2007 sponsors - inacap · 2008. 9. 29. · 2 astd 2007 state of the industry report introduction...

2007 SPONSORS

GOLD

PLATINUM

SILVER

SILVER

SILVER

1 ASTD 2007 State of the Industry Report

Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Data Sources.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Comparative Data Key Indicators........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Investment............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Expenditure Distribution.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Efficiency............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Content Distribution................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Delivery Methods.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Learning Professionals’ Income............................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

BEST Award Winners Characteristics of the BEST Learning Organizations................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Valuing and Positioning Learning............................................................................................................................................................................................. 17

Linking Learning and Performance.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Effectiveness........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Efficiency................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 19

Learning Opportunities............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20

Non-Training Solutions/Performance Improvement.................................................................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix Survey Questions.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Definitions.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23

BEST Application Questions...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24

TABLE OF CONTENTS

© 2007 by the American Society for Training & Development.

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to ASTD, Research Department, Box 1443, Alexandria, VA 22313-1443.

Ordering Information: Books and reports published by ASTD can be purchased by visiting our Website at store.astd.org or by calling 800.628.2783 or 703.683.8100.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2007937069

ISBN-10: 1-56286-511-0

ISBN-13: 978-1-56286-511-5

Author: Andrew Paradise, Ph.D., Research Analyst, ASTD

Publication Design and Production: Steve Fife

Questions about the report should be sent via email to [email protected]


INTrOduCTION 2007 marks a successful transition in the way ASTD collects data for the State of the Industry report. The ASTD Workplace Learning and Performance (WLP) Scorecard® has become the primary portal through which ASTD gathers industry data. During this transition, we did not collect data from the ASTD Benchmarking Survey (BMS) for 2005, but we are pleased to present a robust set of data from a wide variety of organizations for 2006. This data includes responses from users of the WLP Scorecard®, ASTD Benchmarking Forum (BMF) organizations, and ASTD BEST Award winners. The 2007 State of the Industry provides substantial data against which organizations may benchmark their learning investments and practices.

As our data collection has changed, so too has the presentation of the data. We have calculated results for the consolidated set of responses each year, with the exception of 2005. Breakouts for BMF organizations and BEST Award winners are also presented, as we have done for several years. Most topic areas include a multiyear data table accompanied by one or more charts and text highlights. Descriptions of the data sources and demographics for each sample are in one table at the beginning of the report. Questions and definitions used to gather data from the WLP Scorecard®, BMF, and BEST submissions are at the end of the report.

We are confident that our enhanced data collection is a more sophisticated approach to reporting the value of learning. For learning executives and other business leaders, obtaining accurate and actionable information about learning remains a critical aspect of sound decision-making. Our dedication to delivering useful and relevant data is unwavering as we continue to research trends in the WLP profession.

ACkNOwLEdgEmENTS ASTD would like to thank all of the people who provided data about their organizations’ learning investments. Gathering data can be arduous, even in organizations that already have sophisticated and comprehensive learning management systems. Without learning professionals dedicated to providing accurate and complete data year after year, we would not be able to produce one, let alone 11 consecutive years of State of the Industry reports.

Many people at ASTD share a passion and talent for the profession, and their efforts helped make this report a reality, particularly Richa Batra, Carol Chulew, Mike Czarnowsky, Steve Fife, Luis Gonzalez, Jared Lemke, Julia Raether, and Ray Rivera. I extend my thanks to those who reviewed this year’s State of the Industry report, and whose support has been crucial: Tony Bingham, Pat Galagan, Jennifer Homer, and Paula Ketter. Special thanks to analyst Elizabeth Durkin, without whose assistance the 2007 State of the Industry report could not have been produced.

Special recognition goes to the companies that sponsored this year’s report: Intrepid, Microsoft, INSEAD, KLA, and WebEx. Their generosity is fundamental in helping maintain the high production quality of the report and in supporting the laborious qualitative data analysis that was required to do justice to the richness of the data in the submissions.

Finally, everyone at ASTD wishes to thank the readers and users of the ASTD State of the Industry reports. Their input and feedback over the years has helped us improve how we communicate industry data and trends. We urge readers to make full use of the data and results presented in this report to increase support for workplace learning and performance in their organizations.

Andrew Paradise, Ph.D. Research Analyst, ASTD

If you’re like most busy executives, reviewing industry benchmarking reports may seem like a luxury when you are faced with the day-to-day realities of your job. While it is natural to prioritize the immediate and put off the strategic, it is important to take the time to educate yourself and your organization with the industry’s seminal works. The ASTD State of the Industry report is the critical benchmarking source in the learning industry. This report commands your attention with its credibility, the strength of its data, and its impact on our industry.

ASTD’s benchmarking research matters. The State of the Industry report allows you to monitor critical trends, best practices and innovations across the industry. This year’s report, for example, points to some interesting stabilizing trends regarding levels of learning investment, hours of training consumed, and the use of external services, while highlighting the continued acceleration of learning technologies. The report allows you to compare your performance against industry norms and best practices. This is important data that helps you understand whether the level and types of investments you are making are on par with similar organizations. And most importantly for busy executives, this report provides critical data that allows you to substantiate and execute critical business decisions.

The learning industry is fortunate that ASTD continues to invest in developing effective data collection methods that drive the State of the Industry report. In particular, the robust new WLP data collection tools will continue to improve the depth and precision of benchmarking data.

As a learning provider committed to research, best practices and excellence, we are pleased to sponsor this year’s report.

Sam Herring, Co-Founder and Executive Vice President Intrepid Learning Solutions


dATA SOurCES

Consolidated responsesData are presented in three slices against which workplace learning professionals can benchmark learning investments and practices in their organizations. Presented first, the consolidated responses include all of the organizations that submitted data for a particular year. From 2001 to 2003, the consolidated responses include data from the ASTD Benchmarking Forum (BMF) and Benchmarking Service (BMS) samples. Starting with 2004, data from ASTD-BEST-Award-winning organizations was included. Consolidated data was not available for 2005 because of the transition of data collection to the new ASTD Workplace Learning and Performance (WLP) Scorecard®, but the 2006 data includes responses from WLP Scorecard® users, the BMF organizations, and the BEST Award winners.

ASTD Benchmarking Forum organizationsThe second group of findings presented is data collected from the ASTD BMF organizations. BMF members are typically very large global organizations, most of which are based in the United States. In any given year, between three and six BMF member organizations are based outside the United States.

BEST Award winnersThe third group consists of organizations that won ASTD BEST Awards. Started in 2003, the BEST Awards program recognizes organizations that demonstrate a clear link between learning and performance across the enterprise. In 2007, 34 of the winners were U.S.-based organizations; five were based in India, two are headquartered in Canada, and one is located in the Republic of South Africa. As in previous years, the winners were selected according to the following criteria:

• evidence that learning has value in the culture

• evidence of a link between learning and performance

• evidence that the organization has leveraged technology in learning

• evidence of innovative learning initiatives.

In 2007, BEST Award applicants completed the same quantitative survey as the WLP Scorecard respondents and the BMF sample, permitting direct comparison of the same indicators among them. The BEST Award applicants also completed a largely qualitative survey that was analyzed for this report.

Data Source Samples Average Number of Employees Average Payroll $M Data Sources

Consolidated Responses Consolidated

Organizations that submitted their data as part of ASTD’s ongoing benchmarking programs. From 1999 to 2003, this combined set of responses included data from the ASTD Benchmarking Forum (BMF) and ASTD’s Benchmarking Service (BMS). In 2004, data from the ASTD BEST Award-winning organizations was also included in the consolidated set. In 2005, the BMS was phased into ASTD’s new WLP Scorecard, so consolidated data is not available for 2005. The 2006 consolidated responses include data from the WLP Scorecard users, the BMF organizations, and the BEST organizations.

2006 (n = 221) 27,549 1,116WLP Scorecard,

BMF, BEST

2005 na na na

2004 (n = 246) 14,699 3,960 BMS, BMF, BEST

2003 (n = 278) 16,875 1,538 BMS, BMF

2002 (n = 297) 10,914 856 BMS, BMF

2001 (n = 304) 11,658 926 BMS, BMF

BMF = ASTD Benchmarking Forum Organizations BMF

The ASTD Benchmarking Forum is a group of large Fortune 500 companies and public sector organizations that share data and best practices with one another. These organizations submit detailed data on their training investments and practices each year.

2006 (n = 25) 71,905 4,157

2005 (n = 22) 70,487 4,513

2004 (n = 24) 57,868 3,568

2003 (n = 26) 100,168 4,930

2002 (n = 21) 66,823 6,175

2001 (n = 34) 63,259 4,213

BEST = ASTD BEST Award Winners BEST

Organizations that were honored for their exceptional efforts to foster, support, and leverage enterprise-wide learning for business results.

2006 (n = 42) 28,269

2005 (n = 39) 60,386

2004 (n = 29) 45,870

2003 (n = 24) 40,883

2002 (n = 23) 18,572

Table 1: Data Sources


EXECuTIVE SummArY

The findings from the 2007 State of the Industry report suggest that the learning function has achieved an unprecedented level of sophistication. Sustained investment, particularly in technology solutions, reveals that business leaders are aware of the value of learning. In 2006, organizations continued to take the steps needed to develop a highly skilled workforce through workplace learning and performance (WLP) initiatives. In particular, that commitment meant continuing to embrace e-learning.

Persistent usage of technology-based methods has dramatically shaped the field. As organizations deploy e-learning more frequently, the use of instructor-led learning has diminished. Discrete learning events in traditional classroom settings are gradually shifting to learning experiences that are occurring at the workstation and at the pace of the worker. Many organizations have adopted e-learning platforms in recent years and are starting to see their investments bear fruit. Some positive trends from the 2006 data include an increased ratio of learning hours used to learning hours made available (also referred to as reuse ratio) and a greater ratio of employees to WLP staff members. These types of efficiency gains are often facilitated by technology-based solutions.

The downside of e-learning sometimes manifests in significant development costs. Transitioning to an infrastructure that supports e-learning typically requires a substantial investment. Learning content must also be adapted to “plug and play” types of formats. The finding that costs in the delivery and consumption of learning hours are rising is not surprising in light of these kinds of upfront expenses. Although costs for learning delivery and consumption have increased, the underlying message is that numerous organizations consider the commitment to learning necessary. The learning function has become an integral aspect of enterprise strategy to improve performance.

Growing dedication to the learning function is reflected in the increasing investment in workplace learning and performance over the 11 years we have been reporting data. ASTD estimates that U.S. organizations spent $129.60 billion1 on employee learning and development in 2006. This amount reflects direct learning expenditures such as the learning function’s staff salaries, administrative learning costs, and non-salary delivery costs. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. total ($79.85 billion) was spent on the internal learning function, and the remainder ($49.75 billion) was allocated to external services. How are organizations handling this vital investment? The metrics reviewed in the State of the Industry report illustrate the types of commitments that organizations are making to learning on an individual basis, as well as industry-wide.

