This article was first shared LinkedIn. I’m excited to bring it here for our blog readers. For the appropriate context. please also read my first article on this topic, linked to below. 

In my previous article, I argued that the LMS industry doesn’t move through clean, predictable eras. Instead, several eras overlap at once. Some organisations are still focused on reliable delivery and compliance. Others are pushing into workflow design, personalisation, and smoother user experiences. And a smaller group is already experimenting with new ways to bring learning closer to real work.

If all of that is true, and it’s hard to argue otherwise when you look around, then we have to sit with a tougher question. What happens when LMS vendors and their customers aren’t operating in the same era?

You see this tension in almost every RFP. One organisation is still fighting for stability, governance, and dependable reporting. Another is looking for deeper integration or workflow automation. A few are already exploring specialisation or early attempts at redefining learning entirely. When these expectations collide, misalignment becomes the rule rather than the exception

The real tension: build for today or build for tomorrow?

Here’s the trap vendors fall into. If you build for the era your customers are in right now, your product risks standing still. But if you build for the era ahead, many customers won’t recognise the value. And trying to do everything without a plan? That usually ends with a product that feels scattered and hard to explain.

So the real question becomes: how do you support multiple eras at once without creating something that feels unfocused?

Why most LMS vendors struggle

One of the biggest misunderstandings is assuming the market matures in a straight line. It doesn’t. These eras stack on top of each other. They move at different speeds. Sometimes they stall completely.

When vendors design as if everyone is moving in the same direction at the same pace, the same issues tend to show up:

  • Products become more complex than most customers can use.
  • Roadmaps tilt toward the needs of the most advanced minority.
  • Sales teams talk about features buyers aren’t ready for.
  • Organisations with wildly different maturity levels hear the exact same story.

And while all of that looks like a product problem, it usually starts with positioning and strategy.

How successful vendors bridge the gap

There isn’t a shortcut here, but vendors that manage this well tend to make three deliberate moves.

1️⃣ Build for layered maturity instead of a single destination

Platforms work best when they offer clear levels of capability. A solid foundation for customers in the Supply and Performance eras. Configurable options for those ready for Democratisation or Specialisation. Forward-looking tools for organisations exploring early Redefinition, without disrupting the basics.

That way, early-stage customers don’t feel overwhelmed, and more advanced customers still have room to grow.

2️⃣ Tell a maturity story instead of a feature story

Too many sales conversations start with features the customer doesn’t need yet. A maturity-focused narrative creates a different kind of conversation.

Here’s the era you are currently working in. Here’s what strong performance looks like at this stage. Here’s how you can evolve, when you’re ready.

This approach builds trust because it feels honest. It gives customers a path, not pressure.

3️⃣ Invest in stability and evolution at the same time

This is where most vendors hesitate. The reality is that you need both.

Stability for Supply and Performance customers who rely on dependable reporting, governance, and admin-friendly workflows. Evolution for more advanced customers exploring specialisation, automation, skills, or new ways to connect learning to work.

Balancing both is difficult, but it’s also where meaningful differentiation happens.

Why this matters now

The LMS industry isn’t heading toward one shared future. It’s splitting into layers. It’s uneven. It’s shaped by sector, geography, internal culture, and sometimes pure chance.

If vendors ignore that reality, two outcomes follow. Either they build broad, generic tools that don’t serve anyone well. Or they focus on the future and lose the main market entirely.

So we’re left with a simple but demanding question. Are we building platforms that meet customers where they are and help them progress, or platforms that only make sense once those customers have already arrived?

Takeaway: The vendors who thrive will be the ones who design for layered maturity and guide customers forward without leaving anyone behind.