2009 ASTD State of the Industry Report

2009STATE OF THEINDUSTRY REPORTA S T D ’ S A n n u a l R e v i e w o f T r e n d s i n W o r k p l a c e L e a r n i n g & P e r f o r m a n c e

1ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT

CO

NTEN

TS2009 State of the Industry Report Sponsors .......................................................................................................... 2Data Sources .................................................................................................................................................................. 3Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

COMPARATIVE DATAKey Indicators ................................................................................................................................................................. 6Investment ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8Expenditure Distribution ............................................................................................................................................... 9Efficiency ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10Content Distribution ................................................................................................................................................... 12Delivery Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 15

BEST AWARD WINNERSCharacteristics of the BEST Learning Organizations ........................................................................................... 18The Importance of Learning ..................................................................................................................................... 19Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................................................ 20Efficiency ...................................................................................................................................................................... 21Learning Opportunities .............................................................................................................................................. 22Nontraining Solutions/Performance Improvement .............................................................................................. 23

AD-HOC SURVEYSTalent Management .................................................................................................................................................... 24Executive Development .............................................................................................................................................. 25Sales Training .............................................................................................................................................................. 26Web 2.0 Technologies ................................................................................................................................................ 27Learning in Tough Economic Times ......................................................................................................................... 28Learning Executives Confidence Index ................................................................................................................... 29Learning Professionals’ Income ............................................................................................................................... 30

APPENDIXDefinitions .................................................................................................................................................................... 31BEST Application Questions ..................................................................................................................................... 32Survey Questions ........................................................................................................................................................ 34©2009 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 22313-2043.

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.

ISBN-10: 1-56286-561-7ISBN-13: 978-1-56286-561-0

Authors: Andrew Paradise, PhD., Research Manager, ASTD; Laleh Patel, Research Associate, ASTD

Database Management and Analysis: Jared Lemke, Application Developer, ASTD

Publication Design and Production: Katherine Warminsky, ASTD

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

www.store.astd.org

mailto:[email protected]

2009 S

PO

NSO

RS

Pfeiffer serves the professional development and hands-on resource needs of training

and human resource practitioners and gives them products to do their jobs better.

We deliver proven ideas and solutions from experts in HR development and HR

management, and we offer effective and customizable tools to improve workplace

performance. From novice to seasoned professional, Pfeiffer is the source you can

trust to make yourself and your organization more successful.

Please visit us at www.pfeiffer.com

StreetSmarts® is an Enterprise class Web 2.0 solution that allows you to deliver

learning across diverse organizations in a revolutionary new way. Unlock the

information stored across your existing corporate repositories. StreetSmarts® unifies

and shares the collective content delivered through your formal learning programs

in an instant on-demand manner. StreetSmarts® also helps capture the informal

learning that occurs each day. It captures the know-how and learning experiences

and blends the best knowledge from the field back into your instructional design

and formal programs. StreetSmarts® is easily imbedded in applications, corporate

portals or even in Microsoft Outlook to transform these tools into coaching

and mentoring systems. Visit www.streetsmarts.com to learn how to improve

learning and training reinforcement across your company to drive new levels of

organizational performance.

Please visit us at www.streetsmarts.com

RWD is a leading service provider with a broad range of integrated solutions designed

to improve employee performance in complex operating environments. We have a full

portfolio of learning and human performance offerings to help employees effectively

execute on the job. Our solutions range from learning strategy development, custom

eLearning development, organizational change management, end user training, and

lean process improvement to end user performance support services at companies

implementing complex application or integrated technology solutions. RWD’s proven

methodologies, experienced staff and robust tool set allow it to create customized

solutions that help organizations optimize their workforce and technology to maintain

a competitive advantage. Based in Baltimore, Maryland, RWD is privately held, with

over 900 employees in the Americas, EMEA, and Asia Pacific.

Please visit us at www.rwd.com

www.pfeiffer.com

www.streetsmarts.com

www.rwd.com


DATA SOURCES

Table 1: Data Sources

Data.Source SamplesAverage.Number.

of.EmployeesAverage.Payroll.$M Data.Sources

Consolidated.Responses Consolidated

Organizations.that.submitted.their.annual.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.that.year..The.2006-2008.consolidated.responses.include.data.from.the.WLP.Scorecard.users,.the.BMF.organizations,.and.the.BEST.organizations.

2008.(n.=.301) 15,849 $1,498 WLP.Scorecard,.BMF,.BEST

2007.(n.=.314) 17,825 $1,128 .WLP.Scorecard,.BMF,.BEST

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

2008.(n.=.20) 77,504 $4,532

2007.(n.=.25) 64,241 $3,810

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.

2008.(n.=.39) 21,358

2007.(n.=.40) 28,763

2006.(n.=.42) 28,269

2005.(n.=.39) 60,386

2004.(n.=.29) 45,870

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; ASTD’s

former annual training data collection system) 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 from the BMS to the

ASTD Workplace Learning and Performance (WLP) Scorecard®. The 2006, 2007, and

2008 data sets include 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. The Benchmarking Forum is a consortium of private and public

sector organizations networked to engage members in benchmarking their talent

development, learning, and performance improvement processes and practices.

Forum members are typically very large global organizations, most of which are

based in the United States.

BEST AWARD WINNERSThe third group consists of organizations that won ASTD BEST Awards. Started

seven years ago, the BEST Awards program recognizes organizations that demonstrate

a clear link between learning and performance across the enterprise. In 2008,

28 of the winners were U.S.-based organizations; six were based in India; and one

was headquartered in each of the following nations: Canada, China, Hong Kong,

the Netherlands, and Singapore. 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 of innovative learning initiatives.

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 for each fiscal year. The BEST Award applicants also

completed a largely qualitative survey that was analyzed for this report. Questions

and definitions used to gather data from the WLP Scorecard®, Benchmarking Forum,

and BEST submissions are at the end of the report.

4 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT

EXEC

UTI

VE

SU

MM

AR

Y

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe 2009 State of the Industry report continues to present insightful,

actionable findings on the strategic and operational activities of learning

functions across the globe. This annual compendium provides a variety

of data points against which organizations may benchmark their learning

investments and practices. For learning executives and business leaders,

obtaining accurate and actionable information about learning remains a

critical aspect of sound decision making. The data in the current edition

includes responses from users of the WLP Scorecard®, ASTD Benchmarking

Forum (BMF) organizations, and ASTD BEST Award winners. For more than

a decade, ASTD’s annual data collection has delivered timely results that

communicate the value of learning.

Results from the 2009 State of the Industry report reveal workplace learning

and performance has withstood the challenges of the difficult economy.

Investment in employee learning and development remained steady through

the end of 2008. Although many organizations were forced to cut costs

wherever possible, workplace learning and performance did not suffer

disproportionately to any significant degree. Formal learning activities that

fostered the acquisition of important knowledge and skills remained a fixture

in the daily experiences of millions of professionals.

INVESTMENT IN LEARNING STABLEDespite the worst economic conditions in several decades, business leaders

continued to allocate substantial resources to the learning functions in

their organizations. ASTD estimates that U.S. organizations spent $134.07

billion1 on employee learning and development in 2008. 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 ($88.59 billion) was spent on the internal learning function,

and the remainder ($45.48 billion) was allocated to external services. While

many organizations were forced to cut expenses in all areas of the business,

including training and development, most maintained a strong financial

commitment to employee learning.

As the pressure to deal with global economic uncertainty mounted throughout

2008, organizations slightly reduced spending on learning on a per-employee

basis. The average annual learning expenditure per employee fell from

$1,110 in 2007 to $1,068 in 2008, a decrease of 3.8 percent. There were also

drops in average spending per employee among the BMF organizations and

the BEST Award winners. Trimming expenses was inevitable for most toward

the end of 2008, but the reductions in workplace learning expenditures were

not disproportionate by any means. Of course, it will be interesting to see how

the economy will affect spending on learning throughout 2009, because there

was no clear rebound by the publication date of this report.

A commitment to learning, continuing a trend from previous years, surfaced

in the organization-wide benchmarking statistics tracked in the State of the

Industry report. The consolidated figure for average learning expenditure as

a percentage of payroll actually increased from 2.15 percent in 2007 to 2.24

percent in 2008. Although organizational payrolls have become more fluid

in recent years, this metric has been very stable in ASTD’s annual data. The

percentage of learning expenditure relative to the organization’s revenue has

also been consistent in recent years. On average, direct learning expenditure

accounted for 0.59 percent of revenue in 2008, up slightly from 0.56 percent

in 2007.

Another consistent trend in recent annual data has involved outsourcing, or

spending on external services such as consultants, workshops, and training

sessions from outside providers. Since 2004, organizations have relied less

on outsourcing each year. The average percentage of the learning budget

allocated to external services was 22.0 percent in 2008, down from 25.2

percent the previous year. Instead, organizations are relying on internal

resources for their workplace learning and performance initiatives more than

in the past. Many learning departments have become firmly established within

organizations over the past two decades, often including a sophisticated

management and operational plan. Building a competent internal team

of learning experts requires a solid commitment; the average percentage

of learning expenditure dedicated to internal resources was 66.1 percent in

2008. Learning staff salaries account for the majority of internal expenses,

as well as development and administrative costs. Although some organizations

did reduce learning staff and then outsource, the general trend suggests that

the economy has not yet affected the growing capacity of internal

learning departments.

STILL EFFICIENT LEARNING OPERATIONSAny cutbacks on resources for the learning function have minimally impacted

its output. Learners are able to consume learning content at high levels, and

learning departments are still releasing and managing content in efficient

ways. Furthermore, organizations are achieving these outcomes after reducing

average production and delivery expenses.

Employees in the organizations surveyed accessed an average of 36.3 hours

of formal learning content in 2008. Although the average dipped slightly

from 2007, it still represents a meaningful amount of resources allocated to

each employee for workplace learning and performance. Despite pressure

to maximize work output in light of widespread financial strain, there is still

an ongoing expectation for employees to participate in numerous learning

activities each year.

Learning professionals successfully found ways to manage learning content

while cutting costs in 2008. On average, there were 353 hours of formal

learning content made available per WLP staff member. This figure was on the

rise from 2007 and close to the highest averages from prior years. Production

gains were realized without breaking the bank; the consolidated average

for cost per learning hour available decreased 8.0 percent from $1,660 in

2007 to $1,528 in 2008. Learning professionals were also able to facilitate

consumption of formal content at a high rate again in 2008. The average

number of hours used per learning staff member was 5,507, up slightly from

5,497 the previous year. And learning content usage was managed without

incurring additional overhead. The consolidated average cost per learning

hour used decreased 7.1 percent, from $56 in 2007 to $52 in 2008.

Learning professionals took on more responsibility in 2008 than in past

years. After taking into account variations in the percentage of budgets spent

on outsourcing, the average number of employees per learning staff member

was 253 in 2008, up from 227 the previous year. This ratio indicates that

the average learning department is serving a larger constituency than it did

in the past. As internal capabilities have continued to advance, learning

professionals have become more efficient in a constantly shifting business

climate. The strained economy likely caused the loss of learning positions in

some organizations, but the remaining learning professionals adapted and

maintained volumes of work that were consistent with those from prior years.


NO MAJOR CHANGES IN CONTENT EMPHASISThe breakdown of learning content by topic area did not deviate much

from the pattern of recent years. Only small adjustments to the average

formal learning content mix emerged in 2008, revealing that the economic

uncertainty did not create an immediate demand for a radical restructuring.

