organisation may be left with: 

• several resources covering similar topics
• outdated examples and inconsistent terminology
• content without a clear owner
• multiple versions stored in different systems
• courses that remain available despite limited use
• programmes that no longer support current priorities

The cost is not limited to storage or licence fees, as reviewing and maintaining every active learning asset creates manual work for someone in the team.

The impact of having such a broad learning portfolio is also felt by learners. A large catalogue can offer choice, but it can equally make it harder to recognise what is relevant. When employees are presented with several courses, libraries, and resource hubs, the effort required to find the right support becomes part of the learning task itself.

The end result is that the organisation has more learning content than ever, yet employees still struggle to find what they need.

L&D teams often interpret low participation as an engagement problem. Sometimes it is. But it may also be a capacity problem.

Gallup’s research into employee development found that employees, managers, and HR leaders consistently identified time away from everyday responsibilities as a leading barrier to learning. OECD research reaches a similar conclusion: lack of time because of work or family responsibilities remains one of the main obstacles to adult learning.

Managers are under particular pressure. Insights from Gartner found that 47% of managers say more is expected of them and that they are working harder than they were a year earlier. Asking them to promote, discuss, and reinforce an ever-growing list of learning initiatives is unlikely to solve the problem.

This changes the question L&D needs to ask. It is not enough to determine whether content is potentially useful. Teams must also consider whether it is important enough to compete for limited attention.

A resource may be accurate and professionally produced but still fail to justify the time required from employees. Another may cover a relevant topic but duplicate guidance already available elsewhere. A mandatory course may meet an administrative requirement without genuinely helping employees make better decisions in practice.

The aim should not be to make every asset more engaging, but to ensure that the organisation is asking people to spend time only on learning that has a clear purpose.

Content creation as a process often starts too early. A stakeholder identifies a problem, requests a course, and provides a deadline, after which L&D then moves directly into design and production. This means that often the requested format already finds itself part of the brief before the underlying learning need has been properly examined. A more useful starting point is the capability or performance requirement.

Before creating something new, L&D teams should establish:

• What must people be able to do differently?
• Which employees or roles require support?
• What currently prevents the desired performance?
• Is the gap caused by knowledge, skill, confidence, process, or working conditions?
• What support already exists?
• What is the smallest effective intervention?

This distinction is important. An employee who does not know how to complete an unfamiliar process may need a concise job aid at the point of work, not a 30-minute course. A manager who understands a concept but lacks confidence in applying it may benefit more from practice and feedback than from yet another information module.

CIPD recommends treating learning needs analysis as a continuous process aligned with organisational performance requirements, rather than as a fixed annual exercise. That principle should also apply to content decisions: the format should follow the need, not the other way around.

Some performance problems do require structured learning, whilst others are better addressed through simpler forms of support.

Depending on the need, the right response might be: 

• a searchable reference page
• a short checklist
• guidance embedded within a business system
• a conversation with a manager
• peer support
• a practice scenario
• a community of expertise
• clearer responsibilities or processes. 

This is not an argument against more formal courses. On the contrary, courses remain essential when employees need structured knowledge, sustained practice, assessment, or evidence of completion. But it is worth bearing in mind they should be seen as one option within a broader development ecosystem.

McKinsey’s research on the future of L&D argues that employees increasingly expect development to form a natural part of their working experience rather than an additional obligation. It describes a move towards learning that is continuous, contextual, and integrated into everyday work. For L&D, this means shifting from a content-production mindset towards a support-design mindset.

It's less about focusing on what should be taught, and more about what will help someone perform effectively at the moment this specific capability is needed.

A useful reset does not require L&D teams to rebuild their entire strategy, but by making more deliberate choices in three different areas. 

AI-assisted tools can reduce the effort needed to draft, translate, and adapt learning materials, which is invaluable for organisations supporting multiple roles, regions, and languages. But this lower production effort does not remove the need to prioritise, in fact it may make that need more urgent. 

When content becomes easier to generate, organisations can quickly create more versions, formats, and resources than they can effectively govern. Outdated source material can also be reproduced faster, while inconsistent terminology and duplicated guidance become harder to identify. Having the right sequence is therefore crucial.

First decide which content deserves to exist. Then determine how technology can help keep it current, accessible, and scalable. 

Used in this way, faster authoring tools like imc Express can release capacity for higher-value work. Used without a clear content strategy, it risks adding another layer to an already crowded portfolio. 

In summary, an L&D reset is not about offering employees fewer opportunities to develop. Instead it is about removing the content and complexity that make valuable learning harder to find, maintain, and apply.

Ahead of Q4, L&D leaders should be reviewing not only what content still needs to be produced, but also what can be stopped, simplified, or consolidated. The strongest learning portfolios are those in which every important resource has a clear audience, purpose, and connection to the capabilities the organisation needs.

The ultimate goal is not to reduce learning, but rather to create more room for learning that makes a genuine difference.