Blog

94% of human resources professionals do not feel their personnel are adequately prepared to meet their companies’ future goals according to the State of the Global Talent Nation.  That number was 86% in 2007 and 64% in 2006…so it’s moving in the wrong direction.  The study was conducted by Softscape and discussed in CLO (Chief Learning Officer) Magazine.  A copy of the report is available by request through Softscape’s site.

The report looks at a variety of areas relating to human capital management.  I grabbed the following notable quotes that IMO reinforce the sense of urgency for reform in how learning and development is executed by most organizations:

1. Many HR professionals (35%) indicate that the majority of their employees have complex multi-function roles. This is also driving the need for more real-time employee development.
2. Most HR professionals (81%) say the lack of regular employee development opportunities is impacting overall employee retention.
3. Strategic HR functions are becoming more integrated and increasingly outsourced (41%). This includes functions for performance, compensation, succession, learning, and recruiting.

My thoughts…

#1  In an age of “complex multi-function roles” things change fast and formal training can’t carry the entire load.  With the pace that many organizations run and adapt, content is often obsolete upon receipt if it’s produced and distributed within the traditional timeline. 

This supports my belief that a change in how we define learning and development is needed before we can make significant strides in improving them.  First and foremost I see the two (learning and development) as two separate strategies with different definitions and distinct methodologies for executing successfully.

In the age of the knowledge worker, learning is more about providing easy access to necessary information than it is presenting content and hoping that it sticks around until the time it’s needed.  This is accomplished through incorporating social network analyses, communities of practice, a learning supply chain that can quickly distribute content on-demand (i.e. rapid elearning + SME), etc. into a diversified learning portfolio.  These more informal approaches better mimic how today’s workforce gets what they need - through their network and at the moment they need it. 

Development defined below…

#2  Development is long-term changes in mindset and/or behavior.  Many companies fall short of acheiving true development in their workforce because their tools consist of workshops and not much else.  Some companies tack on a personality assessment (i.e. DiSC, MBTI) but usually without any direct connection to how that information can be applied.  For true development to occur people must be given the opportunity to play with concepts, make decisions according to their new learning…they have to see the impact of their decisions and actions in order to drive new behavior.

Development programs rooted in action learning contain the elements needed for lasting change but they’re rare.  For the organizations that do leverage the power of action learning, they are not only exposing their teams to the best type of development possible, they’re also grooming leaders to perform at their best within the unique conditions of that organization and none other.

It’s these types of projects where participants feel real value and development - and therefore are more inclined to stick around.  If they feel the development they’re getting at your organization is better than what they would get elsewhere, you have a powerful retention tool.

#3  Another item mentioned in the report was the rise in learning outsourcing.  I take this as a sign that organizations are more and more seeing learning and development as strategic imperatives for success.  Expectations of learning and development have changed to the degree that traditional, formal training programs are no longer adequate on their own. 

Of course I’m biased but I do believe deeply that partnering with an external organization that is an expert in a service that isn’t your core function is a good idea in many scenarios.  This includes payroll, benefits, IT and of course…learning and development.  Outsourcing allows an organization to focus on their strengths while leveraging the core strengths of experts in fields that support their operation. 

Finally… 

The great news is that we’re watching an industry evolve.  Learning and development programs will look drastically different in just 10 years.  As workers that grew up on Facebook and MySpace enter the workforce they’ll have unique demands as we transition even further into becoming a knowledge workforce.     But we’re not there yet.

When I read that 94% of HR professionals felt they’re workforce wasn’t prepared to meet the company’s goals I was shocked at how high the number truly had gotten but, ultimately, wasn’t phased for too long.  We’re addressing 21st century challenges with a 20th century method and it’s not a fair fight.  The pace of business isn’t predicted to slow or revert anytime soon so guess who gets to adapt?

Professionally my circles encompass both the competencies traditionally linked with a CLO (i.e. strategy, outsourcing, etc.) and the world of progressive learning & development (i.e. communities of practice, action learning, etc.). 

Given all of the research and data out there showing the impact of the more informal approach to learning it’s ironic to me that these two worlds rarely overlap…but they don’t.

That was reinforced yesterday when Trainingoutsourcing.com announced the “2007 - Top 20 Companies in the Training Outsourcing Industry.”  When you look down the list they are mainly software-based training content providers.  This is no fault of trainingoutsourcing.com - they are clear on the metrics that it takes to make the list.  I’m wondering about the buyers.  If 80% of learning comes from the informal side of the house, where are the outsourcing purchases associated with it?

