Interactive Electronic Technical Manual VS Computer-based Tutor/training

Is IETM better or CBT better? which is better? This was the question asked.

My answer was, Video film is better.

Is the answer funny? if yes, then the question is also equally funny. It is like asking if Fan is better or the tube light is better. The purpose of a fan is entirely different from light. Both are needed. But you can not replace a fan with light and light with a fan.

Similarly, there is no comparison between IETM and CBT. Both are different and both purposes are different. Both are needed but it is replicable with each other.

IETM Vs CBT Which one is better?

IETM Means

technical documentation which deals with your documents/pdfs/manuals and CBT means computer-based Training which comprises Multimedia, i.e. Animations, videos, and voice-over.

Both are two different deliverables. IETM is all the documents are arranged in a simple manner so that withina few clicks user can reach a specific point where it would have been difficult to do in traditional hard copies or even in PDFs too.

Interactive Electronic Technical Manual Software

Thousands of pages can not be easily referred to or cross-checked hence the concept of IETM has been introduced a decade back. When some issue occurs, for instant information, IETM is referred by the userusing search, hyperlinks, hot spots, related topics, or from menu options etcwithin seconds.
CBT is a detailed explanation of some process or assembly or disassembly process or operations procedure which has voice overlay so that the user gets a clear idea about equipment.

Not the complete system is developed in CBT. Only important topics are developed in CBT, which is very essential in training, i.e. operating procedure, installation process etc., which needs real-time practice or real-time video to see. In those cases, CBTs are used. If a CBT for the ship has to be developed then it goes to 2000 hours and ends up in a huge investment but no usage. Because, when the issue occurs, the user cannot keep on searching in 2000 hours CBT.
Moreover, 90 % of issues will be resolved by referring to manuals of IETM. Only 10 % of problems need an expert to advice

IETM has a separate purpose and CBT has a separate purpose.

Unfortunately, When some RFPs are made, they are combining both.
In CBTs, Level -1 means fewer animationslevel 2 means more animations and graphics, and Level 3 or 4 means more interactivity, and more 3d and mode graphics.

By adding more animations and 3d to IETM, it does not become LEVEL -5 IETM
It’s called IETM Level 4 only but has 2d animations, 3d animations and videos plugged into this in the form of mp4 videos. If your animations are in HTML -5, then you can give hyperlinks and your CBT can be opened in a separate Tab / Window in the browser.
One of the recent documents blew my mind. They added content /learning and called it Level -5, and added AR and VR and called it level -6.
AR, VR and E-Learning, CBTs, and Video films are Multimedia components to enrich user experiences and un doubted they are very much needed for effective learning but Mixing IETM and CBT and increasing levels are something beyond JSG -0852 -2019 document.

Joint Service Specifications, JSS 0251-01: 2015 (Revision No-2)

Adding AR/VR/3d/2d/Videos does not increase the IETM level.

CBT and IETM Video Films go hand in hand for training. They are separate deliverables and developed for separate purposes.
Cost calculation for IETM is different and calculated by page count. Assume that 200 rupees per page
The cost calculation of CBT depends on the number of hours and 2d or 3d. Assume 2 lakhs per hour
AR and VR are calculated as per the functionalities. And the cost can reach up to 1 crore to 2 crores to implement AR and VR
Hanse, when you are floating RFP make sure that you be specific, i.e. how many pages do you have?
In case you want to use 2d or 3d animations what is the duration of 2d and 3d?
AR and VR is separate universe and category. Please don’t mix AR and VR with IETM.

Article by
Project Manager (IETM)
Code and Pixels