FIFA and winning the argument for elearning

The FIFA Soccer World Cup is already a distant memory. Yet, although it may be over, the competition taught us two valuable lessons. One is that beautiful football can still win games. The other is that technological solutions are never implemented for their own sake. However smart the technology, in the end its use always stands or falls on a business argument.

Fans have long appealed for the use of technology in football to aid the referee’s decision making, and these appeals reached fever pitch in two matches in the World Cup. Fortunately, England’s 4-1 loss to Germany was probably not altered by the referee failing to see that Frank Lampard’s shot had crossed the line. Nor did the fact that officials missed numerous fouls in the Dutch-Spanish final affect the result.

If either match had ended differently, the calls for technology to be used in high-value games would have been even higher. The technology surely sells itself – already used in tennis and rugby, reliable technology support for referees’ decisions seems eminently sensible. Yet the governing body FIFA had refused to consider any form of aid for the referee before the World Cup, and adamantly stuck to this refusal immediately after them.

There was something to be said for FIFA’s traditional stance on technology: that the game should be no different at the highest levels to how it is played between any more lowly clubs, or even in the park on a Sunday morning. In reality, though, the ‘human element’ – as Sepp Blatter euphemistically calls referees’ mistakes – are too costly in a global game where huge sums ride on individual matches.

So we welcome last Wednesday’s announcement that FIFA will revisit the issue of goal-line technology in the Fall. This complete change in approach, it is predicted, will almost certainly lead to some form of technology in the sport.

Why the change of policy?

Partly the switch will be down to the clamor of the fans for justice to be done – for goals to be correctly awarded, and for fouls to be seen when they occur. However, these voices had been heard – and ignored – before. More powerful are the voices that will have been heard behind the scenes, those of sponsors, advertisers and others who rely on these fans enjoying the game. They will have argued that the risk of turning fans off the game is too great to bear. Ultimately, in the period between the Spain-Holland final and last Wednesday, money talked. FIFA heard the business argument for technology.

What is the lesson from all this?

It is this: passion and technology are not enough. For any change at work, and in particular for technology to be introduced, there must be a strong business case. For FIFA the reputational risk of failing to use technology when so many other sports already do had become too large. They had to act.

This lesson certainly applies to the world of learning. Too often we approach a business problem with a technical solution – describing in detail our elearning solution but not the issue at hand. That’s a little like telling Sepp Blatter that Hawk Eye could spot the ball crossing the line. He knows it would and it makes no difference to him. He needed to see the problem in his own terms: unhappy fans would mean lower ticket revenues and disgruntled sponsors. That’s a problem worth solving.

The key thing is to portray the benefits of change from a business point of view. What problem would elearning solve? How will it boost key performance indicators? What effect will faster speed to competence have? What edge will faster access to product knowledge have?

Nobody likes change – even an organization as large, rich and successful as FIFA. Yet it has committed itself to considering a major change in policy thanks to the pressing demands of the business.

Be clear about the business pain that your learning is addressing in the business and you’ll get your voice heard, too.