Learning investmentsThe average direct expenditure per employee in the consolidated sample of organizations rose to $1,040 per employee in 2006, an increase of 1.76 percent from 2004. In contrast, average direct expenditure per employee in our samples of BMF and BEST organizations fell. For BMF organizations, average direct expenditure per employee decreased 7.30 percent to $1,320, while it decreased 5.23 percent to $1,531 among BEST Award winners.

Direct expenditure as a percentage of payroll has remained very stable in recent years. The consolidated average expenditure as a percentage of payroll has only moved from 2.31 percent in 2003 to 2.33 percent in 2006. Although lower than the consolidated average, BMF organizations’ average direct expenditure as a percentage of payroll also was relatively stable at 2.20 percent in 2006. BEST Award winners increased their expenditures from 2.72 percent of payroll in 2005 to 2.97 percent in 2006.

Learning hours used, which reflect the amount of formal learning content that employees are consuming, have also been stabilizing. The average number of hours of formal learning used per employee displayed a moderate decline except in BEST organizations. In the consolidated sample of organizations, each employee used an average of 35.06 learning hours in 2006. In BMF organizations, the average learning hours used per employee was 40.70. BEST Award winners showed a slight gain in this metric, rising from 43.46 hours in 2005 to 44.34 hours in 2006. While learning hours used indicate consumption, learning hours made available indicate the amount of formal learning content that organizations provide to employees. The consolidated average ratio of hours used to hours available has been steadily increasing since 2003, reaching 41.3 in 2006. This reuse ratio means that in 2006 every hour of content made available was used an average of 41.3 times.

The trends for costs per learning hour used and available displayed a similar pattern in recent years. Most learning costs for BMF and BEST organizations have been falling. Costs per learning hour have been decreasing sharply and consistently for BMF organizations, dropping to $35 per hour used and $900 per hour available in 2006. The cost of learning hours provided also declined substantially in BEST organizations, decreasing 17.21 percent to $1,861, while the reductions were more modest for hours used, decreasing from $48 in 2005 to $47 in 2006. However, the consolidated figure for average cost per learning hour used increased to $54 in 2006, which was the second-highest value since 2001, while the consolidated average cost per learning hour available was $1,543.

The primary driver of rising costs for both delivery and consumption of learning content likely was an increased number of full-time employees per organization. A larger number of learners compared to years past also contributed to an increased reuse ratio, because there were simply more people per organization to use learning content. An upward trend for these metrics reflects the impact of technology-based learning solutions. Delivering learning through technology typically requires a substantial infrastructure investment, as well as spending on content development and customization. One of the strengths of e-learning, however, is efficient management of content, so technology-based delivery helped foster more content reuse compared to previous years.

1 All financial figures are reported in U.S. Dollars.


Content AreasLearning content often shifts to match the dynamic needs of the organization and its employees. Learning professionals face a wide range of challenges because of the intricacy of modern workplace assignments. On one hand, generalized learning content must be broad enough to be useful to employees with a multitude of assignments and perspectives. On the other, specialized learning content must provide detailed information that will improve the performance of employees who likely already posses a targeted skill set.

The leading content area in 2006 was profession- or industry-specific skills and information (14.45 percent of learning hours), which demonstrates the demand for specialized learning. In fact, profession- or industry-specific skills accounted for nearly one-quarter of the learning hours in the BMF sample. Processes, procedures, and business practices (11.07 percent) and managerial and supervisory topics (11.00 percent) were the next-highest-utilized content areas in the consolidated sample. The consolidated average for IT and systems learning content was 10.24 percent but it was slightly higher for BMF organizations (11.66 percent of learning hours) and for BEST organizations (12.69 percent).

Use of technologyReported usage of technology-based delivery methods for learning content has been displaying a consistent upward trend since 2001. Many organizations have turned to technology to design, deliver, and manage learning and performance. Adoption of e-learning frequently produces efficiency gains, increased content reuse, and decreasing costs for learning delivery. As e-learning has become more prominent, traditional instructor-led classroom sessions have accounted for fewer available learning hours than in the past. Traditional instructor-led delivery has declined in use for many reasons, such as high fees charged by instructors and time missed at work by employees.

The consolidated average for technology-based learning reached 30.28 percent of learning hours provided in 2006. This figure for technology-based delivery methods was only 11.47 percent in 2001. The use of e-learning was even greater in BMF (39.85 percent of learning hours) and BEST organizations (35.85 percent of learning hours). Of the total hours provided through technology-based methods, more than three-quarters were online in 2006. Roughly 80 percent of online learning has been self-paced in recent years.

External servicesIncreasingly complex requirements for learning in the workplace have forced organizations to look closely at their internal training function capabilities. This has given many organizations a better understanding of their training function’s core internal competencies and helped determine when external providers can better execute certain tasks. Some aspects of the learning function have been targeted as suitable candidates for outsourcing, such as content delivery, infrastructure development, translation services, custom content development, and administrative tasks.

In 2006, more than one-quarter of the direct learning expenditure of the organizations surveyed was allocated to external providers. The proportion of external expenditure did not change much from 2004 (28.87 percent) to 2006 (28.07 percent). BEST organizations had a similar trend from 2005 (23.93 percent) to 2006 (23.47 percent). The percentage of expenditure for external services has fluctuated in BMF organizations in recent years, with the average staying above 30 percent for the fourth time in six years.

ConclusionsAfter carving out an important niche in the operations of organizations worldwide, the learning function appears to be undergoing a period of stabilization. For the first few years of this decade, investment in employee learning and development rose consistently. However, most metrics gauging spending on a per employee basis and as a proportion of organizational budget have been holding steady since 2004. Flat levels of investment are not indicative of flat levels of learning commitment. Many organizations have become more efficient by streamlining learning operations through technology-driven methods. Increased deployment of e-learning improved flexibility but likely contributed to rising infrastructure and development overhead. These kinds of recent mixed results suggest that the learning function has reached a new level of maturity in many organizations. It seems that organizations are giving earlier learning investments and operational improvements the time needed to blossom while assessing new challenges on the horizon.

In 2006, the organizations surveyed continued to allocate substantial resources to employee learning, expressed as financial investments such as expenditure per employee, percentage of the organization’s payroll, and learning hours per employee. Some positive trends include increased learning content reuse and greater reach for the learning staff. On the downside, costs in learning delivery and consumption have increased in the past year. These increases were difficult to avoid given the substantial increase in the average number of full-time employees per organization. Learning professionals nevertheless are finding ways to stay efficient with their investments, especially through e-learning practices. Technology-based delivery methods have allowed for more adaptable delivery of learning content than in the past, which has increased content reuse.

Investment in learning remains important for organizations across a variety of industries, company sizes, and countries. This continued dedication of resources to the learning function confirms the reliance on its expertise in leveraging human capital. With any sustained financial commitment comes pressure to maximize outcomes. The key metrics from 2006 reveal a varied set of results for the learning function. Despite some signs of stabilization, the workplace learning and performance field has made significant strides in the past decade. While continuing to leverage technology-based solutions for performance improvement, learning functions are once again poised to drive business results in 2007.

6 ASTD 2007 State of the Industry Report 6 ASTD 2007 State of the Industry Report

kEY INdICATOrS

Direct Expenditure per Employee (FTE)

Learning Hours Used per Employee

Direct Expenditure as % of Payroll

(Without Benefits and Taxes)

Direct Expenditure as % of Revenue

Direct Expenditure as % of Profit

% of Expenditure for Tuition

Reimbursement

% of Expenditure for External Services

Employees per WLP Staff Member

Learning Hours Used per WLP Staff Member (Adjusted for Outsourcing*)

Learning Hours Available per WLP

Staff Member (Adjusted for Outsourcing*)

Cost per Learning Hour Used

Cost per Learning Hour Available Reuse Ratio**

Adjusted for Outsourcing* Not Adjusted

Consolidated

2006 (n = 221) $1,040.40 35.06 2.33% 0.52% 6.88% 10.64% 28.07% 216.15 319.93 4,606.44 326.31 $54.25 $1,543.28 41.31

2005*** na na na na na na na na na na na na na na

2004 (n = 246) $1,022.43 36.36 2.32% 0.63% 7.48% 10.86% 28.87% 210.49 296.78 5,559.08 382.93 $49.99 $924.32 36.07

2003 (n = 278) $1,054.98 26.16 2.31% 1.01% 12.48% 10.08% 23.23% 191.92 265.79 3,212.90 366.44 $62.89 $1,109.28 29.00

2002 (n = 297) $857.07 28.78 2.22% 13.08% 22.63% 215.29 278.18 $45.72

2001 (n = 304) $799.64 25.50 1.98% 12.18% 22.56% 288.60 365.61 $36.79

BMF

2006 (n = 25) $1,319.61 40.70 2.20% 0.51% 5.86% 11.14% 30.46% 263.21 388.49 6,631.25 466.73 $35.08 $900.39 31.06

2005 (n = 22) $1,423.50 41.89 2.09% 0.45% 8.57% 12.64% 24.83% 192.06 274.40 5,005.36 476.60 $42.05 $1,046.28 29.97

2004 (n = 26) $1,363.18 34.75 2.20% 0.42% 3.95% 9.14% 30.00% 221.00 319.00 4,423.06 459.10 $54.17 $1,113.27 27.72

2003 (n = 26) $1,298.84 34.54 2.05% 0.46% 6.47% 12.62% 38.26% 286.59 448.28 3,488.92 505.41 $55.94 $1,429.88 26.01

2002 (n = 21) $1,366.13 42.15 2.47% 15.75% 26.38% 182.57 248.00 $40.11

2001 (n = 34) $1,508.58 44.90 2.85% 11.95% 40.50% 133.59 177.76 $54.74

BEST Award Winners

2006 (n = 42) $1,531.23 44.34 2.97% 0.72% 7.59% 8.18% 23.47% 179.17 220.76 6,480.73 292.25 $47.47 $1,860.53 43.15

2005 (n = 39) $1,615.81 43.46 2.72% 0.73% 6.61% 11.81% 23.93% 212.28 281.74 5,733.05 260.14 $48.03 $2,247.32 50.84

2004 (n = 29) $1,554.46 36.34 2.86% 0.64% 8.30% 9.39% 27.49% 205.90 296.31 5,824.04 342.21 $58.34 $1,706.42 39.69

Consolidated (2006) by Industry

Services (n = 60) $1,171.70 41.26 2.74% 0.76% 9.05% 11.74% 20.88% 224.50 313.38 5,511.99 330.89 $65.17 $1,034.01 31.47