Profession/industry specific content remained the most needed, accounting

for 16.0 percent of formal learning hours made available. This increase

represented a two-point gain over the 2007 average, which suggests that

organizations encouraged their employees to focus on their specialized

competencies to a higher degree in 2008. Delivery of technology-oriented

learning content in the IT and systems category was the second-largest

content area in 2008 at 11.5 percent. Business leaders likely emphasized

IT knowledge during a tough economic year because it tends to facilitate

efficiency. Other top content areas from the past few years that remained in

demand in 2008 were managerial and supervisory training; mandatory and

compliance training; and processes, procedures, and business practices.

Each accounted for roughly one-tenth of the formal learning hours

made available.

Some of the smaller content areas did register minor fluctuations from the

previous year. The “other” category rose from 6.8 percent to 9.5 percent,

fueled by increases in the amount of product knowledge content made

available. Business leaders likely wanted their employees to focus on

methods to drive the bottom line during tough economic times, which often

starts with intimate knowledge of their products. Along the same lines, sales

training content increased from 5.4 percent to 6.1 percent. In addition, the

percentage of content for interpersonal skills, which are crucial for sales

success, increased from 5.6 percent to 7.4 percent. Some of the categories

that registered drops in 2008 included executive development, new employee

orientation, customer service, and basic skills.

INTERESTING FINDINGS FOR E-LEARNINGSurprising results emerged regarding e-learning trends. After several years

of consistent growth, the proportion of formal learning hours used and made

available through technology-based methods decreased in 2008. Instead,

instructor-led real-time classroom learning events rebounded and accounted

for nearly two-thirds of hours used and made available. This reversal is

puzzling considering all of the advances in technology-based learning in

recent years. E-learning has become an integral component of organizations’

delivery of training. The economic difficulty likely contributed to a “holding

pattern” for the deployment of new technology-aided offerings. With a

reliable e-learning system already in place for many organizations, business

leaders might have been hesitant to invest in new courses or functionalities

because of financial strain. The existing technology-based platforms likely

were sufficient for achieving core learning goals, so any further costs were

avoided. Learning professionals may have experienced pressure to maximize

attendance at live instructor-led sessions. Since the costs associated with

those sessions are mostly fixed around the instructor fees, employees likely

were encouraged to attend as many in-person learning events as possible for

the organization to break even on its investment.

However, it would be reasonable to expect the use of e-learning for formal

learning activities to rebound by the end of 2009. Technology-based learning

solutions have become widespread for many reasons, such as centralization,

flexibility, reach, and efficiency. In fact, e-learning has contributed to

a rapidly rising reuse ratio, which reached an average of 59.5 in 2008

(indicating that on average, each hour of learning content was being

accessed or used nearly 60 times). Learning events are no longer a one-time

proposition because technology-based platforms allow for easy deployment

on multiple occasions. E-learning continues to evolve to meet the demands of

the learning function. Once the economy has stabilized, e-learning trends for

formal learning programs are likely to revert to the upward pattern evidenced

through 2007.

Furthermore, the use of technology-based solutions for informal learning is

occurring at an unprecedented rate. Although the key metrics tracked in the

State of the Industry report involve only formal learning activities, evidence

from other surveys indicates that workers have incorporated e-learning for

their own self-directed activities on a massive scale. In particular, emerging

Web 2.0 technologies are transforming the way that people communicate

by sharing information through social networks, collaborating in online

communities, and leveraging cloud computing. The immense potential of

peer-to-peer social media portals as learning and collaboration tools has not

yet been realized, because many professionals are just becoming familiar with

them. Learning experts understand the power of these new technologies and

have predicted a much more prominent role for them in the near future, for

both formal and informal learning.

CONCLUSIONSNo one needs to be reminded that both the private and public sectors are

enduring some of the most difficult economic times in recent history. As the

global economy began its downward spiral, learning professionals adapted

and continued to deliver. Facing ongoing pressure to manage costs, they

facilitated an impressive amount of skill development and learning for their

organizations’ workforces. Although investment in workplace learning and

performance was stable in 2008, organizations successfully contributed to

their employees’ development with more formal learning opportunities than

in the past. Learning professionals also managed efficient operations with

fewer resources and were still able to achieve positive outcomes.

In 2008, it was difficult to avoid the effects of the sputtering economy, but the

learning profession was able to weather the early stages of the storm. Much

of the success can be attributed to building a solid foundation for several

decades. And, business leaders now understand that an ongoing financial

and operational commitment is required to leverage human capital to the

fullest, especially in difficult times. As economic uncertainty persists, there is

an opportunity for the learning function to play an even more important role

in preparing for the recovery. Contemporary professionals are demanding

as much learning content as they can get, and there are a host of new

technologies available to deliver it to them formally and informally.

The coming years will provide plenty of opportunities for the learning

profession to broaden its role within the workplace and set the stage for

continued success.


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

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

Consolidated***

2008.(n.=.301) $1,067.74 36.25 2.24% 0.59% 8.75% 11.93% 21.99%

2007.(n.=.314) $1,110.23 37.41 2.15% 0.56% 7.54% 12.60% 25.18%

2006.(n.=.221) $1,040.40 35.06 2.33% 0.52% 6.88% 10.64% 28.07%

2004.(n.=.246) $1,022.43 36.36 2.32% 0.63% 7.48% 10.86% 28.87%

2003.(n.=.278) $1,054.98 26.16 2.31% 1.01% 12.48% 10.08% 23.23%

2002.(n.=.297) $857.07 28.78 2.22% 13.08% 22.63%

2001.(n.=.304) $799.64 25.50 1.98% 12.18% 22.56%

BMF

2008.(n.=.20) $1,587.73 44.51 2.16% 0.79% 4.51% 13.33% 30.36%

2007.(n.=.25) $1,608.88 42.95 2.70% 0.56% 6.60% 14.96% 23.75%

2006.(n.=.25) $1,319.61 40.70 2.20% 0.51% 5.86% 11.14% 30.46%

2005.(n.=.22) $1,423.50 41.89 2.09% 0.45% 8.57% 12.64% 24.83%

2004.(n.=.26) $1,363.18 34.75 2.20% 0.42% 3.95% 9.14% 30.00%

2003.(n.=.26) $1,298.84 34.54 2.05% 0.46% 6.47% 12.62% 38.26%

2002.(n.=.21) $1,366.13 42.15 2.47% 15.75% 26.38%

2001.(n.=.34) $1,508.58 44.90 2.85% 11.95% 40.50%

BEST.Award.Winners

2008.(n.=.39) $1,302.55 40.57 2.33% 0.61% 8.90% 9.10% 22.60%

2007.(n.=.40) $1,451.16 44.71 2.19% 0.55% 6.74% 10.66% 22.31%

2006.(n.=.42) $1,531.23 44.34 2.97% 0.72% 7.59% 8.18% 23.47%

2005.(n.=.39) $1,615.81 43.46 2.72% 0.73% 6.61% 11.81% 23.93%

2004.(n.=.29) $1,554.46 36.34 2.86% 0.64% 8.30% 9.39% 27.49%

Consolidated.(2008).by.Industry

AMC.(n.=.15) $1,310.33 34.74 1.64% 0.23% 7.35% 9.95% 25.04%

FIRE.(n.=.69) $1,115.15 27.11 1.99% 0.53% 4.02% 14.20% 21.16%

Government.(n.=.15) $1,188.94 28.87 2.02% 0.58% 0.02% 19.94% 34.00%

Health.Care.(n.=.45) $1,016.66 29.57 1.72% 0.80% 16.59% 17.56% 13.53%

Manufacturing.(n.=.23) $939.00 50.40 2.67% 0.25% 3.61% 12.47% 30.45%

Services.(n.=.75) $705.58 21.17 1.53% 0.40% 7.78% 11.35% 11.78%

Technology.(n.=.29) $1,474.66 54.96 3.65% 0.86% 9.28% 3.80% 27.59%

TPU.(n.=.15) $817.33 36.50 1.93% 0.28% 4.65% 6.47% 32.20%

Trade.(n.=.15) $462.07 15.72 1.22% 0.40% 2.03% 4.45% 18.38%

Consolidated.(2008).by.Organization.Size

1.-.499.(n.=.75) $1,159.07 33.29 2.15% 0.69% 7.54% 13.19% 21.16%

500.-.9,999.(n.=.104) $1,013.02 31.90 2.37% 0.58% 12.39% 15.10% 21.34%

10,000+.(n.=.119) $1,073.29 40.35 2.19% 0.56% 7.35% 9.67% 22.82%

* Multiply by 1-(% of Expenditure for External Services/100) Key to Industry Abbreviations** Reuse Ratio = Ratio of Learning Hours Received to Learning Hours Provided AMC = Agriculture, Mining, and Construction*** Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP Scorecard FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real EstateSome historical data have been revised. TPU = Transportation, Pipelines, and Utilities

CO

MPA

RAT

IVE

DAT

A

KEY INDICATORS


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

Employees.per.WLP.Staff.MemberLearning.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***

2008.(n.=.301) 253.07 324.05 5,506.84 352.56 $51.68 $1,528.16 59.45

2007.(n.=.314) 226.65 286.68 5,496.93 314.25 $55.62 $1,660.23 44.78

2006.(n.=.221) 216.15 319.93 4,606.44 326.31 $54.25 $1,543.28 41.31

2004.(n.=.246) 210.49 296.78 5,559.08 382.93 $49.99 $924.32 36.07

2003.(n.=.278) 191.92 265.79 3,212.90 366.44 $62.89 $1,109.28 29.00

2002.(n.=.297) 215.29 278.18 $45.72

2001.(n.=.304) 288.60 365.61 $36.79

BMF

2008.(n.=.20) 214.54 299.93 8,525.78 395.71 $45.52 $1,444.73 32.20

2007.(n.=.25) 243.57 348.54 7,037.98 291.17 $46.72 $1,396.50 37.40

2006.(n.=.25) 263.21 388.49 6,631.25 466.73 $35.08 $900.39 31.06

2005.(n.=.22) 192.06 274.40 5,005.36 476.60 $42.05 $1,046.28 29.97

2004.(n.=.26) 221.00 319.00 4,423.06 459.10 $54.17 $1,113.27 27.72

2003.(n.=.26) 286.59 448.28 3,488.92 505.41 $55.94 $1,429.88 26.01

2002.(n.=.21) 182.57 248.00 $40.11

2001.(n.=.34) 133.59 177.76 $54.74

BEST.Award.Winners

2008.(n.=.39) 250.67 309.89 6,625.05 349.00 $42.59 $1,633.15 65.13

2007.(n.=.40) 165.14 216.24 6,241.14 342.23 $45.92 $2,241.17 57.87

2006.(n.=.42) 179.17 220.76 6,480.73 292.25 $47.47 $1,860.53 43.15

2005.(n.=.39) 212.28 281.74 5,733.05 260.14 $48.03 $2,247.32 50.84

2004.(n.=.29) 205.90 296.31 5,824.04 342.21 $58.34 $1,706.42 39.69


AMC.(n.=.15) 291.35 350.60 5,543.78 602.82 $55.23 $1,577.62 84.42

FIRE.(n.=.69) 228.58 297.67 4,185.24 388.15 $72.99 $1,966.94 82.79

Government.(n.=.15) 255.43 370.64 3,586.28 335.92 $50.01 $1,042.20 18.52

Health.Care.(n.=.45) 280.18 306.87 5,048.28 211.85 $41.71 $2,308.17 110.53

Manufacturing.(n.=.23) 257.84 362.94 9,146.43 352.32 $42.44 $1,452.42 36.43

Services.(n.=.75) 268.07 317.84 4,550.57 398.10 $43.43 $989.99 24.37

Technology.(n.=.29) 143.42 200.23 5,424.62 295.87 $52.08 $549.64 30.09

TPU.(n.=.15) 270.60 459.71 6,492.22 355.36 $27.77 $712.39 32.68

Trade.(n.=.15) 529.19 629.32 4,244.86 486.82 $53.88 $1,660.76 108.95


1.-.499.(n.=.75) 113.56 136.13 2,334.91 577.22 $80.61 $989.84 26.01

500.-.9,999.(n.=.104) 271.18 344.85 4,844.10 367.54 $51.27 $1,242.15 39.05

10,000+.(n.=.119) 317.11 413.35 7,094.23 276.93 $40.31 $1,848.09 78.19

* Multiply by 1-(% of Expenditure for External Services/100) Key to Industry Abbreviations** Reuse Ratio = Ratio of Learning Hours Received to Learning Hours Provided AMC = Agriculture, Mining, and Construction*** Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP Scorecard FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real EstateSome historical data have been revised. TPU = Transportation, Pipelines, and Utilities


INVESTMENTDESPITE SIGNS OF ECONOMIC TROUBLE, A SOLID COMMITMENT TO LEARNING In the face of economic uncertainty at the end of 2008,

many organizations cut spending on workplace learning and

performance, but the reduction was not drastic in most cases.