Granted, it is the ‘training’ outsourcing industry and not ‘learning’ outsourcing but that should just be semantics in 2007.  It seems that, regardless of the data that shows what’s effective, people want something tangible.  The components of informal learning are a little grayer, a little messier, tougher to predict and certainly more difficult to price appropriately.  It is possible though.  I know because I’ve done it. 

Oh well - forgive the rant because this is actually one of the things that I enjoy about being in the field that offers the more progressive approaches to something.  It’s not an easy sell and I like that.  I feel like we are the little guy (looking at the list linked above I’d say that’s an appropriate feeling) and there’re many mindsets to be changed before our wares are in the mainstream…and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

TrainingOutsourcing.com and Expertus have released the results of the the second part in their Training Challenges Survey Series.

In it the authors list the following highlights:

• While a vast majority of companies (82%) are now involved in global training, most training dollars are still spent on training delivered within home countries. Almost half of responding companies spend less than 10% of their annual training budgets on training delivered outside of home countries. In 37% of responding companies, employees outside of home countries receive less training than those employees located within home countries.

• 62% of companies managed global training through a centralized learning organization. However, 42% of respondents had training staff located in
U.S. and non-U.S. countries.

• English is by far the most commonly used language for training (95%). Almost 40% of companies use Spanish, 30% use French, 25% use Chinese, and 25% use German.

• In 58% of companies, all employees have access to e-learning.

• The top challenges identified by respondents are budget constraints (48%), content localization and translation (40%), effective learning delivery (39%), and maximization of e-learning (34%).

• Training delivery (36%), content development (35%), and technical services (26%) are the most frequently outsourced services.

The first bullet was a surprise - that 82% of those surveyed are involved in global training  but almost half of those spend less than 10% of their training budget on those outside the home country.  I’ve taken enough statistics in my life to not read too much into numbers - I’m just curious what lay behind that data.

The rest is good baseline data for the learning and development field - I look forward to the rest of the series.

A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

This is the basic underpinning to the concept of Net Present Value (NPV) in finance.  Given the option, businesses are going to want their money in their own hands until the last possible second.  The more time a company can hold on to their money, the more of a return the money can generate for the company. 

This is the reason for some magazines offering subcriptions that steadily reduce as the years go on if you pay for them today.  They want that money now!  Even if it’s less than the full subscription you would have paid in three years, they would rather have it today to improve cashflow, invest, etc.

We discussed NPV in the Level 6: Beyond ROI class while I was at the CLO Institute in January.  Ever since then I’ve been playing with the idea of NPV and how it relates to methods of learning that don’t fall under the category of ‘traditional.’ 

I decided to write after reading the July edition of Education Signals.  One section of the report was about the ’Top 20 Companies in the Training Outsourcing Industry’ that is compiled by TrainingOutsourcing.com.  In it, the authors share the following data points:

“The largest percentage of revenue from the leading players came from content development (35%) and training delivery (30%) services.”

Content design/development obviously comes at or near the beginning of a training outsourcing initiative.  That means that over 1/3 of the money of contracts is in the hands of the training supplier soon after the project begins.    

If I were in a position to be hiring a training outsourcing firm, I would look for a deal where the fees weren’t so front-loaded.  I would want to keep my money as long as I could and let it make more money for me. 

Enter informal learning (i.e. communities of practice, blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc.).  As illustrated in this post from Jay Cross, and as others have been preaching, much of learning doesn’t come from ‘content.’  It comes through the informal and unscheduled channels of an organization.

Informal learning may have an additional advantage.  Since there isn’t near the level of design/development required for informal methods as there is for more formal events such as workshops and e-learning modules, a company that was buying these services from an outsourcing company would pay less up front.  This allows them to keep their money longer and let it make more money for them.

Although I’ve only cited one report that I’m basing this post on, I came from the instructional design world.  We charged crazy fees (usually way more than 35% of the total contract) for design/development at my old firm and that was the first thing the client paid for.  I also realize that there is a need for some structured content in a company’s learning and development plans - I just think it should be provided in minimal chunks.

I’m suggesting services that would be a double win for companies purchasing training outsourcing.  With more informal elements in the mix to create a more diverse learning portfolio the client would not only receive more effective learning and development, they would pay less up front and get to make money from the money that they would have spent on instructional design and development fees.

Note:  I’m consciously not addressing the area where training outsourcing firms make the second most amount of money - the 30% from delivery of training services.  Informal learning, by nature, requires less delivery than its traditional counterpart.  For this post, though, I wanted to emphasize the benefits of not paying design/development fees up front.