FIRE (n = 45) $1,290.31 37.57 2.89% 0.58% 8.05% 7.18% 31.97% 124.11 206.37 3,888.05 273.46 $55.75 $2,134.16 45.83

Manufacturing (n = 29) $707.55 28.22 2.11% 0.25% 2.45% 11.60% 29.81% 292.27 408.79 5,019.29 398.79 $35.38 $966.67 26.76

Technology (n = 28) $1,274.81 37.90 2.03% 0.50% 4.02% 11.52% 40.98% 166.42 304.19 3,876.19 453.77 $63.18 $1,248.41 24.11

Health Care (n = 26) $862.37 24.82 2.15% 0.46% 11.87% 11.82% 18.25% 288.46 361.43 4,573.16 99.61 $48.23 $2,782.86 69.24

Government (n = 13) $843.22 33.52 1.54% 0.39% 1.70% 14.50% 38.46% 138.74 341.12 3,741.53 347.52 $25.81 $493.73 16.80

Trade (n = 8) $568.40 27.59 1.98% 0.15% 2.22% 2.84% 18.26% 430.38 527.13 7,065.89 560.24 $19.80 $1,302.32 143.79

TPU (n = 7) $1,050.13 34.35 1.99% 0.56% 4.40% 10.37% 32.71% 142.99 229.85 2,613.44 205.98 $103.74 $2,700.37 25.01

AMC (n = 4) $274.10 6.23 0.56% 0.09% 2.83% 7.00% 15.83% 811.69 907.54 6,867.71 615.10 $66.24 $2,419.55 32.56

Consolidated (2006) by Organization Size

1 - 999 (n = 54) $1,088.81 38.59 2.93% 0.84% 13.05% 13.57% 30.88% 77.77 126.03 2,433.85 320.73 $71.14 $1,186.47 16.53

1,000 - 4,999 (n = 47) $1,137.35 32.67 2.08% 0.43% 7.64% 12.59% 27.48% 156.15 236.71 3,348.03 207.09 $69.07 $1,505.08 31.56

5,000+ (n = 118) $984.01 34.80 2.23% 0.47% 5.11% 8.89% 27.67% 283.86 414.37 5,687.37 373.26 $44.17 $1,683.38 51.57

Table 2: Key Indicators (Consolidated, BMF, and BEST Averages)

* Multiply by 1-(% of Expenditure for External Services/100)** Reuse Ratio = Ratio of Learning Hours Received to Learning Hours Provided

*** Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP ScorecardSome historical data has been revised.

Comparative Data


Direct Expenditure per Employee (FTE)

Learning Hours Used per Employee

Direct Expenditure as % of Payroll


Direct Expenditure as % of Revenue

Direct Expenditure as % of Profit

% of Expenditure for Tuition

Reimbursement

% of Expenditure for External Services

Employees per WLP Staff Member

Learning Hours Used per WLP Staff Member (Adjusted for Outsourcing*)

Learning Hours Available per WLP

Staff Member (Adjusted for Outsourcing*)

Cost per Learning Hour Used

Cost per Learning Hour Available Reuse Ratio**

Adjusted for Outsourcing* Not Adjusted

Consolidated

2006 (n = 221) $1,040.40 35.06 2.33% 0.52% 6.88% 10.64% 28.07% 216.15 319.93 4,606.44 326.31 $54.25 $1,543.28 41.31

2005*** na na na na na na na na na na na na na na

2004 (n = 246) $1,022.43 36.36 2.32% 0.63% 7.48% 10.86% 28.87% 210.49 296.78 5,559.08 382.93 $49.99 $924.32 36.07

2003 (n = 278) $1,054.98 26.16 2.31% 1.01% 12.48% 10.08% 23.23% 191.92 265.79 3,212.90 366.44 $62.89 $1,109.28 29.00

2002 (n = 297) $857.07 28.78 2.22% 13.08% 22.63% 215.29 278.18 $45.72

2001 (n = 304) $799.64 25.50 1.98% 12.18% 22.56% 288.60 365.61 $36.79

BMF

2006 (n = 25) $1,319.61 40.70 2.20% 0.51% 5.86% 11.14% 30.46% 263.21 388.49 6,631.25 466.73 $35.08 $900.39 31.06

2005 (n = 22) $1,423.50 41.89 2.09% 0.45% 8.57% 12.64% 24.83% 192.06 274.40 5,005.36 476.60 $42.05 $1,046.28 29.97

2004 (n = 26) $1,363.18 34.75 2.20% 0.42% 3.95% 9.14% 30.00% 221.00 319.00 4,423.06 459.10 $54.17 $1,113.27 27.72

2003 (n = 26) $1,298.84 34.54 2.05% 0.46% 6.47% 12.62% 38.26% 286.59 448.28 3,488.92 505.41 $55.94 $1,429.88 26.01

2002 (n = 21) $1,366.13 42.15 2.47% 15.75% 26.38% 182.57 248.00 $40.11

2001 (n = 34) $1,508.58 44.90 2.85% 11.95% 40.50% 133.59 177.76 $54.74

BEST Award Winners

2006 (n = 42) $1,531.23 44.34 2.97% 0.72% 7.59% 8.18% 23.47% 179.17 220.76 6,480.73 292.25 $47.47 $1,860.53 43.15

2005 (n = 39) $1,615.81 43.46 2.72% 0.73% 6.61% 11.81% 23.93% 212.28 281.74 5,733.05 260.14 $48.03 $2,247.32 50.84

2004 (n = 29) $1,554.46 36.34 2.86% 0.64% 8.30% 9.39% 27.49% 205.90 296.31 5,824.04 342.21 $58.34 $1,706.42 39.69


Services (n = 60) $1,171.70 41.26 2.74% 0.76% 9.05% 11.74% 20.88% 224.50 313.38 5,511.99 330.89 $65.17 $1,034.01 31.47

FIRE (n = 45) $1,290.31 37.57 2.89% 0.58% 8.05% 7.18% 31.97% 124.11 206.37 3,888.05 273.46 $55.75 $2,134.16 45.83

Manufacturing (n = 29) $707.55 28.22 2.11% 0.25% 2.45% 11.60% 29.81% 292.27 408.79 5,019.29 398.79 $35.38 $966.67 26.76

Technology (n = 28) $1,274.81 37.90 2.03% 0.50% 4.02% 11.52% 40.98% 166.42 304.19 3,876.19 453.77 $63.18 $1,248.41 24.11

Health Care (n = 26) $862.37 24.82 2.15% 0.46% 11.87% 11.82% 18.25% 288.46 361.43 4,573.16 99.61 $48.23 $2,782.86 69.24

Government (n = 13) $843.22 33.52 1.54% 0.39% 1.70% 14.50% 38.46% 138.74 341.12 3,741.53 347.52 $25.81 $493.73 16.80

Trade (n = 8) $568.40 27.59 1.98% 0.15% 2.22% 2.84% 18.26% 430.38 527.13 7,065.89 560.24 $19.80 $1,302.32 143.79

TPU (n = 7) $1,050.13 34.35 1.99% 0.56% 4.40% 10.37% 32.71% 142.99 229.85 2,613.44 205.98 $103.74 $2,700.37 25.01

AMC (n = 4) $274.10 6.23 0.56% 0.09% 2.83% 7.00% 15.83% 811.69 907.54 6,867.71 615.10 $66.24 $2,419.55 32.56


1 - 999 (n = 54) $1,088.81 38.59 2.93% 0.84% 13.05% 13.57% 30.88% 77.77 126.03 2,433.85 320.73 $71.14 $1,186.47 16.53

1,000 - 4,999 (n = 47) $1,137.35 32.67 2.08% 0.43% 7.64% 12.59% 27.48% 156.15 236.71 3,348.03 207.09 $69.07 $1,505.08 31.56

5,000+ (n = 118) $984.01 34.80 2.23% 0.47% 5.11% 8.89% 27.67% 283.86 414.37 5,687.37 373.26 $44.17 $1,683.38 51.57

Key to Industry AbbreviationsAMC = Agriculture, Mining, and Construction

TPU = Transportation, Pipelines, and UtilitiesFIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate


1.98%

2.85%

2.22% 2.47%

2.31%

2.05% 2.32%

2.20%2.86%

2.09%2.72%

2.33%

2.20%2.97%

0.0

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

$800

$1,509

$857

$1,366

$1,055 $1,299

$1,022$1,363 $1,554

$1,424 $1,616

$1,040 $1,320$1,531

0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

0

10

20

30

40

5025.5

44.9

28.8

42.2

26.234.5

36.4

34.836.3

41.943.5

35.140.7 44.3

Expenditure per employee, number of hours per employee stabilizingDirect spending per employee among all organizations increased slightly to $1,040 in 2006. This metric has not displayed much variation in the past three years for the consolidated set of organizations. BMF organizations spent an average of $1,320 per employee in 2006, which was a decline of 7.30 percent after two consecutive years of growth. In BEST organizations, the average direct expenditure per employee also reversed direction, decreasing 5.23 percent to $1,531.

Learning hours used, which reflect the amount of formal learning content that employees are consuming, have been stabilizing. Employees in all organizations used (i.e., received) an average of 35.1 hours of formal learning in 2006, down from 36.4 hours in 2004. BMF organizations had a comparable decline, falling from 41.9 hours per employee in 2005 to 40.7 hours in 2006. BEST organizations also experienced only a minor fluctuation, rising from 43.5 hours in 2005 to 44.3 hours in 2006.

Expenditure as a percent of payroll very steadyAverage expenditure as a percentage of payroll has registered only minor changes for all organizations since 2002. It rose to 2.33 percent in 2006. Direct expenditure as a percentage of payroll has also been steady in the BMF sample for the past four years, fluctuating between 2.05 percent and 2.20 percent. In contrast, BEST organizations had a consistently higher average expenditure as a percentage of payroll, which increased to 2.97 percent in 2006 from 2.72 percent in 2005.

Indirect expensesThe 2007 State of the Industry report marks the first time that ASTD has tracked indirect costs related to learning such as learners’ travel expenses, work time lost during training, and learning event attendance fees. More than one-third of the organizations surveyed entered data for this new metric. For these respondents, there was an average of $795 for indirect learning expenses per employee in 2006.

