I've observed that this example highlights a fundamental difference between traditional course design and instructional design (ID). As someone who appreciates the intricacies of course creation, I've noticed that subject-matter experts typically focus on covering as much content as possible. In contrast, instructional designers like myself start by defining the instructional problem and determining the necessary knowledge and skills to solve it. The AT&T case study really illustrates how narrowing the course content to what is essential can significantly reduce training time and costs. This approach ensures that we focus on what learners "need to know," avoiding the inclusion of nonessential "nice to know" content, leading to either cost savings or improved course quality.
Very well observed. I am a firm believer of identifying problems and finding solutions instead of trying to impart unnecessary knowledge just because the course requires us to do so.