Download - 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]
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
3ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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.
5ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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.
6 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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
7ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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
Consolidated.(2008).by.Industry
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
Consolidated.(2008).by.Organization.Size
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
8 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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%
10 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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
Consolidated BMF BEST
*Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP scorecard.
11ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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.
Consolidated BMF BEST
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
*Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP scorecard.
12 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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)
Consolidated.(2008).by.Industry
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%
Consolidated.(2008).by.Organization.Size
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 BMF BEST
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
• profession- or industry-specific content
• IT and systems skills
• processes, procedures, and business practices.
The three areas to which the least content was devoted were
• new employee orientation
• 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
• profession- or industry-specific content
• IT and systems skills
• processes, procedures, and business practices.
The three areas to which the least content was devoted were
• basic skills
• executive development
• new employee orientation.
ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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%
* Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP Scorecard. Some historical data have been revised.
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.
ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
16 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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
Consolidated BMF BEST
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.
*Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP scorecard.
*Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP scorecard.
17ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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%
* Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP Scorecard. Some historical data have been revised.
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.
18 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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
organizational performance.
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.
ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT 19
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.
20 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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.
ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT 21
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%
22 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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
ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT 23
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%
24 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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.
25ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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
26 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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%
27ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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%
28 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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
*Consolidated data not available for 2005 because of transition to WLP scorecard.
29ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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
30 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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
ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT 31
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
organizational performance.
AP
PEN
DIX
32 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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 %
33ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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%
%
34 ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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
35ASTD 2009 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY REPORT
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.
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