INVESTmENT

(U.S. Dollars)


Figure 1: Average Direct Expenditure per Employee

Figure 2: Average Learning Hours Used per Employee

Figure 3: Average Direct Expenditure as Percentage of Payroll

Consolidated

BMF

BEST

Comparative Data


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

9.39%

27.49%

63.12%

11.81%

23.93%

64.26%

8.18%

23.47%

68.35%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

12.18%

22.56%

65.26%

13.08%

22.63%

64.29%

10.08%

23.23%

66.69%

10.86%

28.87%

60.27%

10.64%

28.07%

61.29%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

11.95%

40.50%

47.50%

15.75%

28.38%

57.88%

12.62%

38.26%

49.12%

9.14%

30.00%

60.86%

12.64%

24.83%

62.53%

11.14%

30.46%

58.40%

Internal costs In 2006, internal costs increased among all organizations after a moderate decline in 2004. Internal costs accounted for 61.29 percent of total spending in the consolidated set of organizations in 2006. In BMF organizations, internal expenditure was lower than the consolidated average at 58.40 percent. On the other hand, BEST organizations continued to spend more on internal services than the other groups sampled, reaching 68.35 percent in 2006. Many BEST organizations continually attempt to strike a balance between centralized and non-centralized activities in the learning function while still fulfilling an enterprise-wide commitment to workplace learning and performance. Some BEST organizations have recently chosen to outsource less with the intent of streamlining operations.

Outsourcing shows slight decreaseThe percentage of learning budgets spent on external services experienced a minor drop in the consolidated set of organizations in 2006, falling

from 28.87 percent to 28.07 percent. The external services allocation in BEST organizations also decreased slightly to 23.47 percent in 2006. In contrast, the percentage of learning budgets that went to external services continued to display a great deal of variability in BMF organizations. BMF external services’ share rose from 24.83 percent in 2005 to 30.46 percent in 2006.

Tuition reimbursement decreasingIn 2006, the percentage of learning expenditure for tuition reimbursement displayed little change for all organizations combined but declined in the BMF and BEST samples. Tuition reimbursement accounted for 10.64 percent of total expenses in the consolidated set of organizations. BEST organizations spent a lower average amount on tuition reimbursement than the consolidated average at 8.18 percent while the figure for BMF organizations was higher at 11.14 percent.

EXpENdITurE dISTrIBuTION

Figure 4: Average Direct Expenditure Distribution (Consolidated)

Figure 5: Average Direct Expenditure Distribution (BMF)

Figure 6: Average Direct Expenditure Distribution (BEST)

Tuition Reimbursement

External Services

Internal Costs

Comparative Data


366

505

383459

342

477

260 326

467

292

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

289

134

215

183 192

287

210 221

206

192 212

216263

179

3,213

3,489

5,559

4,423

5,824

5,005 5,733

4,606

6,631

6,481

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Number of employees, hours used per learning staff member variedThere was one learning staff member for every 216 employees on average in 2006 after taking into account variations in the percentage of budgets spent on outsourced learning activities.2 This ratio has been fluctuating a great deal for all the organizations sampled, as well as for the BMF and BEST samples. For BMF organizations, the average number of employees per workplace learning and performance (WLP) staff member increased from 192 in 2005 to 263 in 2006. BEST organizations saw the average number of employees per WLP staff member decrease from 212 to 179 in 2006.

Since 2003, BMF organizations have displayed consistent growth in the number of hours of learning used per learning staff member, reaching an average of 6,631 in 2006. This metric indicates that on average, each BMF organization had 6,631 learning hours used by employees for every

WLP professional on staff. BEST organizations also had a substantial gain in 2006, rising from an average of 5,733 to 6,481. The BEST and BMF organizations outpaced the other organizations sampled because the consolidated average number of hours used per WLP employee was lower at 4,606.

Learning hours made available indicate the amount of formal learning content that organizations offer to employees. The consolidated average number of hours made available to employees in an organization for each learning employee was 326 in 2006. In BMF organizations, the number of hours offered or made available per WLP staff member was higher at 467 hours. This metric has been holding steady for BMF organizations in recent years. In contrast, BEST organizations had a lower average of 292 hours of learning content available per WLP staff member in 2006. BEST organizations have also displayed more fluctuations in the average number of hours provided per learning employee compared to BMF organizations.

EFFICIENCY

(adjusted for outsourcing) (adjusted for outsourcing)

(adjusted for outsourcing)

Figure 7: Average Employees per WLP Staff Member

Figure 8: Average Learning Hours Used per WLP Staff Member

Figure 9: Average Learning Hours Available per WLP Staff Member

Consolidated

BMF

BEST

Comparative Data

2 Metrics based on a ratio to each WLP staff member (average employees per WLP staff member, average learning hours per WLP staff member and average learning hours available per WLP staff member) are adjusted for outsourcing using the formula 1 – (% of expenditure for external services / 100). This adjustment addresses the impact of outsourcing on effective staff resources and availability.


29.0

26.0

36.1

27.7

39.7

30.0

50.8

41.3

31.1

43.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

$37

$55

$46

$40

$63

$56

$50 $54 $58

$42 $48 $54

$35$47

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70$1,109 $1,430

$924 $1,113

$1,706

$1,046

$2,247

$1,543

$900

$1,861

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Cost per hour used increased for mostThe consolidated figure for average cost per learning hour used or received rose to $54 in 2006, which was the second-highest value since 2001. However, costs per hour used for both BMF and BEST organizations continued to decline. The average cost per learning hour used has been falling sharply and consistently for BMF organizations, dropping to $35 in 2006. The decline was more modest for BEST organizations, decreasing from $48 in 2005 to $47 in 2006.

Cost per hour available displayed a pattern similar to cost per hour usedFor BMF and BEST organizations, the efficiency gains for cost per learning hour available (i.e., provided) converged with those for cost per learning hour used. It cost BMF organizations an average of $900 to make each hour of learning content available in 2006, marking the third consecutive year of decline. The cost for hours made available also declined

substantially in BEST organizations, decreasing 17.21 percent to $1,861. The consolidated average for cost per learning hour available was $1,543 in 2006.

Reuse still strongThe consolidated average reuse ratio for learning content (i.e., the ratio of learning hours used to learning hours available) has been steadily increasing since 2003, reaching 41.3 in 2006. This ratio means that every hour of content provided (i.e., available) was used (i.e., received) an average of 41.3 times. Compared to the consolidated average, BMF organizations had a lower average reuse ratio at 31.1. However, average reuse ratio for BMF organizations has been increasing consistently in recent years. BEST organizations experienced a drop in average reuse ratio, falling from 50.8 in 2005 to 43.2 in 2006, but they are still outperforming the BMF organizations and the aggregated samples in this area.

(U.S. Dollars) (U.S. Dollars)

Figure 10: Average Cost per Learning Hour Used

Figure 11: Average Cost per Learning Hour Available

Figure 12: Average Reuse Ratio (Ratio of Learning Hours Used to Learning Hours Available)

Note: Historical data has been revised based on methodological considerations.

Costs for Formal LearningA new metric tracked by ASTD’s WLP Scorecard® is the breakdown of total learning expenditure by formal learning activities compared to other types of programs. Formal learning comprises structured learning activities that are conducted separate from work, such as an online lesson, a classroom event, or a coaching event conducted separately from work. Most of the organizations surveyed for the State of the Industry report entered data for costs related to formal learning. In 2006, the consolidated average for cost per formal learning hour used was $35. The average cost to make an hour of formal learning available was $1,054.


Executive Development

Managerial and

SupervisorySales Customer

Service

Mandatory and

Compliance

Processes, Procedures,

Business Practices

IT and Systems

Interpersonal Skills

New Employee

Orientation

Basic Skills

Profession or Industry

Specific

Other (Quality, Product

Knowledge)

Consolidated

2006 (n = 221) 4.11% 11.00% 6.32% 6.21% 8.93% 11.07% 10.24% 5.75% 6.69% 4.49% 14.45% 10.74%

2005* na na na na na na na na na na na na

2004 (n = 246) 4.96% 11.96% 5.67% 6.92% 10.54% 10.73% 10.40% 7.03% 5.80% 4.58% 14.06% 7.33%

2003 (n = 278) 5.41% 12.04% 7.57% 8.16% 7.38% 13.88% 13.34% 7.25% 5.76% 3.07% 10.89% 5.55%

2002 (n = 297) 3.28% 10.72% 4.00% 8.58% 9.65% 17.65% 10.36% 6.57% 7.14% 2.13% 9.65% 10.28%

2001 (n = 304) 4.11% 10.22% 4.56% 7.66% 7.55% 19.00% 13.00% 5.89% 7.44% 2.11% 9.22% 9.22%

BMF

2006 (n = 25) 3.80% 7.65% 6.20% 4.11% 7.56% 10.91% 11.66% 3.57% 2.35% 4.64% 24.38% 13.15%

2005 (n = 21) 3.02% 9.25% 4.14% 4.03% 7.83% 12.82% 19.25% 3.93% 1.90% 3.90% 18.68% 11.26%

2004 (n = 24) 3.47% 7.38% 4.88% 4.67% 7.08% 10.62% 18.10% 4.34% 4.31% 3.75% 24.34% 7.05%

2003 (n = 26) 4.51% 9.18% 5.75% 3.31% 6.70% 15.70% 18.48% 7.96% 4.06% 4.47% 13.63% 6.27%

2002 (n = 21) 7.00% 7.00% 4.00% 3.00% 5.00% 13.00% 2.00% 14.00% 9.00% 17.00% 5.00% 14.00%

2001 (n = 34) 5.00% 12.00% 9.00% 5.00% 4.00% 19.00% 13.00% 5.00% 3.00% 3.00% 11.00% 11.00%

BEST Award Winners

2006 (n = 42) 4.58% 10.35% 5.73% 6.83% 7.06% 11.11% 12.69% 7.01% 5.15% 4.53% 15.14% 9.84%

2005 (n = 40) 4.84% 10.20% 6.79% 6.08% 10.56% 13.91% 11.62% 5.60% 4.88% 3.69% 11.29% 10.55%

2004 (n = 29) 5.80% 10.39% 5.02% 6.06% 10.21% 9.78% 11.20% 6.06% 4.76% 4.65% 16.65% 9.44%


Services (n = 60) 4.75% 11.25% 5.43% 6.04% 9.18% 9.64% 11.17% 6.48% 4.45% 3.55% 17.72% 10.34%

FIRE (n = 45) 3.19% 9.61% 7.38% 10.25% 9.44% 12.63% 13.31% 4.98% 7.23% 3.10% 10.04% 8.82%

Manufacturing (n = 29) 6.06% 8.13% 6.32% 3.12% 12.77% 10.87% 6.07% 4.31% 9.44% 4.50% 19.54% 8.86%

Technology (n = 28) 3.27% 8.91% 7.05% 3.57% 3.52% 8.95% 11.89% 4.69% 5.17% 5.62% 9.72% 27.62%

Health Care (n = 26) 3.51% 11.88% 5.30% 5.09% 10.25% 7.36% 8.54% 5.44% 10.93% 2.52% 22.43% 6.74%