The average learning expenditure per employee fell from $1,110

in 2007 to $1,068 in 2008, a decrease of 3.8 percent. Despite

pressure to trim expenses in any way possible, business leaders

still committed significant amounts of resources to the learning

function. BMF organizations and the BEST Award winners also

spent less on learning than in the previous year, but the average

expenditure for BMF organizations was high compared to historical

levels. Among BMF organizations, average direct expenditure per

employee decreased 1.3 percent, from $1,609 in 2007 to $1,588

in 2008. The average direct expenditure per employee for BEST

Award-winning organizations had a larger drop of 10.2 percent,

decreasing from $1,451 to $1,303.

The average amount of learning content consumed by each

employee revealed a pattern similar to learning investment per

employee. In 2008, the average number of learning hours used

(i.e., received) was 36.3, down from 37.4 in 2007. Although the

figure decreased slightly, organizations nevertheless expected

employees to allocate nearly one work-week on average out of

the past year to formal learning activities. Additionally, the 2008

consolidated average of 36.3 is one of the highest figures in the

past 10 years. The average number of learning hours used among

BEST organizations also decreased in 2008, falling from 44.7 hours

to 40.6 hours. Employees in BMF organizations used an average of

44.5 learning hours in 2008, up from 43.0 hours in 2007.

EXPENDITURE AS A PERCENT OF PAYROLL REMAINS STABLEThe amount of learning expenditure relative to organizational

payroll has been very steady in the past few years, and 2008 was no

exception. The consolidated figure for average learning expenditure

as a percentage of payroll actually increased from 2.15 percent in

2007 to 2.24 percent in 2008. Business leaders continue to see the

value of learning relative to other “people costs.” The BEST Award

winners had a similar trend, increasing from 2.19 percent in 2007

to 2.33 percent in 2008. Again, the BMF organizations bucked the

overall trend—the average expenditure as a percentage of payroll

among BMF organizations decreased from 2.70 percent to 2.16

percent, bringing the average more in line with the consolidated

and BEST organizations’ figures.

Consolidated BMF BEST

Figure 3: Average Direct Expenditure as Percentage of Payroll (Without Benefits and Taxes)*

2.31

%2.

05%2.

22%

2.47

%

2.24

%2.

16% 2.

33%

2.15

%2.

70%

2.19

%2.33

%2.

20%

2.97

%

2.09

%2.

72%

2.32

%2.

20%

2.86

%

2.85

%1.

98%

20032002 200820072006200520042001

Figure 2: Average Learning Hours Used per Employee*

26.2

34.5

28.8

42.2

36.3

44.5

40.6

37.4

43.0 44

.7

35.1

40.7

44.0

41.9 43

.5

36.4

34.8 36

.3

44.9

25.5

20032002 200820072006200520042001

Figure 1: Average Direct Expenditure per Employee(U.S. Dollars)*

$1,0

55$1

,299

$857

$1,3

66

$1,0

68$1

,588

$1,3

03

$1,1

10$1

,609

$1,4

51

$1,0

40$1

,320

$1,5

31

$1,4

24$1

,616

$1,0

22$1

,363

$1,5

54

20032002 200820072006200520042001

$1,5

09$8

00

CO

MPA

RAT

IVE

DAT

A

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

ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT

Figure 6: Average Direct Expenditure Distribution (BEST)

9

EXPENDITURE DISTRIBUTION MOST SPENDING REMAINS INTERNALSince ASTD began its annual benchmarking efforts, internal

costs for the learning function such as learning staff salaries,

administrative costs, and development costs have always accounted

for the largest proportion of learning expenditure. Although the

economic downturn might have tempted some business leaders

to cut learning personnel and other internal costs in favor of

outside training providers and other external specialists, there

was no major shift in the average expenditure distribution in

2008. The internal share of expenses actually increased among the

consolidated set of organizations, rising from 62.2 percent to 66.1

percent of total learning expenditure. Internal costs also accounted

for a larger proportion (68.3 percent) of total spending in the

BEST organizations in 2008. In contrast, BMF organizations relied

less on internal resources, as the average internal proportion of

expenditure fell from 61.3 percent in 2007 to 56.3 percent in 2008.

OUTSOURCING TRENDING DOWNWARDExternal services delivered by outside providers—such as

consultants and training vendors—traditionally account for a much

smaller share of the average learning budget than internal expenses.

This trend continued in 2008, as the consolidated average spent

on external services decreased for the third consecutive year. The

average percentage of expenditure for outsourced activities fell

from 25.2 percent in 2007 to 22.0 percent in 2008. Using outside

training suppliers can be an appealing option for organizations

facing a budget crunch, but many internal learning functions

have established sophisticated operational capabilities in recent

years. The need to outsource even as a means to reduce costs is

not necessarily dire because of functionalities already in place.

However, the BMF organizations again diverged from the larger

sample. The external services allocation in BMF organizations

increased in 2008, accounting for 30.4 percent of the average

learning budget. BEST Award winners registered only a minor

increase in spending on outsourcing in 2008, rising from 22.3

percent to 22.6 percent.

TUITION REIMBURSEMENT HOLDING STEADYEach year, tuition reimbursement for courses taken at educational

institutions accounts for the smallest proportion of workplace

learning budgets. The consolidated percentage of spending on

tuition reimbursement was 11.9 percent in 2008, essentially even

with the average of 12.6 percent in 2007. BMF organizations tend to

allocate more of their spending on tuition reimbursement

(13.3 percent) than the larger sample, while BEST Award winners

allocate less (9.1 percent).Internal Costs External Services Tuition Reimbursement

Figure 4: Average Direct Expenditure Distribution (Consolidated)

Figure 5: Average Direct Expenditure Distribution (BMF)

22.6%

9.1%

27.5%

9.4%

22.3%

10.7%

23.5%

8.2%

23.9%

11.8%

20082004 200720062005

68.3%63.1% 67.0%68.3%64.3%

66.1%

22.0%

11.9%

65.3%

22.6%

12.2%

62.2%

25.2%

12.6%

61.3%

28.1%

10.6%

N/A

64.3%

22.6%

13.1%

66.7%

23.2%

10.1%

60.3%

28.9%

10.9%

20082001 2007200620052002 2003 2004

56.3%

30.4%

13.3%

60.9%

30.0%

9.1%

47.5%

40.5%

12.0%

61.3%

23.8%

15.0%

58.4%

30.5%

11.1%

49.1%

38.3%

12.6%

62.5%

24.8%

12.6%

57.8%

200820042001 200720062003 20052002

26.4%

15.8%


CO

MPA

RAT

IVE

DAT

A

EFFICIENCY RISING STAFF CAPACITY AND AMOUNT OF CONTENTThe ratio of employees to learning staff has been rising consistently

since 2003, indicating that the average learning department is

serving a larger constituency each year. There was one learning

staff member for every 253 employees on average in 2008 after

taking into account variations in the percentage of budgets spent

on outsourced learning activities2. The increase from the ratio of

227 in 2007 likely reflects some reductions in learning staffs among

the responding organizations—fewer WLP staff members would

increase the ratio. Although the average learning professional has

a greater reach than in the past, this trend also suggests that each

learning professional is assuming more responsibility than before.

For BEST organizations, the ratio of employees to WLP staff moved

closer in line to the consolidated average, rising from 165 in 2007

to 251 in 2008. Again, BMF organizations deviated from the larger

sample by decreasing from 244 to 215 employees per learning

staff member.

While learning departments are increasing capacity, there have

been efficiency gains in learning content output. The consolidated

average number of learning hours used per learning staff member

increased for the third consecutive year, albeit only slightly. This

metric indicates that on average, an organization’s employees used

5,507 learning hours for each learning professional on staff. The

ratio of learning hours used per WLP staff member was even larger

among BMF organizations at 8,526 to 1, which is a historically

high figure. For the BEST Award-winning organizations, the average

number of hours used per WLP employee was 6,625 in 2008. These

results indicate the average learning staff member contributes to

an operation where employees consume a substantial amount of

learning content each year.

The trend in production of learning content also was rising in 2008

for all the groups surveyed. The consolidated average number of

learning hours made available to employees in an organization for

each WLP staff member was 353 in 2008, up from 314 in 2007.

After a sharp decline in the previous year, the figure for BMF

organizations rebounded to 396 in 2008. For the BEST Award-

winning organizations, the average number of hours offered or

made available per WLP staff member was 349 in 2008, up only

slightly from 2007. Many organizations continued to release new

WLP offerings, as well as maintain existing content, as one method

of preparing for economic uncertainty.

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.

Figure 8: Average Learning Hours Used per WLP Staff Member (adjusted for outsourcing)*

3,21

33,

489

5,50

78,

526

6,62

5

5,49

77,

038

6,24

1

4,60

66,

631

6,48

1

5,00

55,

733

5,55

94,

423

5,82

4

2003 20082007200620052004

Figure 9: Average Learning Hours Available per WLP Staff Member (adjusted for outsourcing)*

366

505

353

396

349

314

291

342

326

467

292

477

260

383

459

342

2003 20082007200620052004

Figure 7: Average Employees per WLP Staff Member (adjusted for outsourcing)*

20032002 200820072006200520042001

192

287

215

183

289

134

253

215

251

227

244

165

216

263

17919

221

2

210 22

120

6




COST-CUTTING FOR LEARNING DELIVERY AND CONSUMPTION Organizations successfully found ways to cut costs for learning

content usage during 2008. The consolidated average cost per

learning hour used or received fell 7.1 percent, from $56 in 2007

to $52 in 2008. BMF organizations registered a smaller reduction

in the average cost per hour used, decreasing from $47 to $46 per

hour. The BEST Award winners spent less per learning hour used

($43) than in any previous year tracked.

There were also reductions in costs to deliver learning content.

The consolidated average cost per learning hour available

decreased 8.0 percent from $1,660 in 2007 to $1,528 in 2008.

Likewise, the average cost per learning hour made available for

2008 BEST Award-winning organizations was $1,633, the lowest

figure on record. However, BMF organizations actually experienced

a small increase in average cost per learning hour available. The

2008 figure for BMF organizations was $1,445, which represented

a 3.5 percent increase from the 2007 average of $1,397. These

findings indicate that many organizations found ways to control

costs associated with learning content production and consumption

in the face of impending economic difficulty.

SHARP RISE IN CONTENT REUSE Although the consolidated average reuse ratio for learning content

(i.e., the ratio of learning hours used to learning hours available)

has been on the rise, it increased substantially in 2008. The average

reuse ratio rose from 44.8 in 2007 to 59.5 in 2008. This ratio

means that every hour of content provided (i.e., available) was

used (i.e., received) by learners an average of 59.5 times. Learning

functions have been making significant strides in operational

efficiencies that have allowed for much higher degrees of content

reuse than just a few years ago. In fact, the BEST Award-winning

organizations had another very high average reuse ratio in 2008,

at 65.1. On the other hand, BMF organizations reported a decline in

average reuse ratio, falling from 37.4 in 2007 to 32.2 in 2008.


