From SCORM modules to AI video: how to tell if your authoring tool still makes sense

 

An authoring tool still makes sense when the training bottleneck is instructional design; it stops making sense when the bottleneck is turning company knowledge into training and keeping it up to date.

It is October and the renewal notice for the authoring tool arrives. The training team has used it for years and built much of the catalog with it. But going through the courses brings the usual discomfort: several no longer reflect how work is done today, and updating them means reopening projects that only one person on the team knows how to edit.

At the same time, the authoring tools themselves have changed. In 2026, almost all of them generate avatars, voiceovers and translations with AI. The question is no longer whether to use AI, but whether the way of working behind an authoring tool is still the right one for your company.

In this article we review what the main authoring tools have added this year, what the SCORM module still solves, what it really takes to produce one hour of training, and six questions to decide whether to keep the tool, combine it with something else or change model.  

What authoring tools added in 2026

 

The picture of the authoring tool as an editor for interactive slides no longer fits. These are the verifiable updates in the four tools most common in Spanish companies:

 

 

There are two readings in this table. First: AI in authoring tools is almost always paid by usage, through credits or an add-on, so the cost grows with every regenerated video and every language. The second is less obvious: Articulate's new product built for frontline teams does not export SCORM.² When the market leader in authoring separates frontline training from the SCORM package, it says a lot about where the category is heading.  

What the SCORM module still solves, and what it doesn't

 

SCORM is the standard that lets a course built in one tool run in any LMS and report data back: whether the person completed it, the assessment score and the time spent. For two decades it has been the guarantee that content is not locked into one platform.

That guarantee is still valuable, but the standard has not evolved: the latest version, SCORM 2004 4th Edition, was released in 2009, and there has been no new one since.⁷ The technical succession has several pieces:

• xAPI, which records activity outside the LMS, has been an IEEE standard since 2023.⁸
• cmi5, an xAPI profile for launching and tracking courses from the LMS, is going through standardization.
• LTI 1.3, from 1EdTech, connects external tools to the LMS without exporting packages: content is served from the tool and progress flows back to the LMS.⁹

The practical consequence is that SCORM is no longer the only way to get tracking in your LMS. If your requirement is that progress is recorded in your LMS, ask about SCORM, xAPI and LTI 1.3, not just the first. We look at the data each model provides in our comparison of interactive video vs SCORM.  

What it takes to produce one hour of training with an authoring tool

 

The licence is the visible part of the cost. The bigger part is design time. The reference study on this question, by Chapman Alliance based on 249 surveys, measured how many development hours it takes to produce one finished hour of training:¹⁰

 

 

These figures are from 2010, and AI has shortened part of that work, especially writing, voiceover and translation. But they set the order of magnitude: a one-hour interactive course has historically taken between three and seven weeks of one person's work. And that refers to the first version. Every update goes back through the same design workflow, even if to a lesser extent.

That is why the useful question is not what the licence costs, but which share of those hours each model removes, and who has to put them in.  

Six questions to tell if your authoring tool still makes sense

 

These are the questions we see decide the evaluation in the training teams we work with. The more answers that land on the authoring side, the more sense it makes to keep it.

 

Question 1: who produces training in your company?

 

If the team includes instructional designers who master the tool, authoring gives them full control over every screen. If training is produced by operations, quality or safety experts who have no time to learn an editor, the tool becomes a bottleneck that depends on one or two people.

 

Question 2: how often does the content change?

 

A skills course reviewed every two years fits well in an authoring project. A procedure, regulation or product that changes several times a year does not: every change means opening the project, editing it, re-exporting the package and uploading it to the LMS.

 

Question 3: where does the knowledge come from?

 

Authoring tools start from a blank page or a template, and AI helps fill it. If the knowledge already lives in procedures, manuals, presentations or in experts' heads, the main work is not designing screens but extracting, structuring and validating that knowledge.

 

Question 4: do you need simulations or branching scenarios?

