On October 18 CPHR Alberta hosted a webinar with the Integrity Advocate team to teach attendees how to make online training participation more effective and subsequently, make workplaces safer. We had a very engaged audience with some specific questions about Integrity Advocate’s user ID participation software, so we’ve worked with the Integrity Advocate team to summarize those questions below.
What was covered in the webinar:
The risks to production, quality, safety and organizational due diligence when required training is conducted online
The various types of fraudulent and compromising activities that remove the due diligence/regulatory value of conducting online training
The various technical options and privacy controls necessary for a best-in-class integration of ID verification and proctoring technology
Questions & Answers
Q: [In reference to an example used of someone offering cheating services for an exam] “Just because someone advertised for help to cheat on the assessment, doesn't mean anyone could fill their request.”
A: Middle school and higher education organizations are constantly encountering unethical behavior that includes training designated for one person being completed by others. Because of its prevalence in higher education it would not be safe to assume that employment related training is somehow exempt from this trend.
Q: “What about issues of privacy related to monitoring staff via web cam? Also, what is pushback from staff?”
Great question! Having proctored under a million training sessions to-date we have not encountered personnel pushback. This maybe do to the fact that Integrity Advocate is an independent third-party that protects personnel data by limiting employer and LMS access or because personnel desire the freedom to take training when and where it is convenient for them.
Q: “Does it [the software] integrate with SuccessFactors, can it just be on individual courses, or does the tool apply to the whole system?”
A: Absolutely! Integrity Advocate integrates with all web based platforms and can be utilized across the system, across specific courses, on specific modules or on a specific test.
Q: “Obviously the majority of people have access to a webcam or video display, however from a privacy/security standpoint if someone is not wanting to allow video access - are there additional alternatives that could be utilized or would the photo verification and data segregation mainly it?”
A: Currently the use of WebCams is the only reliable method of confirming participant identity and participation without requiring additional technology to be integrated into both an organization's LMS and the learner’s device. With learners having so many different methods of connecting with an LMS it is vital that the system utilized works across all browsers, operating systems and on desktops, laptops, tablets and mobile phones.
Q: “I am wondering how ID Verification works for a Global Company? I am assuming that the privacy laws differ globally. So, my question is: can this be used worldwide or would privacy laws prohibit employers from using this?”
A: Great question. As Integrity Advocate was developed with International Privacy Laws in mind we have not had any challenges in this area. One reason for this is likely that Integrity Advocate is currently available in 7 languages and the privacy of individuals was addressed at the design stage through data segregation, 24 hour retention policy etc..
Q: “How are organizations creating a return on investment with regard to this technology?”
A: Organizations utilizing instructor led training are simply now able to move that training online without concern of degrading the training process and saving on training facilities, instructors time, travel etc.
Q: “Why would regulators not accept the existing training methods?”
A: We are unable to speak on behalf of regulators but I understand the training is only effective if it is reaching the targeted individual and if that individual participates in the training. Achieving regulatory compliance should be more than just completing an activity but rather to ensure that the intent how the activities achieved
Q: “Is there significant time or cost that is associated in upgrading existing training so that the identity and participation of personnel can be confirmed?”
A: No, proctoring technology can be implemented and functioning within one week and at an average cost of $3-$5 per participant.
To listen to the webinar recording, go here. **Please note, we had some technical difficulties during this webinar, but you can still listen and read the material covered!