Figure 11: Average Cost per Learning Hour Available (U.S. Dollars)*

2003 20082007200620052004

$1,1

09$1

,430

$1,1

13$9

24

$1,7

06

$1,0

46$2

,247

$1,5

43$9

00$1

,861

$1,6

60$1

,397

$2,2

41

$1,5

28 $1,6

33$1

,445

Figure 10: Average Cost per Learning Hour Used (U.S. Dollars)*

20032002 200820072006200520042001

$63

$56

$46

$40

$52

$46

$43

$56

$47

$46

$54

$35

$47

$42

$48$5

0$5

4$5

8

$55

$37

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

2003 20082007200620052004

29.0

26.0

30.0

50.8

41.3

31.1

43.2 44

.837

.457

.9 59.5

32.2

65.1

27.7

39.7

36.1



CO

MPA

RAT

IVE

DAT

A

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

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*

2008.(n.=.301) 3.70% 10.22% 6.11% 5.80% 10.17% 9.98% 11.45% 7.39% 5.39% 4.37% 15.95% 9.47%

2007.(n.=.314) 4.75% 11.77% 5.44% 6.71% 10.70% 11.07% 9.71% 5.55% 6.17% 6.03% 14.02% 8.08%

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%

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

2008.(n.=.20) 4.47% 8.51% 5.85% 5.87% 4.77% 11.74% 18.77% 4.52% 1.88% 4.12% 21.03% 8.47%

2007.(n.=.25) 3.64% 7.57% 4.11% 4.31% 5.25% 9.81% 19.10% 4.17% 2.33% 5.44% 26.32% 7.95%

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

2008.(n.=.39) 4.91% 9.23% 7.05% 6.07% 7.67% 10.46% 11.31% 7.98% 5.54% 4.08% 15.27% 10.43%

2007.(n.=.40) 4.73% 10.71% 5.12% 6.74% 11.61% 11.02% 11.96% 5.43% 5.71% 4.53% 14.70% 7.74%

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%

CONTENT DISTRIBUTION

* Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP Scorecard. Some historical data have been revised.

Continued Next Page

The breakdown of learning content by topic area did not deviate much from the pattern that emerged in recent years. Only minor adjustments to the average

formal learning content mix occurred in 2008, revealing that economic uncertainty did not lead to a substantive overhaul of content offerings. Most organizations

were forced to focus continually on the bottom line because of financial strain, and the variations in learning content mix from 2007 reflect that emphasis.

Profession/industry specific content continued to rank at the top as the most-needed, accounting for 16.0 percent of formal learning hours made available.

Delivery of technology-oriented learning content in the IT and systems category was the second-largest content area in 2008 at 11.5 percent. Other content

areas that ranked near the top in recent years remained prominent in 2008. They were managerial and supervisory; mandatory and compliance; and processes,

procedures, and business practices. Each accounted for roughly one-tenth of the formal learning hours made available.

ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT 13

Key to Industry Abbreviations: AMC = Agriculture, Mining, and Construction, FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; TPU = Transportation, Pipelines, and Utilities.

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

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)


AMC.(n.=.15) 3.29% 19.24% 1.53% 2.16% 18.64% 13.34% 5.10% 4.43% 7.38% 3.61% 15.40% 5.89%

FIRE.(n.=.69) 2.81% 7.90% 7.22% 9.10% 5.73% 10.94% 12.42% 5.95% 5.22% 3.29% 16.69% 12.74%

Government..(n.=.15) 1.16% 12.39% 0.00% 1.80% 9.73% 8.41% 22.79% 9.22% 7.60% 3.00% 19.03% 4.87%

Health.Care..(n.=.45) 2.53% 10.80% 8.83% 5.36% 14.04% 8.19% 7.89% 6.13% 8.97% 3.32% 16.50% 7.44%

Manufacturing.(n.=.23) 6.72% 10.43% 8.57% 4.01% 9.65% 11.61% 7.37% 7.70% 5.64% 4.42% 12.75% 11.12%

Services.(n.=.75) 3.72% 10.91% 7.41% 9.49% 9.00% 18.22% 9.26% 5.78% 4.78% 3.78% 12.69% 4.96%

Technology.(n.=.29) 4.12% 7.99% 7.09% 6.70% 3.18% 6.65% 15.68% 6.32% 3.49% 7.54% 12.62% 18.63%

TPU.(n.=.15) 5.68% 11.24% 3.81% 5.43% 25.79% 5.71% 6.84% 14.90% 5.83% 1.92% 5.59% 7.25%

Trade.(n.=.15) 2.77% 11.40% 12.05% 10.34% 3.42% 10.48% 4.77% 11.53% 3.06% 3.05% 14.83% 12.31%


1.-.499.(n.=.75) 3.45% 11.58% 4.36% 5.04% 9.54% 9.08% 11.73% 7.69% 7.34% 4.72% 17.37% 8.12%

500.-.9,999..(n.=.104) 3.51% 9.78% 4.90% 4.02% 12.19% 11.67% 11.02% 7.71% 6.19% 3.06% 16.61% 9.33%

10,000+.(n.=.119) 3.87% 10.08% 7.21% 6.91% 9.31% 9.36% 11.58% 7.15% 4.46% 4.94% 15.23% 9.90%

14

Interpersonal Skills7%

5%8%

Figure 13: Average Percentage of Learning Content By Content Area (2008)

21%

Profession or Industry Specific16%

15%

Managerial and Supervisory10%

9%9%

12%

Processes, Procedures, Business Practices10%

10%

Mandatory and Compliance10%

5%8%

IT and Systems11%

19%11%

Customer Service6%6%6%

New Employee Orientation5%

2%6%

Basic Skills4%4%4%

Sales6%6%

7%

Executive Development4%4%

5%

Other (Quality, Product Knowledge)9%

8%10%

CO

MPA

RAT

IVE

DAT

A

CONTENT DISTRIBUTION


CONSOLIDATED CONTENT COVERAGEThe top three content areas, accounting for 38 percent of learning

content made available in 2008, were

• profession- or industry-specific content

• IT and systems skills

• management and supervision (followed closely by

mandatory/compliance training and processes,

procedures, and business practices).

The three areas to which the least content was devoted were

• executive development

• basic skills

• new employee orientation.

BMF CONTENT COVERAGEIn BMF organizations, the top three content areas, accounting

for 52 percent of learning content made available in 2008, were



• processes, procedures, and business practices.


• new employee orientation

• basic skills

• executive development.

BEST CONTENT COVERAGEIn BEST organizations in 2008, the top three content areas,

accounting for 37 percent of all content made available, were



• processes, procedures, and business practices.


• basic skills

• executive development

• new employee orientation.


15

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

Live.Instructor-LedSelf-Paced

(f).Non-Computer.Technology.(A/V,.Mobile.Devices)

(h).Other

Other.CombinationsComputer Print

(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.)

(g).Self-.Paced.Print

All.Instructor-LedAll.Technology-

BasedAll.Online

Consolidated*

2008.(n.=.301) 63.69% 4.81% 3.03% 18.27% 2.10% 3.02% 3.17% 1.92% 71.53% 31.37% 23.08%

2007.(n.=.314) 61.06% 6.42% 3.02% 18.21% 2.82% 3.99% 2.22% 2.26% 70.50% 32.69% 24.62%

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

2008.(n.=.20) 62.62% 4.10% 1.76% 25.21% 1.34% 0.60% 1.66% 2.71% 68.49% 34.07% 29.31%

2007.(n.=.25) 58.11% 2.68% 1.27% 26.17% 2.97% 1.72% 2.08% 5.00% 62.06% 35.16% 28.85%

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% 36.92% 30.45%

2004.(n.=.25) 59.77% 6.14% 2.23% 23.43% 4.86% 2.36% 1.03% 0.19% 68.14% 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

2008.(n.=.39) 63.12% 4.69% 3.03% 20.49% 1.39% 2.42% 3.81% 1.04% 70.84% 33.41% 25.18%

2007.(n.=.40) 57.96% 5.55% 3.40% 22.12% 2.50% 4.73% 2.21% 1.53% 66.91% 35.77% 27.66%

.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% 33.96% 24.98%


DELIVERY METHODS INSTRUCTOR-LED LEARNING CONTINUES TO BE VITAL Live instructor-led delivery of formal learning content3 rebounded in 2008 after two years of drops. The consolidated average for all instructor-led formal learning was

71.5 percent in 2008, up slightly from 70.5 percent in 2007. BEST Award winners had a similar average proportion of instructor-led delivery as the consolidated

organizations, at 70.8 percent in 2008. The BMF average for instructor-led learning hours made available was slightly lower at 68.5 percent, revealing a consistent reliance

on expert facilitation of most formal learning content. Across all organizations, the majority of instructor-led delivery continued to take place in classrooms, which was

essentially even with the breakdown from 2007.3 The results in Tables 4 and 5 refer only to formal learning content that is managed and delivered by the organization. It does not include informal knowledge that is acquired by the learner in a self-directed manner outside the scope of the learning function.



CO

MPA

RAT

IVE

DAT

A

Instructor-Led Real Time Technology-Based

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

76.0

%11

.5%

71.1

%15

.4%

66.0

%26

.2%

68.2

%26

.5%

65.3

%30

.3%

61.1

%32

.7%

63.7

%31

.4%

20032002 2008200720062005

N/A

20042001

Figure 15: Average Percentage of Formal Learning Hours Used via Technology Based Methods*

25.6

%35

.2%

34.3

%

30.5

%34

.4%

31.8

%43

.6%

38.7

%

32.1

%38

.7%

36.4

%

31.8

%35

.0%

31.1

%

20082007200620052004


DELIVERY METHODSTECHNOLOGY-BASED LEARNING STABLETechnology-based delivery of formal learning content leveled off

in 2008. The consolidated average for e-learning’s share of formal

learning hours available was 31.4 percent, down from 32.7 percent

in 2007. Technology-based delivery methods also accounted

for a smaller share of formal learning hours made available in

BMF organizations (35.0 percent) and in BEST organizations

(31.1 percent) compared to 2007, but the differences were

minimal for both groups. This trend is surprising in light of the

uncertain economy that influenced decision making in the latter

stages of 2008. E-learning traditionally has allowed for efficiency

improvements such as centralization, flexibility, wide reach, and

multiple reuse, which tend to hold down some costs. However,

technology-based solutions also require a significant financial

commitment, especially at the front end. It appears that some

organizations have delayed deployment or upgrades in e-learning

for formal content in reaction to financial strain or for other

reasons that are not apparent.

Self-paced online formal learning was even with the previous

year and continues to be the most frequently-provided type of

e-learning for all groups. The consolidated average for self-paced

online delivery was 18.8 percent in 2008. BEST Award winners

(20.8 percent) and BMF organizations (26.9 percent) relied

on self-paced online delivery more than the other organizations

surveyed. None of the other e-learning delivery methods displayed

much variation from the previous year. These findings indicate that

organizations remain committed to implementing and sustaining

e-learning platforms that are accessed and controlled by

the learner.




Table 5: Average Percentage of Formal Learning Hours Used via Different Delivery Methods (Consolidated, BMF, and BEST)

Live.Instructor-LedSelf-Paced

(f).Non-Computer.Technology.(A/V,.Mobile.Devices)

(h).Other

Other.CombinationsComputer Print

(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.)