Government (n = 13) 2.44% 14.70% 0.34% 2.98% 6.47% 15.12% 7.28% 9.52% 2.68% 12.53% 18.67% 7.27%

Trade (n = 8) 3.25% 11.75% 11.50% 9.00% 7.25% 17.25% 7.50% 4.88% 6.13% 5.00% 5.63% 10.88%

TPU (n = 7) 1.96% 9.90% 4.86% 5.04% 18.90% 12.26% 19.77% 3.71% 6.04% 4.06% 7.91% 5.59%

AMC (n = 4) 7.33% 17.00% 11.00% 10.00% 5.00% 6.67% 0.67% 7.33% 2.33% 1.67% 30.00% 1.00%


1 - 999 (n = 54) 4.65% 10.44% 8.15% 6.09% 5.99% 9.45% 9.40% 6.60% 10.07% 3.17% 13.25% 12.75%

1,000 - 4,999 (n = 47) 3.27% 11.23% 4.28% 5.90% 10.57% 10.48% 10.61% 6.04% 7.23% 4.44% 17.93% 8.01%

5,000+ (n = 118) 4.08% 10.14% 6.23% 6.03% 9.45% 11.11% 10.94% 5.19% 5.01% 4.79% 15.10% 11.92%

CONTENT dISTrIBuTION

* Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP ScorecardKey to Industry AbbreviationsAMC = Agriculture, Mining, and ConstructionTPU = Transportation, Pipelines, and UtilitiesFIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

Table 3: Average Percentage of Learning Content by Content Area (Consolidated, BMF, and BEST)

Comparative Data


Consolidated Content CoverageThe top three content areas, accounting for 36 percent of learning content in 2006, were

• profession- or industry-specific content • processes, procedures, and business practices • management and supervision.

The three areas to which the least content was devoted were

• executive development • basic skills • interpersonal skills.

BMF Content CoverageIn BMF organizations, the top three content areas, accounting for 47 percent of learning content in 2006, were

• profession- or industry-specific content • IT and systems skills • processes, procedures, and business practices.

The three areas to which the least content was devoted were • new employee orientation • interpersonal skills • executive development.

BEST Content CoverageIn BEST organizations in 2006, the top three content areas, accounting for 39 percent of all content, were

• profession- or industry-specific content • IT and systems skills • processes, procedures, and business practices.

The three areas to which the least content was devoted were

• basic skills • executive development • new employee orientation.

Figure 13: Average Percentage of Learning Content By Content Area (2006)

CONTENT dISTrIBuTION

2006

14%24%

15%11%11%11%11%

8%10%11%

13%10%10%

12%13%

9%8%

7%7%

2%5%6%6%6%6%

4%7%

6%4%

7%

4%

4%4%

5%5%

5%

Profession or Industry SpecificProcesses, Procedures, Business Practices

Managerial and SupervisoryOther (Quality, Product Knowledge)

IT and SystemsMandatory and ComplianceNew Employee Orientation

SalesCustomer Service

Interpersonal SkillsBasic Skills

Executive Development

Consolidated

BMF

BEST

Comparative Data


dELIVErY mEThOdS

Technology-based learning, self-paced online continue to increaseIn 2006, technology-based learning delivery was on the rise. Among the consolidated responses, it accounted for 30.28 percent of the learning hours available, up from only 11.47 percent five years earlier. The proportion of technology-based learning to other types of delivery methods was higher in BMF organizations (39.85 percent) and in BEST organizations (35.85 percent). Self-paced online learning continues to be the most frequently-used type of e-learning, at nearly two-thirds for all groups.

Usage of instructor-led learning diminished Live instructor-led delivery of learning hours across the entire sample decreased from 74.70 percent in 2004 to 71.36 percent in 2006. BEST organizations had only a slight drop to 66.00 percent, while instructor-led learning increased to 61.36 percent in BMF organizations. The majority of instructor-led delivery continued to take place in classrooms (roughly 90 percent for all groups).

Live Instructor-Led Self-Paced(g) Non-Computer

Technology (Audio/Video)

(h) Other

Other Combinations

(a) Instructor-Led Real

(b) Instructor-Led Online

(c) Instructor-Led Remote

(d) Self-Paced Online

(Networked)

(e) Self-Paced Non-Networked (CD-ROM,

etc.)

(f) Self-Paced

Print

All Instructor-

Led

All Technology-

Based

All Online

Consolidated*

2006 (n = 221) 65.30% 4.24% 1.83% 19.13% 3.24% 2.76% 1.85% 1.67% 71.36% 30.28% 23.36%

2004 (n = 246) 68.24% 4.06% 2.40% 13.99% 3.45% 4.06% 2.59% 1.21% 74.70% 26.49% 18.05%

2003 (n = 278) 66.01% 2.92% 3.04% 12.66% 3.83% 5.28% 3.75% 2.51% 71.97% 26.20% 15.58%

2002 (n = 297) 71.08% 15.38%

2001 (n = 304) 76.00% 11.47%

BMF

2006 (n = 25) 54.24% 3.74% 3.38% 26.04% 4.38% 3.46% 2.31% 2.45% 61.36% 39.85% 29.78%

2005 (n = 21) 54.96% 3.30% 1.37% 27.15% 4.18% 4.77% 0.91% 3.36% 59.63% 36.91% 30.45%

2004 (n=25) 59.77% 6.14% 2.23% 23.43% 4.86% 2.36% 1.03% 0.19% 68.13% 37.69% 29.57%

2003 (n = 26) 60.85% 2.50% 4.43% 22.08% 4.41% 3.08% 1.24% 1.41% 67.77% 34.66% 24.58%

2002 (n = 21) 54.06% 28.53%

2001 (n = 34) 64.14% 21.92%

BEST Award Winners

2006 (n = 42) 59.53% 3.93% 2.55% 23.62% 3.28% 2.82% 2.48% 1.80% 66.00% 35.85% 27.55%

2005 (n = 39) 57.50% 7.28% 2.31% 21.75% 2.50% 3.92% 2.49% 2.24% 67.10% 36.34% 29.03%

2004 (n = 29) 61.00% 4.43% 1.69% 20.55% 3.16% 2.17% 4.14% 2.86% 67.12% 32.00% 24.98%

Table 4: Average Percentage of Learning Hours Available via Different Delivery Methods (Consolidated, BMF, and BEST)

Figure 14: Comparison of Average Percentage of Learning Hours Available via Instructor-Led Real Time vs Technology Based (BMF)

* Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP Scorecard

Instructor-Led Real Time

Technology-Based

64.14%

21.92%

54.06%

28.53%

60.85%

34.66%

59.77%

37.69%

54.96%

36.91%

54.24%39.85%

LEArNINg prOFESSIONALS’ INCOmEComparative Data


Table 5: Income by Area of Expertise

Table 6: Income by Organization Type

Table 7: Income by Longevity in Training and Development/Learning/Performance

N = 7,967

N = 8,099

N = 7,988

LEArNINg prOFESSIONALS’ INCOmE

An annual ASTD member demographics survey of more than 8,000 learning professionals reveals differences in compensation based on a variety of factors. Investigation of the relationships between demographic variables indicates that experience, organization worked for, and area of specialty influence levels of income.

$0 - $29,999 $30,000 - $39,999

$40,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $69,999

$70,000 - $89,999

$90,000 - $119,999 $120,000+

Area of Expertise

Career planning and talent management 5.00% 3.75% 6.25% 17.92% 20.00% 22.08% 25.00%

Coaching 1.98% 3.95% 9.49% 25.30% 22.92% 21.34% 15.02%

Delivering training 2.98% 9.17% 16.47% 35.97% 19.78% 11.07% 4.56%

Designing learning 1.77% 5.83% 11.72% 33.79% 27.70% 13.29% 5.89%

Facilitating organizational change 2.33% 2.33% 6.31% 14.78% 25.08% 24.58% 24.58%

Improving human performance 1.75% 3.96% 6.88% 24.24% 24.01% 22.03% 17.13%

Managing organizational knowledge 1.00% 6.00% 10.33% 25.67% 22.00% 22.00% 13.00%

Managing the learning function 1.13% 2.33% 5.99% 22.57% 27.86% 23.91% 16.22%

Measuring and evaluating 4.39% 5.26% 10.53% 28.95% 21.93% 17.54% 11.40%

Other 2.57% 4.15% 13.04% 28.06% 19.96% 16.40% 15.81%

$0 - $29,999 $30,000 - $39,999

$40,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $69,999

$70,000 - $89,999

$90,000 - $119,999 $120,000+

Organization Type

A training/learning product or service company 3.38% 5.40% 10.94% 25.86% 21.88% 18.03% 14.52%

An academic institution 3.69% 8.35% 13.79% 33.59% 21.17% 12.82% 6.60%

A government agency 1.00% 7.00% 12.20% 33.00% 24.80% 16.00% 6.00%

Independent consultant or sole proprietor 4.28% 4.47% 6.61% 20.82% 20.04% 20.82% 22.96%

Other for-profit organization 1.19% 3.78% 8.29% 27.70% 26.48% 19.38% 13.19%

Other not-for-profit organization 0.91% 8.71% 16.51% 32.38% 21.20% 14.95% 5.33%

Student 48.04% 11.76% 16.67% 13.73% 4.90% 3.92% 0.98%

Other 1.68% 5.77% 13.14% 30.21% 23.80% 15.14% 10.26%

$0 - $29,999 $30,000 - $39,999

$40,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $69,999

$70,000 - $89,999

$90,000 - $119,999 $120,000+

Years in the Field

Less than 1 year 4.89% 17.66% 20.11% 23.64% 15.22% 9.78% 8.70%

1 to 2 years 3.33% 17.46% 23.70% 28.69% 13.72% 7.28% 5.82%

2 to 5 years 3.44% 10.58% 20.24% 32.83% 17.55% 10.08% 5.29%

5 to 10 years 2.53% 3.85% 11.50% 36.74% 23.83% 13.69% 7.85%

10 to 20 years 0.94% 1.97% 5.59% 26.01% 30.28% 21.94% 13.27%

More than 20 years 1.36% 1.86% 4.28% 18.42% 23.55% 27.12% 23.41%

Comparative Data


ChArACTErISTICS OF ThE BEST LEArNINg OrgANIzATIONS

About the 2007 BEST Award winnersThe 2004 State of the Industry report identified eight characteristics of organizations that won BEST awards in 2003 and 2004. The analysis of winning organizations from 2007 continues to validate those same eight characteristics.

Almost all BEST organizations reported improvements to employee and customer satisfaction, quality of products and services, cycle time, productivity, retention, revenue, and overall profitability. BEST organizations had clearly defined processes to link learning strategies and initiatives to increases in both individual and organizational performance.

