<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Finding the right learning technology &#8211; An approach to thorough, unbiased learning technology evaluation	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.elearningworld.org/finding-the-right-learning-technology-an-approach-to-thorough-unbiased-learning-technology-evaluation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.elearningworld.org/finding-the-right-learning-technology-an-approach-to-thorough-unbiased-learning-technology-evaluation/</link>
	<description>For the online learning world</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2019 22:19:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Stuart		</title>
		<link>https://www.elearningworld.org/finding-the-right-learning-technology-an-approach-to-thorough-unbiased-learning-technology-evaluation/#comment-758</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stuart]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2019 22:19:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.elearningworld.org/?p=6453#comment-758</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Great post Catherine!
I wish people would read this before they complete their RFP&#039;s.
I&#039;ve lost time of the number of RFP&#039;s that say things like &quot;We want an off-the-shelf solution that does not need customisation&quot; ... and then they proceed to list a huge range of requirements that are so client specific they obviously require customisation.
I also think weighting is really interesting.
Often, what clients think they need is not actually what they really need.
Too often an RFP is driven by a personal agenda, or ego, and doesn&#039;t really &#039;learn&#039; from many other similar projects.
Project wil usually hit 80%-90% of day one requirements, and the rets can be addressed fairly quickly once a solution is implemented, or be rolled into an &#039;improvement&#039; process.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post Catherine!<br />
I wish people would read this before they complete their RFP&#8217;s.<br />
I&#8217;ve lost time of the number of RFP&#8217;s that say things like &#8220;We want an off-the-shelf solution that does not need customisation&#8221; &#8230; and then they proceed to list a huge range of requirements that are so client specific they obviously require customisation.<br />
I also think weighting is really interesting.<br />
Often, what clients think they need is not actually what they really need.<br />
Too often an RFP is driven by a personal agenda, or ego, and doesn&#8217;t really &#8216;learn&#8217; from many other similar projects.<br />
Project wil usually hit 80%-90% of day one requirements, and the rets can be addressed fairly quickly once a solution is implemented, or be rolled into an &#8216;improvement&#8217; process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