(g).Self-Paced.Print

All.Instructor-LedAll.Technology-

BasedAll.Online

Consolidated*

2008.(n.=.301) 64.14% 4.96% 3.07% 18.79% 2.42% 2.42% 2.54% 1.66% 72.17% 31.78% 23.75%

2007.(n.=.314) 61.59% 6.13% 2.86% 18.91% 2.48% 3.50% 1.68% 2.87% 70.58% 32.06% 25.04%

2006.(n.=.221) 65.15% 4.21% 2.10% 19.81% 2.82% 1.53% 2.87% 1.51% 71.46% 31.82% 24.03%

2004.(n.=.246) 68.81% 3.74% 2.57% 13.45% 3.50% 4.32% 2.39% 1.22% 75.11% 25.65% 17.19%

2003.(n.=.278) 65.51% 3.62% 2.55% 9.43% 3.94% 7.53% 4.73% 2.69% 71.68% 24.27% 13.05%

BMF

2008.(n.=.20) 61.16% 5.16% 1.74% 26.89% 0.53% 1.76% 0.71% 2.05% 68.06% 35.03% 32.05%

2007.(n.=.25) 54.48% 4.19% 1.32% 30.56% 1.84% 1.69% 0.82% 5.10% 59.99% 38.74% 34.75%

2006.(n.=.25) 52.31% 4.66% 4.92% 29.31% 2.26% 3.55% 2.42% 0.55% 61.89% 43.57% 33.97%

2005.(n.=.21) 63.75% 3.08% 1.20% 23.02% 2.44% 2.71% 0.72% 3.07% 68.04% 30.46% 26.10%

2004.(n.=.25) 61.82% 5.71% 2.48% 22.04% 3.95% 2.97% 1.02% 0.02% 70.01% 35.19% 27.74%

BEST.Award.Winners

2008.(n.=.39) 66.15% 4.40% 2.68% 20.80% 1.58% 1.94% 1.64% 0.81% 73.24% 31.10% 25.20%

2007.(n.=.40) 60.43% 5.82% 3.44% 20.78% 2.65% 1.98% 3.75% 1.15% 69.69% 36.44% 26.60%

2006.(n.=.42). 57.67% 4.30% 3.09% 26.30% 2.85% 2.24% 2.16% 1.39% 65.07% 38.71% 30.60%

2005.(n.=.39) 59.55% 5.39% 2.40% 20.37% 3.30% 3.93% 2.97% 2.08% 67.35% 34.44% 25.77%

2004.(n.=.29) 56.12% 4.79% 1.50% 23.11% 3.13% 5.81% 1.81% 3.73% 62.41% 34.34% 27.90%


MOST FORMAL LEARNING STILL OCCURS IN THE CLASSROOM For the most part, the trends related to delivery methods for learning hours used are very similar to those for learning hours made available. Consumption of formal learning

content through technology-based platforms took a very slight dip in 2008, falling from 32.1 percent in 2007 to 31.8 percent. The proportion of formal learning hours

used through e-learning also declined during the past year in BMF organizations (35.0 percent) and in BEST organizations (31.1 percent). Self-paced online consumption

continues to be the most frequently-accessed e-learning method for all groups.

Learning hours received through live instructor-led delivery increased slightly in 2008, from 70.6 percent to 72.2 percent. BMF organizations relied more on live instructor-

led formats in 2008 (68.1 percent) than in 2007 (60.0 percent). Most instructor-led consumption continued to occur in classrooms, while instructor-led online usage

declined slightly in 2008.


BES

T AW

AR

D W

INN

ERS

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BEST LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS

ABOUT THE 2009 BEST AWARD WINNERSThe 2004 State of the Industry report identified eight

characteristics of BEST Award-winning organizations in 2003 and

2004. The analysis of the previous year’s financial and operational

data from the 2009 BEST Award winners continues to validate those

same eight characteristics.

Almost all BEST organizations reported improvements in 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


BEST organizations used many approaches to select and design

learning initiatives to improve performance. Strategic plans

and corporate objectives were drivers of most learning and

performance activities.

In the fiscal year 2008, most of the BEST organizations had 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

or competence, content development cycle time, number of

employees trained per WLP staff member, travel/accommodations

and content development costs, and cost savings realized through

outsourcing. The greatest efficiency gains appeared to come from

effective leveraging of technology, restructuring and improving

existing programs and curricula, reducing deployment time through

improved internal processes, and cutting costs through tighter

governance of content development and travel.

BEST Award winners allocated 38.6 percent of the learning

function’s resources in 2008 to nontraining activities such

as performance analysis, organizational development, talent

management, and process improvement.

ALIGNMENT • The BEST have formal processes to align

business strategies with learning initiatives

and priorities.

• The BEST map learning resources to

competencies, individual development

plans, roles, 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 the ability to

attend conferences.

MEASUREMENT • The BEST demonstrate effectiveness by

monitoring individual and organizational

performance indicators and linking changes

in performance to learning and nontraining

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.

NONTRAINING SOLUTIONS

The BEST devote a large portion of their

resources to nontraining performance

improvement activities, particularly

organizational development, process

improvement, and job-specific resources.


THE IMPORTANCE OF LEARNINGA majority of BEST organizations’ vice presidents and C-level

executives continue to support learning in several ways, such as

public statements of the value of employee learning, participation

as an instructor or speaker, and by including learning objectives

as part of performance goals. In 2008, 92.6 percent of BEST

organizations had senior-level executives’ support learning in

public statements, a 1.6 percent increase from 2007. There was

a 4.7 percent increase from the previous year for vice presidents

and C-level executives who supported including learning objectives

as part of performance goals. In 2008, 67.9 percent of senior

executives supported learning by participating as an instructor

or speaker.

ORGANIZATIONAL UMBRELLAExamination of the BEST winners’ responses revealed that support

for learning initiatives from CEOs and senior executives in

performance goals is critical, because their vision determines the

learning structure and environment in the entire organization. The

organization’s strategy forms the platform from which business unit

goals and then individual development plans and key performance

indicators are identified. Therefore, the organization’s goals,

strategies, and competencies provided an umbrella under which

the development of business unit-level and individual-level learning

initiatives fall.

With priorities cascading down to business units and individual

performance plans, employees can clearly see how integral their

performance is to the success of the organization. Matrixed

competency models also highlight how the organization’s

competencies and needs are interwoven with individual job

competencies. Due to the apparent interrelatedness of the

organizational and individual levels, employees in BEST

organizations are often accountable for business results, such as

increased revenue or increased customer loyalty, and are rewarded

when their individual performance contributed to business results.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PRACTICESA majority of BEST Award winners used a variety of structured

and defined reporting tools and processes to align learning with

individual and organizational performance. The methodologies

used by most BEST organizations included balanced scorecards,

tracking of employee learning history, personal development plans,

annual performance reviews with the use of key performance

indicators, matrixed competency mapping, coaching, certification

programs, and formal and informal feedback opportunities, which

include 360-degree feedback systems. An average of 98 percent

of BEST Award-winning organization’s employees had annual

performance reviews to link their individual learning performance

to the organizational strategy. Similarly, BEST organizations track

the learning history of 95.9 percent of employees as a performance

management metric. Employees were often involved in the

development of their own performance management goal setting,

with 89.3 percent of BEST organizations’ employees participating

in the process. Additionally, 84.2 percent of employees had

personalized individual development plans that aligned with the

organization’s objectives. More than four out of five employees in BEST organizations also had

their individual competencies documented, as part of the matrixed competency mapping that

organizations used to tie broad organizational competencies to the specialized competencies

needed for specific roles. Peer review and 360-degree feedback systems were used only 38.0

percent of the time by BEST organizations. This demonstrates that some organizations are

engaging in formal feedback to complete the performance management cycle.

Table 6: 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

2008.(n.=.39) 92.6% 67.9% 87.4%

2007.(n.=.40) 91.0% 70.7% 82.7%

2006.(n.=.42) 94.4% 73.4% 89.4%

2005.(n.=.39) 94.9% 68.5% 88.6%

2004.(n.=.29) 90.5% 67.9% 91.4%

2003.(n.=.24) 91.2% 69.7% 91.9%

2002.(n.=.23) 90.2% 74.9% 94.3%

The BEST organizations used an assortment of processes and reporting tools to link learning to individual and organizational performance and in turn to improve their organization’s overall performance.

These approaches included:

• Using a balanced scorecard to assess learning’s impact on individual and organizational performance metrics by gauging key performance indicators or performance objectives.

• Using personal development plans to identify individual opportunities for growth through the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and abilities. These were followed by the development of an action plan to transfer acquired knowledge to benefit the workplace and organization.

• Using performance management systems to plan, monitor, develop, rate, and reward an individual’s efficiency and effectiveness in contributing to the department’s and the organization’s strategy map and competencies.

• Using a competency matrix, where skills and behaviors are organized to align with the organization’s strategy drivers to ensure that all individuals know how their work contributes to the success of the organization.

• Using a coach who understands the organization’s performance expectations and provides feedback as well as career guidance. The coach helps employees establish their career growth and professional development objectives. Additionally, managers provide formal and informal performance feedback, so employees know their progress and developmental needs. Formal feedback gauges progress and achievement against role expectations, identified metrics, and development achievements.


Figure 16: Metrics Used to Measure Performance of the Learning Function (BEST)

Ability to Retain Essential Employees94.9%

Employee Satisfaction92.3%

Customer Satisfaction89.7%

Sales/Revenues89.7%

Quality of Products/Services87.2%

Productivity Improvement84.6%

Overall Profitability84.6%

Cycle Time Reduction or Improvement69.2%

Other17.9%

BES

T AW

AR

D W

INN

ERS

EFFECTIVENESSBusinesses have been directly affected in several ways by the uncertain state

of the economy. Many organizations need to work harder and more efficiently

to remain viable and successful during this time. As a result, the learning

function assumes a more critical role in providing learning opportunities to

ensure organizational effectiveness. Despite economic ambiguity, the 2009

BEST Award winners continued to use the same top four metrics to measure

performance of the learning function as the 2008 BEST Award winners

did. Employee-based metrics were the most commonly used measurement

techniques within organizations: 94.9 percent of organizations used ability

to retain essential employees and 92.3 percent of organizations used

employee satisfaction ratings. Customer satisfaction ratings and sales/revenue

figures were each used by 89.7 percent of organizations. These four elements

are interrelated because employee satisfaction impacts employee retention,

which in turn influences customer satisfaction and retention. All these factors

directly affect the business performance and, ultimately, financial results.

Roughly 18 percent of the BEST Award winners used other metrics to measure

the learning function’s effectiveness; these included energy conservation,

internal audits, growth in critical client accounts, and cultural integration.

EMPLOYEES ARE STILL #1Employee satisfaction and the ability to retain essential employees are

associated measures. Employee turnover is low when employees are

satisfied with their jobs and are passionate, psychologically invested,

motivated, and engaged in what they do. Many BEST organizations cater

to the desires of highly engaged employees, who typically want more

learning and skill development opportunities, by creating personal and

professional developmental plans. The learning function is able to leverage

its capabilities to ensure employees are competently trained to perform their

jobs, resulting in greater likelihood of satisfaction and a desire to remain

with the organization. By creating developmental curriculums, organizations

establish learning opportunities that are mapped to performance expectations

and corporate visions. Talent management and development strategies

begin from the initial onboarding of new employees and expand to include

several programs such as leadership training, multi-generational workforce

workshops, communication skill-building, and mentoring, which are

intended to spur career growth. Some BEST organizations require employees,

upon completion of these sessions, to commit to using what they learned

in the workplace.

Ensuring high retention rates not only depends on having satisfied employees

but also on attracting the appropriate talent for the job and organization.

Several BEST Award winners reported that training and development functions

also have instituted robust selection tools and recruitment processes

to ensure the hiring of suitable talent. Motivating and retaining employees

is thereby easier because of a better organizational fit.