BEST organizations used many approaches to select and design learning initiatives to improve performance. Strategic plans and corporate objectives were the root of most learning and performance activities.

In 2006, most BEST organizations reported an increase in the number of employees trained as their primary achievement in efficiency, followed by improvements in time to deploy new learning initiatives, time to reach employee readiness/competence, content development cycle time, number of employees trained per training staff member, travel/accommodation and content development costs, and cost savings realized through outsourcing initiatives. The greatest efficiency gains appeared to come from effective leveraging of technology, restructuring and improving existing programs and curricula, reduced deployment time from improved internal processes, and cutting costs through tighter governance over content development and travel.

In 2006, BEST organizations allocated nearly half of the learning function’s resources to non-training activities such as performance analysis, organizational development, talent management, and process improvement.

Alignment

• The BEST have formal processes to align short- and long-term business strategies with competency, learning, and performance solution needs and priorities.

• The BEST map learning resources to competencies, individual development plans, jobs, and corporate goals.

C-Level Involvement

Most of the BEST have visible support from senior executives, and involve leaders as teachers.

Efficiency The BEST maximize the efficiency of the learning function by balancing centralized and decentralized aspects of the learning function, internal process improvement, use of technology, and strategic outsourcing.

Effectiveness The BEST maximize the effectiveness of learning by aligning learning activities with business needs and providing timely access to relevant learning opportunities.

Investment In general, the BEST spend more, but many spend less than the norm.

Learning Opportunities

The BEST provide a broad range of internal and external formal and work-based learning opportunities, including knowledge sharing systems, coaching, and conference attendance.

Measurement

• The BEST demonstrate effectiveness by monitoring individual and organizational performance indicators and linking changes in performance to learning and non-learning performance improvement activities.

• The BEST demonstrate the efficiency of the learning organization by monitoring time, usage, and cost indicators and linking decreases in these to changes in the processes and practices of the learning function.

Non-Training Solutions

The BEST devote a large portion of their resources to non-training performance improvement activities, particularly organizational development, process improvement, and job-specific resources.

LINkINg LEArNINg ANd pErFOrmANCEBEST Award Winners


Most 2007 BEST organizations had clearly defined processes to align learning with both individual and organizational performance. Strategic plans and corporate objectives were the root of most learning and performance activities for BEST organizations. In many cases, strategic goals cascaded to the business unit, where they were translated to unit goals and then to individual performance requirements.

Individual-level performanceThirty-eight percent of the BEST organizations link organizational and individual performance by having individual learning or development plans that align with organizational goals or specific business drivers. Some BEST organizations began the process of linking learning and performance by conducting needs or knowledge gap analyses or by following the ADDIE model (assess, design, develop, implement, evaluate) to determine the training required by the organization or individual. Many organizations developed competencies or mapped roles to competencies by defining the behaviors, knowledge, skills, abilities, and performance standards required by each job to meet organizational performance goals. Other BEST organizations provided training for certification purposes, or to meet external regulatory, legal, or compliance requirements.

Scorecards were used by several organizations to align corporate strategy with learning and performance at both the organizational and individual level, while others used the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) and Six Sigma methodologies. Some organizations linked employees’ career progression and compensation to obtaining certification or attaining competency levels. A few organizations held managers responsible for their employees’ learning by linking the managers’ compensation to compliance with the learning and performance goals of their staff.

One BEST organization integrated its learning management system with its performance management system to better align individual performance with company goals. By putting performance information, development plans, learning data, and competencies in one system, employees and their managers have easy access and the ability to track learning activities completed through the system.

A variety of positive returnsThe 2007 BEST organizations reported wide-ranging returns from their learning efforts, including quality improvements, reduction in time to productivity for new hires, better employee retention, better ratings from customers and clients, improved safety records, fewer defects, and higher employee engagement ratings. For one BEST organization, post-learning surveys showed that 89 percent of their IT professionals responded that they gained qualifications for future positions and 77 percent reported gaining confidence in their new skills. Another organization realized an ROI of more than 240 percent from a new-supervisor course that improves team effectiveness and productivity, and an ROI of 170 percent from a new leadership development course for junior leaders that resulted in better clarity, improved communications, and higher employee engagement.

What works for the BESTSome specific methods used by BEST organizations to align learning and performance included

• using corporate strategic plans to guide development and delivery of the most appropriate learning and development initiatives

• establishing position-based curricula tied to organizational goals

• providing learning maps that link skills development to career progression

• aligning competency models across business functions or specific job families, and mapping individual roles to core competencies

• conducting business impact analyses, and employee, customer, and client surveys to identify learning needs and desired performance outcomes

• requiring a minimum number of classes or training hours per employee as part of corporate objectives and tying accomplishment of the learning to individual performance reviews

• requiring all employees to complete annual individual learning development plans or build career development plans aligned to corporate strategy/goals.

LINkINg LEArNINg ANd pErFOrmANCE

Table 8: Average Percentage of Vice Presidents and C-Level Executives Who Support Learning

in Different Ways (BEST)

Public Statements in Support of Learning

Participation as an Instructor

or Speaker

Inclusion of Learning Objectives as Part

of Performance Goals

2006 (n = 42) 94.40% 73.40% 89.40%

2005 (n = 39) 94.85% 68.51% 88.59%

2004 (n = 29) 90.52% 67.86% 91.38%

2003 (n = 24) 91.24% 69.71% 91.92%

2002 (n = 23) 90.22% 74.89% 94.35%

Valuing and positioning learningBEST organizations have consistently placed a high value on learning for several years. Since 2003, more than 88 percent of vice presidents and C-level executives in BEST organizations made public statements in support of learning and included learning objectives as part of their own performance goals. In addition, more than two-thirds participated as instructors or speakers in learning events each year. In 2006, a senior-level officer was responsible for learning in 90.48 percent of the BEST Award organizations, a slight decrease from 2005.

BEST Award Winners


EFFECTIVENESS

BEST organizations reported improvements in productivity, employee retention, quality of products and services, customer and employee satisfaction, increases in sales revenues, safety improvements, employee engagement, overall profitability, overall performance, and compliance in 2006. Productivity was rated by 90.48 percent of organizations as a measure of effectiveness; and employee retention, quality of products and services, and customer satisfaction were each ranked second by 88.10 percent of respondents. Employee satisfaction was used as a measure by 83.33 percent while sales/revenue was selected by 80.95 percent. Overall profitability and cycle time reduction/improvement were chosen as measures by 76.19 and 71.43 percent, respectively.

Specific methods to improve productivityProductivity improvements were attributed to a variety of methods such as creating and delivering targeted training identified by needs-and knowledge-gap analyses, building internal capacity through two-phase learning (in-house residency and on-the-job training with assigned mentors), establishing a project management office and offering training leading to a Project Management Professional® certification, and introducing competencies, providing training, and linking employee performance with mastering those competencies. One BEST organization reported a productivity increase caused by improvements in safety training; the effect was a 6 percent increase in quality units per shift, or an additional 6 million units produced without additional staff. Another BEST organization saw productivity improvements for 70 percent of staff participating in targeted learning, and customer service score increases of 7 to 22 percent per individual.

Development opportunitiesMost respondents mentioned that learning, development, and career development opportunities were critical to retaining employees. Several organizations implemented leadership development programs, which were well received and improved employee retention rates. One BEST organization focused attention on retaining its vice presidents by providing coaching and more communication with top leaders, resulting in attrition containment at that level. Other approaches to retaining employees ranged from making available tuition reimbursement, offering Master’s and PhD degrees on site, and creating a corporate culture of employee feedback, professional development, diversity, community involvement, and offering health and safety programs. One BEST organization introduced a comprehensive retention strategy that covered compensation, job enrichment, and training in loyalty-building, career growth, and professional growth and saw a 6 percent decrease in attrition. Another organization has a directive from the CEO to

retain essential employees at every level and began an in-house university program that helped prepare employees for their next positions. Their annualized attrition rate fell by 21 percent.

Improving customer satisfactionMany BEST organizations cited customer satisfaction as a learning effectiveness measure. Their efforts to keep customers happy included hosting an award-winning educational website that received more than 100 million unique visits, carrying out customer surveys, secret shopping, obtaining internal feedback, and providing blended learning opportunities to address shortfalls. One organization provided e-learning on products, processes, and procedures, video-based behavior modeling, and skills practice through role-playing and gaming. Their results speak volumes; with more than 10,000 employees trained, the average customer satisfaction scores were up 16 percent, the number of officers trained was up 104 percent, and the average turn-around time dropped by 29 percent.

Innovative products and servicesThe quality of products and services also ranked highly as a measure of effectiveness. One BEST organization introduced competency models, an innovation in that industry, detailing desired behaviors and skills. Learning professionals trained associates according to the competencies and rated the associates according to mastery. Their analysis showed that skills improved on more than 50 percent of the competencies, for every level of associate. The organization received a national award for the quality of their associates and a book is being published about the organization’s training and development approach.

Benefits of cycle time reductionCycle time reduction and overall profitability were mentioned primarily by IT industry companies as measures of effectiveness. Adoption of Six Sigma and LEAN methodologies improved schedule adherence for one BEST organization to 93 percent. For another BEST organization, implementing best IT practices reduced the time to do failovers (the capability to switch over automatically to a standby server, system, or network when one of these components fails) from an average of 24 hours to less than two minutes, and reduced the change control cycle for changing existing software from an average of a week to two days. One organization determined overall profitability by using the ROI calculation and realized a 16 percent ROI and $86,000 savings on one system training launch and a 79 percent ROI with savings of more than $400,000 on another.

Figure 15: Metrics Used to Measure Performance of the Learning Function (BEST)

90.48%88.10%88.10%88.10%

83.33%80.95%

76.19%71.43%

59.52%

Productivity ImprovementAbility to Retain Essential Employees

Quality of Products/ServicesCustomer SatisfactionEmployee Satisfaction

Sales/RevenuesOverall Profitability

Cycle Time Reduction or ImprovementOther

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EFFICIENCYBEST Award Winners


In 2007, most BEST organizations reported an increase in the number of employees trained as their primary achievement in efficiency, followed by improvements in time to deploy new learning initiatives, time to employee readiness/competence, content development cycle time, number of employees trained per training staff member, travel/accommodation and content development costs, and cost savings realized through outsourcing initiatives.

Technology still critical to efficiencyTechnology continued to play an important role in learning activities in the 2007 BEST organizations. In addition to employing e-learning, creating training modules, and using collaborative training platforms, BEST organizations realized increases in the number of employees trained by using their learning and knowledge management systems to set up scheduling systems and to create ad-hoc mentoring relationships by connecting people around the world with those who have common interests or are searching for answers to work-related problems.

