In his paper, the author proposes a very thoughtful critique of the current approach to the continuing training of practicing engineers. He identifies some of the shortcomings of this approach, and suggests an attractive way to improve the situation. Even though it is difficult to argue against the soundness of the author’s general assessment, some aspects of his analysis seem to warrant further discussion. Terminology in the field of self-directed learning is notoriously confusing Candy 1991 . The same terms are routinely used by different people to mean different things, while different terms often mean the same thing. In that context, it is not surprising that the author uses the expressions “self-directed learning,” “selfmanaged learning,” or “self-paced learning” interchangeably, in spite of the very different connotation, these three expressions have relative to the level of control of the learner over what is learned and how the learning occurs. Toward the end of the paper, however, it becomes clear that the learning process the author is really referring to, involves only the selection by the learner of a prepackaged learning product and a decision as to the pace at which the learning occurs with that package. Perhaps the label of “self-managed learning” is appropriate for these activities, which amount to significantly less than what the term “self-directed learning” generally encompasses in the literature e.g., Candy 1991 . The extent of learning to which the author alludes requires the online availability of some prepackaged product, put together by the learner’s company’s training department or by a third party provider. One might wonder if the author does not, in effect, address only a very small part of the training needs of engineers; in other words, if he does not merely touch upon the emerged part of a very large iceberg. The discusser’s experience, based on interviewing scores of practicing engineers, is that in many cases, their learning needs are too individual, too specific, and often too constrained in time to be serviceable by educational software developers. This is particularly the case for learning needs in critical areas that are key to the competitiveness of their company. For example, some engineers at Ford or General Motors GM may have to constantly stay on top of the research on fuel cells or biofuels, and cannot afford to wait for some provider to put a package together on the latest developments in these areas. In situations like these, in the absence of any viable alternative, engineers have to try to learn autonomously or with the assistance of coworkers. To deal with this submerged and unfortunately rarely mentioned part of the training iceberg, i.e., the truly “self-