CONSUMER-CENTRICFor many BEST Award winners, focusing on customer satisfaction with

the organization and its products and services is important in evaluating

effectiveness. Satisfied customers provide great value and security to

organizations by helping them focus on business development and financial

profitability. Organizations are leveraging training to move toward a customer

focus and align branding strategies with customer service culture. To teach

employees how to proactively deliver enhanced value to customers, the

learning function provides a variety of opportunities, which often include

techniques such as live customer care training and coaching sessions. Some

BEST Award winning organizations also reward employees with bonuses

and incentives based on their customer satisfaction performance ratings.

MONEY MATTERSBEST organizations credited learning and development programs for

positively impacting performance achievements, which in turn contributed

to increased sales and revenue. Learning initiatives such as sales, business

development, or client service training can help the organization’s bottom

line. In this global economy, driving revenue is crucial for financial success,

thereby demonstrating the integral nature of business development and sales

training in organizations. Similarly, some learning programs target skills and

knowledge that help employees work more efficiently and perform their tasks

to a higher standard. These include onboarding, interpersonal teamwork

training, and diversity training. Teams are taught to leverage their specialized

expertise and to develop concrete strategies for business success. Some BEST

Award winners acknowledged that having an annual roadmap for product/

service developments, deliverables, and targets is beneficial for creating

initial business planning, recognizing milestones, and focusing on the

bottom line.


EFFICIENCYEfficiency is established when training initiatives and outcomes directly support

organizational goals and are not simply done for “training’s sake.” BEST organizations

cited a variety of measures they used to assess the efficiency of their training

initiatives. They ranged from time to employee readiness or competence, to travel and

accommodation costs, and number of employees trained. Number of employees trained

was the most cited metric, used by 92.3 percent of organizations, followed by tracking

content development costs (76.9 percent), and then time to employee readiness or

competence (74.4 percent). Nearly half of the BEST Award winners used other metrics,

which included cost savings from operating the learning function more efficiently,

content accessibility, cost per learning hour offered and used, and learning management

system consolidation.

COST CUTTINGThe uncertain state of the economy challenged many of the BEST organizations’ learning

and development functions, pushing them to economize on learning activities, while

simultaneously continuing to build critical skills and knowledge. In comparison to 2007,

many more of the BEST Award winning organizations used financial metrics to rate the

efficiency of the enterprise’s learning function. Some popular areas of concentration

included travel and accommodation costs, and cost savings realized through outsourcing

learning initiatives.

Travel and accommodation costs were often curtailed by BEST organizations by

utilizing online training programs, thereby eliminating much of the administrative cost

and providing additional funds for training initiatives and reinvestment. Initiatives

such as “train-the-trainer” allowed organizations to train a number of trainers on

the material and to disseminate the knowledge at local offices, rather than having

one trainer travel to do the same task. Selectively outsourcing learning initiatives is a

method of cost cutting for many BEST Award winners. They found that by judiciously

outsourcing projects, their internal training specialists were able to oversee the learning

development function and focus on increasing the number of employees trained.

STREAMLININGImproved efficiency can often be achieved by streamlining information

and systems, as many BEST organizations reported for 2008. Streamlined

information allows content to be standardized, and reduces redundancies.

Many BEST organizations are heavily focused on creating sharable learning

objectives and condensed course content. Modular content can then easily

be adapted and repurposed across multiple business functions and for

multiple audiences. Reusable learning objectives and course content enables

efficiency by reducing the content development cycle time, the associated

content development costs, and the time to deploy a new learning initiative.

Not only is streamlining information important for the BEST organizations’

efficiency, but so is streamlining the systems in place. Some BEST

organizations have begun to use their LMS to create, store, and tag content

in searchable nuggets that help customize training and reduce content

development cycle time. Others reported consolidating their LMS across the

network so that costs were reduced and information could easily be shared

across the system.

Figure 17: Metrics Used to Rate Efficiency of the Learning Function (BEST)

Number of Employees Trained92.3%

Content Development Costs76.9%

Time to Employee Readiness or Competence74.4%

Time to Deploy a New Learning Initiative69.2%

Number of Employees Trained per Learning Staff Member66.7%

Content Development Cycle Time66.7%

Travel and Accomodation Costs66.7%

Cost Savings Realized Through Outsourcing Learning Initiatives56.4%

Other48.7%

89.0%

88.0%

79.5%

74.8%

73.9%

13.0%

68.9%

67.3%

35.1%


LEARNING OPPORTUNITIESB

EST

AWA

RD

WIN

NER

S

BEST organizations continued to provide their employees with a diverse

selection of learning opportunities. The most common offerings available

to employees were formal, event-based activities, which include classes,

workshops, and online courses and were provided to nearly 99 percent of

employees at BEST organizations. Although not everyone who was offered

formal learning opportunities used them; there were still 89.0 percent of

employees who did, making formal learning the most frequently used learning

opportunity. On-the-job learning was the second-most provided and used

learning opportunity in BEST Award-winning organizations, with 98.7 percent

of BEST organizations’ employees having access to it and 88.0 percent

making use of it. Tuition reimbursement was available to 82.0 percent of

employees; however, it was the least used offering, with only 13.0 percent

taking advantage of it.

EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKINGIn today’s strained economic climate, organizations are forced to deal

with limitations. This adjustment requires the learning function to be more

resourceful and creative in their initiatives for organizational and employee

progress. Many BEST Award winners were using innovative programs to

help employees stretch themselves from “great” to “exceptional” while

simultaneously developing their careers. Allowing employees to take

ownership in formulating their personalized development and learning plans

was common among BEST organizations, because employees tended to buy

into the initiative more while still collaborating with management.

The learning functions of BEST organizations were also innovative in the ways

they utilized the potential resources already available within the organization.

BEST Award winners sought new ways to connect their employees with

one another to benefit from the collaborative process. BEST organizations

attempted to increase employee engagement and further develop relationships

within the organization, by encouraging senior executives to interact more

with employees and to convey their passion and excitement about the

organization. Cross-functional interaction was also encouraged as a method

of establishing communities of practice, where employees could share lessons

learned with one another. These initiatives highlight the valuable knowledge

assets that employees possess.

WELCOME ABOARDOnboarding programs provide organizations with an opportunity to be

creative and innovative in how they introduce new hires to the organization as

well as capture their attention so they feel a connection with the organization

and value the work culture. BEST organizations used a variety of learning

initiatives to aid this process, including pre-hire involvement, advisors, on-

the-job challenges, games, videos, case studies, and real employee examples.

BEST organizations attempted to connect with new hires through the use of

technology, and especially with recent graduates, who tend to utilize Web 2.0

technologies heavily. Several BEST organizations use onboarding initiatives

to accelerate the transition of new hires into the organization and into their

role so they can quickly become effective contributors. This initial connection

with the employee is thought to increase productivity and reduce voluntary

turnover. BEST organizations are also focusing on extended onboarding

programs, which are multidimensional and include multiple touch points,

rather than a one-time event. A similar initiative was also used by some BEST

organizations that dealt with acquisitions. They had to orient their newly

acquired employees to their organization’s culture and engage them in their

new work environment.

Figure 18: Average Percentage of Employee Access To and Usage of Different Learning Opportunities (BEST)

98.8%

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

98.7%

On-the-job Learning

92.6%

Job Aids

87.8%

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

75.2%

Electronic Performance Support

77.4%

Mentoring and Coaching

83.4%

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

44.9%46.9%

Employer-supported Conference Attendance

43.9%44.7%

Financial Support for Memberships in Professional Associations

40.4%

Job Rotation

82.0%

Tuition Reimbursement

Access Usage


NONTRAINING SOLUTIONS/ PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENTNontraining performance improvement solutions accounted for an average of 38.6

percent of the learning function’s resources in BEST organizations in 2008. The majority

of the BEST organizations’ nontraining initiatives involved organizational development,

process analysis, and talent management. Other nontraining initiatives included

job-specific tools and resources, performance feedback, knowledge management,

performance expectations, and non-incentive motivational strategies, as well as other

specific initiatives.

In BEST organizations, some of the specific methods used to support nontraining

initiatives included analyzing existing processes and providing recommendations,

identifying gaps and methods of minimization, fielding surveys and analyzing responses,

and conducting focus groups and awareness sessions. Learning staff were also given

the opportunity to be more creative with organizing social responsibility initiatives,

designing user-friendly learning materials and portals, and designing

internship programs.

CLOSING THE GAPMany BEST organizations involved their learning functions in nontraining tasks by

utilizing their analytical abilities to identify gaps between actual performance and the

organizational ideal. Learning staff identified gaps in performance outcomes, employee

attitudes, and employees’ skills and education. BEST organizations with entry-level

employees whose skills and education levels were below par were offered guidance

on available programs to develop their knowledge, as well as services to match

career possibilities with their interests. Additionally, gaps in the usage of systems and

processes such as selection practices and training programs were identified, because

some employees were not using them as originally intended. Learning professionals

also realized that the program’s requirements sometimes needed adaptation and

realignment with the organization’s needs. After identifying the gaps, recommendations

were proposed to minimize the gap between actual and desired outcomes, and often the

learning function was responsible for implementation.

FIXING THE PROBLEMLearning staff within BEST organizations were often required to work as

consultants, by analyzing and identifying issues with internal processes

and tools. Both employee and organizational development often benefitted

from solutions that emerged from this analysis to streamline processes and

make them more efficient. Issues that frequently arose included altering

incentive and motivational schemes, identifying process length reduction

options, promoting increased exchange of ideas, sharing knowledge and

experience across multiple business functions, and reviewing the quality

of customer care.

Not only did learning functions have to deal with internal processes, but often

they faced challenges in developing and improving their own systems and

resources. Many BEST organizations strive to have efficient and customized

systems that optimize employee and organizational development and

performance. Modifications occurred to a variety of systems and schemes

including succession-planning, talent management, employee recognition,

and performance feedback.

Some learning functions within BEST Award-winning organizations had the

ability to get involved in several particularly unique nontraining projects,

such as:

• creating a corporate video-sharing platform, similar to YouTube,

where employees can view and upload videos of best practices, convey

corporate news, collaborate, and share information informally. It was

also used as a social networking platform.

• designing a program, for employees, with a business simulation exercise

to explain the different phases of a recession and how change can bring

about opportunities.

• collaborating with consulting teams to provide a learning

implementation process for a client. The learning function designed

the process, wrote the standards, and created a template, as well as

provided orientation training for how to use the template to develop and

customize the process materials according to the client’s requirements.

Figure 19: Average Percentage of Learning Function Resources Devoted to Performance Improvement Solutions (BEST)

61.4%

Learning/Training Solutions

6.9%

Organizational Development

5.6%

Process Analysis and Improvements

5.4%

Talent Management

4.9%

Job-Specific Tools and Resources

4.2%

Performance Feedback

3.2%

Knowledge Management

2.7%

Performance Expectations

2.2%

Non-Incentive Motivational Strategies

1.8%

Other

Incentives1.6%


AD

-HO

C S

UR

VEY

S

Figure 21: Talent Management Drivers(Percent Responding to a High or Very High Extent)

The need to execute our strategies69.4%

The need to compete in the marketplace68.3%

The need to retain our talent65.9%

The need to provide customer service60.4%

Organizational changes52.0%

The need to innovate49.3%

Talent shortages44.9%

New technologies36.8%

Globalization30.0%

Compliance/regulation issues28.9%

Greater workforce diversity26.4%

Work/life balance issues22.9%

Frequent change in talent requirements20.3%

Figure 20: Organizational Effectiveness with Managing Talent

Very high extent0.5%

Not at all3.7%

Small extent18.6%

Moderate extent57.8%

High extent19.4%

TALENT MANAGEMENTIn 2008, ASTD and the Institute for Corporate Productivity

(i4cp) reached out to learning professionals to gather in-depth

knowledge about their experiences with talent management. A survey

on talent management practices, challenges, and lessons learned was

completed by 518 high-level business, HR, and learning professional

contacts. The results were compiled into the ASTD/i4cp

Talent Management Practices and Opportunities Study.