Some organizations trained additional employees in traditional instructor-led sessions by hiring more trainers, making the most of their company’s investment in the training infrastructure, and revising training schedules. Blended learning was used by many organizations with good results; two organizations reported a 14 percent increase in the number of employees trained, while another delivered 197,000 training days to approximately 26,000 employees.

Greater reach for the learning functionBEST organizations gained efficiencies in a variety of ways, including restructuring their training departments, centralizing resource planning and scheduling systems, introducing more e-learning courses, coordinating training with other departments, better utilizing learning resources, and training internal managers as trainers. One BEST organization realized a 35 percent increase in the trainer/trainee ratio by developing and cross-training learning staff. Another BEST organization used virtual classrooms to train up to 400 people simultaneously, trained their internal managers as trainers, increased the use of mobile learning and gaming, and introduced a new learning management system that provided employees with better access, less downtime, and better consistency. The results of these initiatives were 35,000 employees trained with a learning staff of 14 people and a 54 percent increase in the number of training days provided.

Reduced deployment timeMost BEST organizations that used time to deploy a new learning initiative

as a metric for efficiency reduced time to deploy by leveraging technology and introducing new approaches to development, including rapid instructional design and web-based development processes. BEST organizations were able to launch learning initiatives in dramatically less time, increase the number of initiatives launched, and reduce development time. One organization cut time to deploy in half while quadrupling the number of initiatives launched by having two development groups work simultaneously; one to collect business requirements, the other to build the online course. One organization used a PowerPoint-based tool that allowed for interactivity and plugged into the organization’s LMS, cutting time to deploy the new online course from three to six months to three weeks.

Changing curriculaFor many BEST organizations, redesigning or revising curriculum was important in meeting the demand to decrease time to employee readiness or competence. One organization added more specific training to their existing curriculum, cutting the average time before allocating new hires to projects in half. Another redesigned a training program into modules using a two-part blended approach with a train-the-trainer component, resulting in more timely delivery and participant satisfaction ratings of 100 percent. One BEST organization lacked the time and resources to quickly train all employees on a new system that was to be rolled out imminently. The organization’s solution was an innovative use of technology; obtaining virtual meeting rooms from Microsoft, which allowed many more people to be trained simultaneously. This change reduced the time to train their employees from weeks or months to a few days.

Cost reductionsIn reducing content development cycle time and costs, BEST organizations used a variety of approaches: modularizing reusable content, customizing content, outsourcing content development, creating templates and standards for using development tools, implementing competency models for subject-matter experts, and defining processes and requirements for designing learning solutions. In one organization, instructional designers focused only on design and development while others focused on delivery, usability, quality, and standards, which reduced content development cycle time by 33 percent. Tailored blended-learning saved one organization $2.8 million in travel and accommodation costs by cutting travel time for a 14-week program from 28 to 7 days. Other approaches included reducing the number of traditional training classes for a four-day course, centralizing the classes in locations easy to reach by driving, requiring double-occupancy at the hotel, and restructuring the course to begin late on Monday morning. These changes saved the organization $162.5 million.

Figure 16: Metrics Used to Rate Efficiency of the Learning Function (BEST)

90.48%80.95%

76.19%73.81%73.81%

69.05%61.90%

52.38%54.76%

Number of Employees Trained per Learning Staff MemberTime to Employee Readiness or Competence

Number of Employees Trained per Learning Staff MemberTime to Deploy a New Learning Initiative

Cost Savings Realized Through Outsourcing Learning InitiativesContent Development Cycle Time

Content Development CostsTravel and Accomodation Costs

Other

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EFFICIENCYBEST Award Winners


LEArNINg OppOrTuNITIES

A diverse set of learning opportunities exists for employees at BEST organizations. Almost all BEST organizations provide access to formal/event-based learning activities (98.33 percent), on-the-job learning (97.86 percent), job aids (95.12 percent), and knowledge bases (91.36 percent). Learning through technology (job aids, knowledge bases, and electronic performance support) was made available by a large majority of workplaces and was popular with more than two-thirds of employees. Mentoring/coaching and knowledge sharing were learning opportunities used by more than half of the employees.

Areas of underutilization Usage of work-based learning opportunities often lagged behind availability, with the exception of on-the-job learning and formal/event-based learning activities. The most underutilized learning opportunities within BEST workplaces included knowledge sharing, mentoring/coaching and job-rotation, where access was greater than actual usage.

Learning opportunities located outside the workplace were more underutilized than internal opportunities. In 2006, 56.05 percent of employees in BEST organizations had access to employer support for conference attendance, but only 39.33 percent of employees used it. The difference between access and usage for tuition reimbursement was even greater: although 86.68 percent of employees in BEST organizations had access, only 19.99 percent took advantage of the opportunity.

Innovation in a variety of domains2007 BEST organizations introduced a variety of innovative learning initiatives in developing their human and organizational resources. Some BEST organizations described preparing for the impending retirement of current leaders by developing pools of new leadership talent and providing targeted learning, challenging assignments, coaching of potential leaders, and instituting 360-degree feedback. Improving sales training and salesforce evaluation resulted in increases in sales for several BEST organizations. For one BEST organization, customer service improvements resulted from using

feedback from calls and data mining to coach employees, reward them, and recognize them when performance improved, taking the organization’s customer satisfaction ranking from last place to first in their industry.

Overcoming talent gapsFacing shortages of employees in their industries, several BEST organizations created programs to nurture their own talent. One BEST organization decided to fill the talent gap by developing a curriculum in a new IT domain and creating an alliance with colleges and universities to offer the new program. More than 70 colleges and universities offer the new curriculum and more than 1,500 students are enrolled. In addition to creating a new labor pool, the initiative is driving consistency and expanding the breadth of the domain. Another organization created a certification process for an area of high turnover due to a talent drain to other countries. The organization hired and trained people using a train-the-trainer model, doubling the growth rate and experiencing a quicker hire-to-productivity time. One organization created a program to develop their employees for more challenging assignments by providing the opportunity to attend a community college for skills development. Eighty-eight percent of participants completed the program, giving some the push they needed to pursue higher education.

Cultivating a multicultural environmentEffectively operating in a multicultural world was the focus of several BEST organizations. For one organization, it involved developing a more expansive definition of cultural diversity as well as a roadmap for developing skills and coping with the changes necessitated by integrating numerous corporate cultures into one culture due to corporate acquisitions. For another, it involved improving cross-cultural awareness and reducing cultural risk for a global corporation operating in more than 150 countries. A third company created an outreach initiative for employees that targeted improving communications with Spanish-speaking customers. This program also included a community service training initiative for Spanish-speaking customers in the form of telenovela scenarios and radio call-in shows covering topics related to living and working in the United States.

Formal (event-based) Learning Activities (e.g., classes, workshops, online courses)

On-the-job Learning

Job Aids

Knowledge Bases (e.g., searchable reference materials)

Electronic Performance Support

Knowledge Sharing (e.g., experts on call, communities of practice)

Mentoring and Coaching

Financial Support for Memberships in Professional Associations

Employer-supported Conference Attendance

Job Rotation

Tuition Reimbursement

98.33%90.93%

97.86%90.60%95.12%

82.32%91.36%

74.12%79.76%

69.99%

86.52%63.67%

82.24%58.67%

53.34%42.71%

56.05%39.33%

49.51%33.10%

86.68%19.99%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

NON-TrAININg SOLuTIONS/pErFOrmANCE ImprOVEmENTBEST Award Winners

Access

Usage

Figure 17: Average Percentage of Employee Access To and Usage of Different Learning Opportunities (BEST)


Non-training performance improvement solutions accounted for an average of 44.11 percent of the learning function’s resources in BEST organizations, a small increase over the previous year. The non-training activities that received the most resources were organizational development, process analysis and improvement, and job-specific tools and resources.

Learning professionals in BEST organizations used their expertise in a variety of ways for non-training initiatives reported in 2007. In some cases, they provided guidance to the business units, while in others they developed and created programs, processes, and strategies for non-training initiatives. Learning functions were instrumental in the design and implementation of performance and knowledge management systems and employee engagement initiatives.

What works for the BESTBEST organizations practiced a broad range of non-learning performance initiatives in 2007, which included

• using technology to create communities of practice and facilitate online collaboration

• changing cultural awareness, implementing diversity and inclusion initiatives, and developing capacity to expand to other countries by developing cultural sensitivity

• integrating the talent management process with three- to five-year business plans to identify talent and skills required to be successful in the future

• creating a supply of potential leaders by setting standards for talent assessment, leadership development interventions, and communication

• cascading the Six Sigma methodology through the organization to provide a unifying framework for the company

• introducing pay-for-performance plans and new performance review and performance management systems to support performance management processes

• developing an online document management system for all operational manuals and standards that could be easily accessed by employees at 550 sites

• creating and implementing tools to manage knowledge and developing an organizational knowledge strategy

• designing and implementing new processes for investment reviews, performance consulting, and laboratory improvements

• emphasizing innovation by creating a culture of innovative thinking and a process for employees to develop and submit their innovations

• instituting a process excellence initiative using Six Sigma and LEAN methodologies combined with emphasis on change leadership and cultural acceptance.

Figure 18: Average Percentage of Learning Function Resources Devoted to Performance Improvement Solutions (BEST)

55.89%

8.68%

7.55%

7.06%

5.87%

5.46%

4.04%

3.06%

1.44%

1.00%

0.78%

Learning/Training Solutions

Job-Specific Tools and Resources

Process Analysis and Improvement

Organizational Development

Talent Management

Knowledge Management

Performance Feedback

Performance Expectations

Non-Incentive Motivational Strategies

Incentives

Other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

NON-TrAININg SOLuTIONS/pErFOrmANCE ImprOVEmENTBEST Award Winners


SurVEY QuESTIONS

Note: The following pages contain the instrument used to collect data from those organizations which applied for the ASTD BEST Award. Other respondents submitted data through the new ASTD WLP Scorecard® which had a somewhat different layout but the same set of questions. In 2008, all organizations will submit using the WLP Scorecard® as that will be part of the BEST Awards submission process. Projections for a company’s next fiscal year are no longer included in the survey.