 

This is where authoring has a clear advantage. Step-by-step software simulations, multi-branch decision scenarios and highly designed interactions are still the territory of tools like Storyline or Captivate. If a significant part of your catalog is of this kind, the authoring tool is still needed for that part.

 

Question 5: what does year two cost you?

 

Add up the licence, the AI credits you consume when regenerating videos or translating, and the team hours spent updating existing courses. If maintaining the catalog costs more than creating new content, the way of working weighs more than the tool.

 

Question 6: what does your LMS require?

 

If your LMS only accepts SCORM packages and you can't change it, that condition limits your options. If it accepts LTI 1.3 or xAPI, as many current corporate LMSs do, the package format stops being a deal-breaker.  

Keep, combine or change: how to decide

 

With the answers above, the decision usually falls into one of three scenarios:

 

 

In the combine or change scenarios, training production tools like Vidext flip the starting point: agents read the documents and recordings the company already has, propose the course structure and build narrated interactive modules that someone on the team reviews and publishes. When a procedure changes, the script is edited and only the narration of the affected screens is re-recorded. To compare specific options for this second model, see our guide to AI corporate training platforms.  

Conclusion: the tool hasn't expired, but the model might have

 

Authoring tools have not fallen behind on AI: Articulate, iSpring, Captivate and isEazy now generate avatars, voice and translations. What hasn't changed is their starting point, a person designing each course screen by screen. For teams with instructional designers and stable content, that model still works well.

For small teams that have to turn procedures, regulations and operational know-how into training, and keep it current, the cost is in the model, not the licence. Before renewing, try a simple exercise: pick the course that was updated most often in the past year and count the hours each change took. That number says more about the tool than any demo.  

Frequently asked questions

 

Is SCORM obsolete?

 

It isn't obsolete, but it isn't evolving either: its latest version was released in 2009.⁷ It is still the format almost any LMS accepts. For new tracking needs, xAPI and LTI 1.3 are the alternatives with the most momentum.

 

What is the difference between SCORM and LTI 1.3?

 

With SCORM, the course is exported as a package and uploaded to the LMS; every update requires re-exporting and re-uploading. With LTI 1.3, the LMS opens the content directly from the external tool and receives the progress, so updates show up without moving packages.⁹

 

Do authoring tools generate avatar video now?

 

Most do, in 2026. Articulate does it with Nova in Articulate 360 AI, Adobe Captivate since version 13 and isEazy with AI Video Studio. In iSpring, avatars are available in iSpring Cloud AI and announced as coming soon to iSpring Suite.¹ ³ ⁵ ⁶ In almost every case they are paid through credits or an add-on.

 

How much does an authoring tool licence cost?

 

As a public reference: Articulate 360 AI Teams costs 1,749 dollars per seat per year,² iSpring Suite AI 1,290 euros per author per year⁴ and isEazy Author starts at 72 euros per month per author with annual billing.¹¹ On top of that come AI credits and, above all, design and update hours.

 

Can I keep my authoring tool if I add another way of producing training?

 

Yes, and it's the most common option. The authoring tool keeps simulations and highly designed courses, and training that comes from procedures and documentation is produced another way. Both can live in the same LMS.

---

 

Sources

 

¹ Nova in Articulate 360 AI - Articulate ² Articulate 360 pricing - Articulate ³ iSpring Suite AI updates (September 2026) - iSpring ⁴ iSpring Suite pricing - iSpring ⁵ Adobe Captivate 13.0 release notes - Adobe ⁶ AI-generated avatars - isEazy blog (September 2026) ⁷ SCORM versions - Rustici Software ⁸ IEEE 9274.1.1-2023, xAPI standard - IEEE Standards Association ⁹ Final release of LTI 1.3 and LTI Advantage - 1EdTech ¹⁰ How Long Does It Take to Create Learning? (2010) - Chapman Alliance ¹¹ isEazy Author pricing - isEazy