The study found that integrated talent management is a relatively new

practice that will become increasingly emphasized in organizations

over the next three years. Respondents also admitted that there is

much room for improvement. Only one in five organizations reported

that, to a high or very high degree, they manage talent effectively. More

than half (57.8 percent) said their organizations manage it effectively

to a moderate extent.

Respondents revealed that a variety of factors drive their decisions

on talent management. More than two-thirds of respondents cited

the need to compete in the marketplace, emphasizing the strategic

level at which talent management is perceived to contribute to

organizations. Other factors that the majority of respondents said

were highly important drivers of talent management were the need to

execute strategies, the need to retain talent, the need to provide better

customer service, and organizational changes.


Figure 23: Support for Executive Development Program from the C-Level Suite/Executive Team

Very high amount of support39.0%

High amount of support31.8%

Moderate amount of support18.8%

Low amount of support5.2%

No support at all5.2%

EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENTExecutive development is a multi-billion dollar business endeavor

and a critical component of an organization’s long-term growth and

survival. A new study by ASTD, sponsored by Booz Allen Hamilton,

examined how organizations handle executive development,

how much they spend on the programs, who is involved, how

the participants are selected, what makes these programs most

effective, and lessons learned. Executive development was defined

by the research team as “an ongoing systematic process that

assesses, develops, and enhances one’s ability to carry out top-level

roles in the organization.” The primary focus of the ASTD/Booz

Allen Hamilton Executive Development: Strategic and Tactical

Approaches study was to investigate the development of these top-

level employees and not the general development of leaders and

managers at lower levels.

The study included survey data collected in 2008 from 397 WLP

professionals and executives. One of the key findings was that

survey respondents reported varying approaches to executive

development in their organizations. More than one-third of the

respondents (38.1 percent) reported that their organizations have

an active, current executive development program. Slightly less than

one-quarter of the respondents (22.7 percent) reported that their

organization has an executive development program that is activated

only when needed. These “as-needed” programs are not currently

active but become live “on-demand” when the need arises. An

additional 5.6 percent of respondents noted that their organization

previously had some kind of executive development initiative that

has since gone dormant. A sizeable portion of the organizations

surveyed actually had no formal program devoted to executive

development: 33.6 percent of respondents reported that their

organizations never had an official executive development program.

Another significant finding was that survey respondents considered

C-level support critical to the success of executive development

programs—and most programs do in fact receive it. Support

from the C-level suite and other senior executives consistently

emerged as an essential component of executive development. It is

encouraging to find that 70.8 percent of responding organizations

have a high or very high degree of such support. Only 5.2 percent

reported no support at all. Recognition and endorsement from

upper management and other high-level staff is especially crucial

for success with executive development because of the nature of

the initiative. Executive development requires the top leaders in an

organization to actively participate in the planning and execution

because they possess the skills that are critical for the knowledge

transfer to the participants in the program.

Figure 22: Prevalence of Executive Development Programs

33.6%22.7%

5.6%

38.1%

ED Program As-needed

Never had an ED Program

Currently have an ED Program

Previously had an ED Program


AD

-HO

C S

UR

VEY

S SALES TRAININGBoth learning professionals and sales team members need leading-

edge ideas and information to prepare for a business climate that

has ever-increasing pressure to achieve revenue forecasts. The

ASTD/Intrepid/i4cp State of Sales Training study provides new

insight into the current and future state of sales training globally.

Through survey responses from 531 organizational leaders, sales

executives, and WLP professionals, the study explores how today’s

organizations are approaching sales training and sheds light on

opportunities that organizations might be missing to optimize those

approaches or consider new ones.

Many organizations struggle with finding the right mix of

learning content for sales training. Respondents reported their

organizations’ breakdown of five sales training categories: selling

skills, product training, industry training, company-specific

training, and sales management training. The results suggest that

selling skills are the most critical knowledge when it comes to sales

training. That category receives more than one-third of the annual

sales training content hours (34.5 percent). Product training

receives the next largest share (28.3 percent), while the proportion

of sales training content hours devoted to industry training,

company-specific training, and sales management is slightly more

than one-tenth of the annual learning content hours for each.

Accountability for sales training is another critical area that

was addressed in the survey. When asked who has primary

responsibility for the training and development of members

of the sales team, more than half of respondents reported that

this important responsibility lies directly with a sales executive

(30.4 percent) or with the CEO (25.5 percent). Another 14.5

percent of responding organizations assign responsibility for the

training and development of sales team members to a learning

executive. Far fewer (4.3 percent) place that responsibility with

the human resources area. Some place such responsibility in an

external sales performance consultant or coach (6.7 percent).

Figure 25: Primary Responsibility For Training Of Sales Team Members

Other13.5%

HR executive4.3%

Marketing exec.5.1%

Consultant/coach6.7%

Learning exec.14.5%

CEO25.5%

A sales executive30.4%

Figure 24: Percentage Of Annual Content Hours Devoted To Various Types Of Sales Training

Selling skills

Product training

Industry training

Company-specific training

Sales management

34.5%

28.3%

13.9%

12.8%

10.5%


WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIESWeb 2.0 technologies have dramatically shaped the daily

work experiences of professionals everywhere. Web 2.0 refers

to web-based communities, hosted services, and applications such

as web services, blogs, podcasts, and online social networks. With

unique characteristics such as free exchange of information and

multi-user collaboration, they have much potential to enhance

training and learning efforts within the corporate world. The

ASTD/Booz Allen Hamilton/i4cp Transforming Learning Through

Web 2.0 Technologies study determined exactly what impact these

new technologies have made on the learning function.

Based on responses from 743 high-level business, WLP, and HR

professionals, the study found that the immense potential of Web

2.0 technologies has not yet been realized in most organizations.

Just 8.7 percent of respondents said Web 2.0 technologies play

a major role in the learning function in their company, and an

additional 31.6 percent said they play a minor role. Roughly half

of responding organizations do not even have Web 2.0 technologies,

and nearly a quarter do not plan to adopt them.

The survey results indicate that the usage of Web 2.0 technologies

is uncharted territory for many organizations today, but this trend

likely will change. An overwhelming majority—86.5 percent of

respondents—predicted that, over the next three years, their

organizations were more likely to use Web 2.0 technologies in the

learning function than they currently do. Only 1.7 percent predicted

their firms would use these technologies less. The evidence strongly

suggests that Web 2.0 technologies will contribute much more

to learning in coming years.

Figure 27: Intended Use of Web 2.0 in Next Three Years

86.5%

11.8%

1.7%

Become less likely to use Web 2.0 technologies in the learning function than it currently does

Use Web 2.0 technologies in the learning function about the same amount as we currently do

Become more likely to use Web 2.0 technologies in the learning function than it currently does

Figure 26: Organizational Approach to Web 2.0 Technologies

We do not have such technologies and have no plans to adopt them24.8%

We do not have such technologies but have plans to adopt them23.7%

We have such technologies but they play no role in the learning function11.2%

We have such technologies and they play a minor role in the learning function31.6%

We have such technologies and they play a major role in the learning function8.7%


22.0%

24.0%

24.5%

40.7%

LEARNING IN TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMESIn the recent economic downturn, organizations have been

forced to look for ways to cut costs. As a result, learning functions

have developed a variety of methods to adapt. In fact, many

organizations are now looking to the learning function for solutions

when they face difficult economic conditions. This finding was

confirmed in a new study by ASTD and i4cp that investigated how

organizations manage learning in a down economy. The Learning

in Tough Economic Times report examines budget reductions,

process improvements, effectiveness of the learning function,

efficiency changes, and other lessons learned in reaction to

market downturns.

Somewhere between a fifth and a quarter of the 603 survey

respondents said that, to a high or very high extent, the down

economy has had a negative impact on each of the following:

• learning’s status as a key strategic component

• the learning function’s ability to impact

corporate performance

• the learning function’s ability to meet organizational

learning needs.

Respondents thought that these occurrences were about as intense

during the last downturn as they are today, although there was

a noticeable decline in the endorsement of “negative impact on

learning’s status as a key strategic component.”

While roughly one in four respondents (24.5 percent) said

that their firms, to a high or very high extent, placed a stronger

emphasis on learning during the last downturn, 37.9 percent

said their firms emphasized learning to a greater extent in this

downturn. Organizational leaders seem to realize that increased

pressure from the economy can actually create a strong need

for learning.

The survey also assessed specific learning practices that attempted

to improve effectiveness in response to the downturn. Out of all

the practices listed, only three were used by a majority to a high

or very high extent. However, respondents indicated that a great

deal of practices could be utilized more to help adapt to the

current shaky economic climate. For example, only 25.9 percent

of respondents said their firms currently use technology-based

simulated environments to increase training efficiencies to a high

or very high extent. But nearly half (49.5 percent) of participants

said their organizations should use such simulations to a high

or very high extent. Other practices with a large gap between the

rating for current use and recommended use included shifting to

greater use of e-learning/virtual delivery, pooling learning-related

resources (classrooms, instructors, etc.) with other organizations,

and using more low-cost learning delivery methods. Although many

organizations often turn to technologically-based solutions in the

face of restricted budgets, these responses suggest that some hands-

on, personal practices might have an impact as well.

Figure 29: Practices to Adapt to a Down Economy(Top Ten Responses, by Extent Organization SHOULD do)

Review budgets and look for ways to boost efficiencies74.2%

67.2%

Shift to greater use of e-learning/virtual delivery59.9%

38.3%

Use more low-cost learning delivery methods58.1%

40.3%

Use technology-based simulated environments to increase training efficiencies49.5%

25.9%

Reduce the number of nice-to-haves45.7%46.4%

Increase reuse of existing content45.5%

35.7%

Spend less on conferences/seminars/workshops42.1%

52.3%

Restrict travel for learners41.4%

52.8%

Pool learning-related resources (classrooms, instructors, etc.) with other organizations39.4%

15.9%

Cut back on learning-related contracts with external providers34.9%

46.1%

Extent Organization SHOULD* Extent Organization DOES*

Figure 28: Reactions to Economic Downturns

During Last Downturn* During Current Downturn*

Our learning function’s ability to impact corporate performance suffered/is suffering

There was/is a negative impact on learning’s status as a key strategic component

Our learning function’s ability to meet organizational learning needs suffered/is suffering

We placed/are placing a stronger emphasis on learning

There was/is reduced availability of resources to support learning40.8%

37.9%

27.3%25.7%

26.5%

21.8%

AD

-HO

C S

UR

VEY

S

*Percentage answering high or very high extent

*Percentage answering high or very high extent



LEARNING EXECUTIVES CONFIDENCE INDEX

Learning executives (LXs) revealed more optimism in key areas

in the third quarter of 2009; continuing the sentiment of improved

confidence from Q2. After the drops at the end of 2008, executive

confidence began to stabilize in Q1 2009, with increases being

seen across the board in Q2 2009. In the latest quarter, the positive

outlook on the performance of the learning function continued, as

confidence levels for most indices reached their highest values on

record. The overall Learning Executives Confidence Index (LXCI)

increased 1.3 points in Q3 2009, from 59.4 to 60.7. The LXCI

score of 60.7 on the 100-point scale was based on responses from

292 LXs to an online invitation-only survey, demonstrating that

collectively LXs expect their learning functions to remain the same

or marginally improve over the next six months.