2006

1. Average number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees

2. Total payroll (gross wages without benefits or employer-paid taxes)

3. Organization’s total revenue

4. Organization’s net profit/income (before taxes)

5. Organization’s total direct expenditure on learning and performance

6. Percentage of total direct expenditure for outsourced activities

7. Percentage of total direct expenditure for tuition reimbursement/educational assistance

8. Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) learning and performance staff

9. Total number of hours of formal learning activities available/provided

10. Total number of hours of formal learning activities used/received by employees

11. Percentage of learning content (available/provided) devoted to the following areas: (a) Executive development (b) Managerial and supervisory skills (c) Sales (not including product knowledge) (d) Customer service (e) Mandatory and compliance (e.g., safety, security) (f) Processes, procedures, business practices, and quality (g) Information technology and systems skills (e.g., enterprise and desktop software) (h) Interpersonal skills (e.g., communication, team work) (i) New employee orientation (j) Basic skills (k) Profession-specific or industry-specific content (e.g., engineering, accounting, law, medicine) (l) Product knowledge (m) Other

12. Percentage of formal learning hours available/provided which are delivered in the following ways: (a) Live instructor-led real classroom (b) Live instructor-led virtual (online) classroom (c) Live instructor-led remote, but not online (e.g., satellite, video conference, teleconference) (d) Self-paced online (networked) (e) Self-paced stand-alone (non-networked) computer-based (e.g., CD-ROM) (f) Technology other than computer (e.g., videotape, audio CD, mobile) (g) Self-paced non-technology delivered (i.e., print) (h) Other

13. Percentage of formal learning hours used/received which are delivered in the following ways: (a) Live instructor-led real classroom (b) Live instructor-led virtual (online) classroom (c) Live instructor-led remote, but not online (e.g., satellite, video conference, teleconference) (d) Self-paced online (networked) (e) Self-paced stand-alone (non-networked) computer-based (e.g., CD-ROM) (f) Technology other than computer (e.g., videotape, audio CD, mobile) (g) Self-paced non-technology delivered (i.e., print) (h) Other

dEFINITIONSAppendix


Delivery Methods (Percentage delivered in the following ways)

Percentage of learning hours available via different delivery methods. Total should equal 100 percent. • Live instructor-led real classroom • Live instructor-led virtual (online) classroom • Live instructor-led remote, but not online (e.g., satellite, video conference, teleconference) • Self-paced online (networked) • Self-paced stand-alone (non-networked) computer-based (i.e., CD-ROM) • Technology other than computer (e.g., videotape, audio CD, mobile) • Self-paced non-technology (i.e., print) • Other

Direct Learning Investment Total direct costs for learning, including formal learning, work-based learning, and learning function’s contribution to non-training performance improvement solutions.

Direct expenditure for the learning function includes: • Learning and performance staff salaries (gross wages without benefits or employer-paid taxes) • Travel costs for learning and performance staff • Administrative costs • Non-salary development costs • Non-salary delivery costs (classroom facilities, online infrastructure, etc.) • Outsourced activities • Tuition reimbursements.

Direct expenditure does not include: • Learners’ travel expenses • Costs of participants’ conference attendance, fees, and travel • Cost of lost work time while engaged in learning formal activities • Costs of internal subject matter experts’ time for content analysis, coaching, and knowledge sharing.

External Services ExpenditurePercentage of total direct learning expenditure for external services. Includes consultants and consultant services, content development and licenses, and workshops and training programs delivered by external providers. Does not include tuition reimbursement for educational programs at educational institutions.

Learning Hours AvailableTotal number of hours of learning content available (one time count). Includes all available hours of all learning content available for employee use: live classes, workshops, seminars, online course catalog, video, and print. Hours available is sometimes referred to as hours provided.

Learning Hours UsedTotal learning hours accessed or completed. Determined by multiplying the number of hours available by the number of employees who accessed or completed the learning content. For example, if 100 employees participated in an eight-hour workshop on project management, the total hours received is 800, but the total hours available is eight. Hours used is sometimes referred to as hours received or consumed.

Indirect Learning InvestmentTotal indirect costs for learning. Includes costs related to formal and work-based learning only.

Indirect costs for learning include • Learners’ travel expenses • Participants’ conference attendance, fees, travel, lodging, meals, and ground transportation • Work time lost while engaged in formal learning activities • Internal subject matter experts’ time for content analysis, coaching, and knowledge sharing.

Learning Staff SizeTotal number of learning staff in your organization. Includes rotated staff only if there is a full-time employee (FTE) allocation to the learning function.

Net ProfitNet profit (or income) before taxes. Determined by subtracting the sum of expenses and losses from the sum of revenues and gains. Includes any effects related to discontinued operations, extraordinary items, and minority interest. Does not include payments of stock dividends as expenses. Entered in actual U.S. dollars. For banks: includes securities gains and losses.

Total RevenueTotal revenue generated by the business; includes all recognized customer, operating, investment, rent, and accrued unbilled revenue. Entered in actual U.S. dollars. For governmental organizations: budget is entered.

Tuition Reimbursement ExpenditurePercentage of total direct learning expenditure for tuition reimbursement for educational programs at educational institutions.

Workplace Learning and Performance (WLP)ASTD uses the phrase workplace learning and performance (WLP) to indicate the profession it represents. We have moved away from a training mindset to an emphasis on supporting learning within an organization and connecting the learning function to the improvement of individual, group, and organizational performance. In this report we use the phrase “learning and performance” where “training and development” might have been used before.

dEFINITIONSAppendix


BEST AppLICATION QuESTIONS1. What percentage of your organization’s employees (a) have access to, and (b) take advantage of the following learning opportunities?

2. What percentage of your organization’s vice presidents and above support learning in the following ways: Public statements in support of learning % Participation in learning events as an instructor or speaker % Inclusion of learning objectives as part of their performance goals %

3. Does your organization have a senior-level officer with responsibility for enterprise- wide learning, knowledge management, or other human capital management functions? q Yes q No

4. To whom does the learning function report? q Chief Executive Officer (CEO) q Chief Operating Officer (COO) q Chief Information Officer (CIO) q Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) q Vice President-Human Resources q Vice President-Knowledge Management q Line Manager q Other

5. Describe your organization’s most innovative learning initiative implemented within the past 12 months.

6. Describe the process your organization uses to link learning to individual and organizational performance.

7. Describe how decisions are made to select and design learning and performance interventions and initiatives in your organization.

8. Which of the following metrics does your organization use to measure performance? q Ability to retain essential employees q Employee satisfaction q Quality of products/services q Customer satisfaction q Cycle time reduction or improvement q Sales/revenues q Productivity improvement q Overall profitability q Other

9. From the list above, select two items and explain how learning contributed to the results achieved in the past 12 months. Indicate the level at which you started and where you are now on each of the metrics.

10. Which of the following metrics do you use to rate the efficiency of your organization’s learning function? q Content development costs q Content development cycle time q Time to deploy a new learning initiative q Numbers of employees trained per training staff member q Travel and accommodation costs q Number of employees trained q Time to employee readiness or competence q Cost savings realized through outsourcing learning initiatives q Other

11. From the list above, select two items and describe how you achieved efficiency in the past 12 months. Indicate the level at which you started and where you are now on each of the metrics.

12. Describe the processes or systems that you use to measure and report on the activities and impact of the learning function across the enterprise.

13. What percentage of the resources of your organization’s learning function was devoted to each of the following performance improvement solutions during the past 12 months?

A. Learning solutions (all activities related to learning/training) total percentage % B. Non-Learning solutions Process analysis and improvement % Organizational development % Talent management % Knowledge management % Performance expectations % Performance feedback % Job-specific tools and resources % Incentives % Non-incentive motivational strategies % Other %

14. Describe one non-learning performance improvement solution/initiative that the learning function contributed to during the past 12 months. Include information on how staff from the learning function were involved, what the impact of the initiative was on performance, how that impact was measured, and (if appropriate) how learning activities were integrated with the non-learning solution.

Access Take AdvantageFormal (event-based) learning activities (e.g., classes, workshops, online courses) % %

Mentoring and coaching % %

Knowledge sharing (e.g., experts on call, communities of practice) % %

Knowledge bases (e.g., searchable reference materials) % %

Job aids % %

Electronic performance support % %

On-the-job learning % %

Job rotation % %

Tuition reimbursement % %

Employer-supported conference attendance % %

Financial support for memberships in professional associations % %

Appendix

Subscribe to ASTD’s WLP Scorecard® ASTD has launched a new online benchmarking tool, the WLP Scorecard®. It incorporates a comprehensive set of indicators and reporting frameworks to monitor and compare the alignment, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability of the learning function across organizations.

In the WLP Scorecard®, you are able to choose from two types of reports: a customizable scorecard and an index report. The scorecard report will compare your learning function to other organizations’ learning functions on sets of financial, operations, customer, and innovation indicators. The index report will include recommendations for how to improve the alignment, efficiency, effectiveness, or sustainability of your enterprise-wide learning activities.

For more detailed annual data

Additional data from the companies surveyed for the State of the Industry report is available on the ASTD WLP Scorecard®. You will also have the opportunity to directly benchmark your organizational figures against those from the companies which provided data for the report. Much of the data can be accessed free of charge.

For more information, please visit wlpscorecard.astd.org.

Join The ASTD Benchmarking ForumEstablished in 1991, the ASTD Benchmarking Forum (BMF) is a consortium of private and public sector organizations from around the world. The BMF offers members unique opportunities to benchmark learning and performance improvement processes, practices, and outcomes. It also provides access to a worldwide network of high level training professionals. Special events and meetings are held for BMF member representatives throughout the year. In addition to a detailed annual survey of member organizations’ investments and practices, members can use an on-demand member-to-member survey service and access archives of all past surveys.

For more information, send an email to [email protected].

Apply for an ASTD BEST AwardASTD BEST Awards recognize organizations that demonstrate enterprise-wide success as a result of employee learning and performance improvement activities. We are looking for organizations that create, support, and champion learning opportunities and a learning culture.

For more information, go to www.astd.org/BEST_Awards.

ASTD 2007 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT

0707

04.5

4710

190702 $180.00 (U.S.A.)

About ASTD

ASTD (American Society for Training & Development) is the world’s largest association dedicated to workplace learning and performance professionals. ASTD’s members come from more than 100 countries and connect locally in 136 U.S. chapters and 25 Global Networks. Members work in thousands of organizations of all sizes, in government, as independent consultants, and suppliers.

ASTD started in 1944 when the organization held its first annual conference. ASTD has widened the profession’s focus to link learning and performance to individual and organizational results, and is a sought-after voice on critical public policy issues. For more information, visit www.astd.org.

ASTD has made every effort to ensure responsible use of our natural resources in the production of this publication.

72.83 trees preserved for the future

210.3 lbs water-borne waste not created

30,936 gal wastewater flow saved

3,423 lbs solid waste

not generated

6,740 lbs net greenhouse gases prevented

51,586,500 BTUs energy

not consumed

Environmental impact estimates were made using the Environmental Defense Paper Calculator. For more information visit http://www.papercalculator.org.

2007 sponsors - inacap · 2008. 9. 29. · 2 astd 2007 state of the industry report introduction...

Documents