ASTD created the LXCI to assess the outlooks and expectations of

learning executives for the coming six months, modeled on the CEO

Confidence Indices reported by Chief Executive Magazine and

The Conference Board. It provides a snapshot of LX confidence in

the future and factors in expectations of their learning function’s

ability to meet learning needs and to impact corporate productivity,

the status of learning as a key strategic component within their

organization, and the availability of resources for learning. LXs with

lower scores (0 to 49 on the scale) anticipate those aspects of their

learning functions to be moderately or substantially worse in the

next six months than they are today. Those with higher scores

(51 to 100 on the scale) expect those aspects of their learning

function to be moderately or substantially better.

The ASTD LXCI is a composite score for all LXs included in the

survey and reflects the expectations participating senior executives

have for learning over the next six months. The LXCI was launched

in August 2008 and will be assessed and tracked on a quarterly

basis to obtain a continual and evolving picture of how learning

executives see the near future for learning in their organizations.

Figure 30: Learning Executives Expectations for Next 6 Months

Q3 2008 Q4 2008 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009

Ability to meet learning

needs

Impact on corporate

perfromance

Status as key strategic component

Availability of resources

Overall LXCI

61.3 66

.0

65.4

49.3

60.5

55.0

61.6

61.4

43.6

55.4

55.3

63.6

61.2

40.8

55.258

.9

59.4

67.0

66.9

49.3

60.765

.2

65.2

48.5

59.4


LEARNING PROFESSIONALS’ INCOME

An annual ASTD member demographics survey of nearly 600

learning professionals reveals differences in earnings based on

a variety of factors. ASTD’s learning and performance professionals

are well-compensated, earning on average more than $83,000,

compared to the national average of $48,000.

Facilitating organizational change and managing the learning

function are the highest compensated areas of expertise, but human

performance improvement and delivering training are increasing

in importance and compensation level. The top two—managing the

learning function and facilitating organizational change—match

last year’s results. Last year, career planning and talent management

professionals were tied for third. The shaky economy could be

playing a role in the difference, with emphasis on employee

performance and the efficient delivery of training.

Table 7: ASTD Member Income DistributionASTD Member Salary

Average $83,570

25%.Quartile $57,000

Median $75,000

75%.Quartile $99,105

Table 8: Income by Area of Expertise

Which.of.the.following.is.your.primary.area.of.expertise?

All.Less.than.$57,000.

(Quartile.1)

$57,000.to.$69,999.(Quartile.2)

$70,000.to.$99,999.(Quartile.3)

$100,000.and.up.

(Quartile.4)

Managing.the.Learning.Function

25% 19% 23% 26% 31%

Delivering.Training

23% 44% 19% 17% 12%

Designing.Learning

22% 18% 36% 23% 10%

Improving.Human.Performance

9% 5% 6% 12% 12%

Facilitating.Organizational.Change

8% 4% 3% 7% 16%

Career.Planning.and.Talent.Management

4% 1% 2% 4% 8%

Managing.Organizational.Knowledge

4% 2% 2% 5% 6%

Coaching 2% 2% 0% 3% 1%

Measuring.and.Evaluating

1% 1% 0% 2% 2%

Other 2% 4% 9% 1% 2%

AD

-HO

C S

UR

VEY

S


DEFINITIONSDELIVERY 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 (for example, satellite,

video conference, and teleconference)

• Self-paced online (networked)

• Self-paced stand-alone (non-networked) computer-based

(for example, CD-ROM)

• Technology other than computer (for example, videotape,

audio CD, mobile)

• Self-paced nontechnology (for example, print)

• Other.

DIRECT LEARNING INVESTMENT Total direct costs for learning, including formal learning, work-based

learning, and learning function’s contribution to nontraining 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

• nonsalary development costs

• nonsalary 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 formal learning 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 number of

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. Utilizing training, learning

professionals connect the learning function to the improvement of

individual, group, and organizational performance. ASTD encourages

learning professionals to align their work to the strategic priorities

of organizations and those they serve, and to link employee learning

and development to improvements in individual, group, and


AP

PEN

DIX


AP

PEN

DIX BEST APPLICATION QUESTIONS

SECTION A: SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE LEARNING FUNCTION

1. Doestheenterprisehaveasenior-levelofficer(memberoftheexecutiveteam)withresponsibilityforenterprise-widelearning,knowledgemanagement,orotherhumancapitalmanagementfunctions?o Yeso No

2. Towhomdoesthelearningfunctionreport?o ChiefExecutiveOfficer(CEO)o ChiefOperatingOfficer(COO)o ChiefInformationOfficer(CIO)o ChiefHumanCapitalOfficer(CHCO)o VicePresident-HumanResourceso VicePresident-KnowledgeManagemento LineManagero Other(pleasespecify)_____________________

3. Identifythethreetofourmostcriticalbusinessissuestheenterpriseisfacing,anddescribewhatrolethelearningfunctionplaysinhelpingtosolveoraddvaluetothesolutionstotheseissues.(Pleaselimityouranswerto500wordsorless.)

4. Whatroledoesthelearningfunctionhaveinsettingand/orexecutingthestrategyoftheenterprise?(Pleaselimityouranswerto500wordsorless.)

SECTION B: EVIDENCE THAT LEARNING HAS VALUE IN THE CULTURE

5. Whatpercentageofyourorganization’semployees(a)haveaccessto,and(b)takeadvantageofthefollowinglearningopportunities?

Access TakeAdvantage

Formal(event-based)learningactivities(e.g.,classes,workshops,onlinecourses)

% %

Mentoringandcoaching % %

Knowledgesharing(e.g.,expertsoncall,communitiesofpractice)

% %

Knowledgebases(e.g.,searchablereferencematerials)

% %

Jobaids % %

Electronicperformancesupport % %

On-the-joblearning % %

Jobrotation % %

Tuitionreimbursement % %

Employer-supportedconferenceattendance

% %

Financialsupportformembershipsinprofessionalassociations

% %

Other(pleasespecify) % %

6. Whatpercentageofyourorganization’svicepresidentsandabovesupportlearninginthefollowingways:

7. Giveanexampleofhowtheenterpriseleveragedasuccessfullearninginitiativeandbroadenedtheimpactoflearningacrosstheenterprisetosupportbusinessobjectiveswithinthepast12months.Describetheinitiative(includingneedandlinktobusinessgoals,theaudience,design,andimplementation)anditsscopeofimpact.Provideevidenceandmetricstosupportstatementsofimpact.(Pleaselimityouranswerto500wordsorless.)

8. Describetheenterprise’smostinnovativelearninginitiative(includingneedandlinktobusinessgoals,theaudience,design,andimplementation)implementedwithinthepast12months.Iffullyimplemented,provideevidenceandmetricsofimpact.Ifearlyinimplementation,provideinitialresultsandanticipatedimpact.(Pleaselimityouranswerto500wordsorless.)

SECTION C: EVIDENCE OF A LINK BETWEEN LEARNING AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ENTERPRISE

ALIGNMENT9. Describetheprocessandreportingtoolstheenterpriseusestolink

learningtoindividualperformanceandtoorganizationalperformance.(Pleaselimityouranswerto500wordsorless.)

10. Describehowdecisionsaboutlearningandperformanceinitiativesaremadeintheenterprise:determinationofneed,selectionofapproach,design,development,andimplementation.

11. Towhatpercentageoftheenterprise’semployeesdothefollowingperformancemanagementpracticesapply?

Publicstatementsinsupportoflearning %

Participationinlearningeventsasaninstructororspeaker

%

Inclusionoflearningobjectivesaspartoftheirperformancegoals

%

Participationinperformancegoalsetting %

Annualperformancereviews %

Individualdevelopmentplans %

Peerreviewofperformanceor

360°feedbacksystems

%

Documentationofindividualcompetencies %

Trackingofemployees’learninghistory %


EFFECTIVENESS12. Which of the following metrics does the enterprise use to measure

performance? o Ability to retain essential employeeso Employee satisfaction o Quality of products/serviceso Cycle time reduction or improvemento Sales/revenues o Productivity improvemento Overall profitabilityo Other (please specify)

13. From the list above, select two (2) items and explain how learning contributed to the results achieved in the past 12 months. For each of the two items selected, indicate the level at which you started and where you are now on each of the metrics. (Please limit your answer to 500 words or less.)

EFFICIENCY14. Which of the following metrics do you use to rate the efficiency of the

enterprise’s learning function? o Content development costso Content development cycle timeo Time to deploy a new learning initiativeo Numbers of employees trained per training staff membero Travel and accommodation costso Number of employees trainedo Time to employee readiness or competenceo Cost savings realized through outsourcing learning initiatives o Other (please specify)

15. From the list above, select two (2) items and describe how you achieved efficiency in the past 12 months. For each of the two items selected, indicate the level at which you started and where you are now on each of the metrics. (Please limit your answer to 500 words or less.)

16. Which elements of the learning function do you outsource? Provide the rationale for the decision(s). If you do not outsource, provide the rationale for that decision. (Please limit your answer to 500 words or less.)

MEASUREMENT17. Describe the processes or systems and tools that you use to measure

and report on the activities and impact of the learning function across the enterprise. Include how you communicate the results beyond the learning function and into the business. (Please limit your answer to 500 words or less.)

LEARNING AND NON-LEARNING SOLUTIONS18. What percentage of the resources (staff time and focus, expenditures) of

the enterprise’s learning function was devoted to each of the following performance improvement solutions during the past 12 months?

19. Describe one non-learning performance improvement solution/initiative (see 18B) 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 (individual and/or organizational), how that impact was measured (include evidence of results), and (if appropriate) how learning activities were integrated with the non-learning solution. (Please limit your answer to 500 words or less.)

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, please specify: %

Total percentage Non-Learning solutions %

Total for learning & non-learning solutions should be 100%

%


SURVEY QUESTIONS

Note: In 2009, all organizations submitted their annual data using the WLP Scorecard®,including those organizations that also applied for the ASTD BEST Award. This page contains the survey instrument.

2008

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 investment in learning and performance

6. Percentage of total learning investment for outsourced activities

7. Percentage of total learning investment 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 made 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 nontechnology 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 nontechnology delivered (i.e., print)

(h) Other

AP

PEN

DIX


SUBSCRIBE TO ASTD’S WLP SCORECARD®

The WLP Scorecard® is ASTD’s online benchmarking, diagnostic, and prescriptive

tool for learning organizations. 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 DATAAdditional 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 who provided

data for the report. Much of the data can be accessed free of charge.

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

JOIN THE ASTD BENCHMARKING FORUM

Established in 1991, the ASTD Benchmarking Forum (BMF) is a consortium of private

and public sector organizations from around the world. The Benchmarking Forum 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 Forum

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 AWARD

ASTD 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, please visit www.astd.org/best.

ASTD RESEARCH STUDIES

ASTD Research conducts a wide variety of studies on topics of interest to the

workplace learning and performance profession. Recent study topics include

• Employee engagement

• Globally dispersed workforces

• Informal learning

• Talent management

• Executive development

• Sales training

• Web 2.0 technologies

• Learning in troubled economic times

• Measurement and evaluation practices

For more information, visit www.astd.org/content/research.

www.wlpscorecard.astd.org

www.astd.org/best

www.astd.org/content/research

mailto:[email protected]

ISBN 978-1-60728-360-7

9 781607 283607

6 9 5 0 0

0609

25.5

4710

790901 $695.00 (U.S.A.)

About ASTDASTD (the American Society for Training & Development) is the world’s largest professional association dedicated to the training and development field. In more than 100 countries, ASTD’s members work in organizations of all sizes, in the private and public sectors, as independent consultants, and as suppliers. Members connect locally in 133 U.S. chapters and with 30 international partners. ASTD started in 1943 and in recent years has widened the profession’s focus to align learning and performance to organizational results, and is a sought-after voice on critical public policy issues. For more information, visit www.astd.org.

PDF Cover

www.astd.org

www.astd.org

2009 ASTD State of the Industry Report

Documents

Transcript of 2009 ASTD State of the Industry Report