stateofe learning fullreport-ddi

in partnership with

and

Developing Soft Skills

The State of

E-Learning

The State of E-Learning:Developing Soft SkillsBy Paul Bernthal, Pete Weaver, and Richard Wellins

HR Benchmark GroupVolume 4, Issue 1

July 2002

About the DDI HR Benchmark GroupThe DDI HR Benchmark Group is an alliance of organizations committed to sharinginformation and benchmarking current HRpractices. These organizations, an internationalmix of DDI clients and non-clients, have agreedto respond to periodic surveys in order toprovide current information in various areas ofhuman resources. The organizations representa geographical and industry cross section.

About DDIDevelopment Dimensions International (DDI) is an international human resource companythat specializes in helping clients improve theirbusiness performance by aligning peoplestrategies with business strategies.

About TrainingFor nearly four decades Training has been thebusiness magazine of choice for executivescharged with training and human resourcedevelopment initiatives within their organizations.

About Online LearningOnline Learning magazine analyzes andassesses vendors and their products, challengescurrent market thinking, and offers market-savvypredictions.

Benchmark ReportsVolume 1: 1997–1998Issue 1—A Survey of Trust in the Workplace

Issue 2—Performance Management Practices Survey Report

Issue 3—Workforce Development Practices Survey Report

Issue 4—Job/Role Competency Practices Survey Report

Volume 2: 1998–1999Issue 1—Succession Management Practices Survey Report

Issue 2—Recruitment and Selection Practices Survey Report

Volume 3: 2000–2001Issue 1—The Globalization of Human Resource Practices Survey Report

Issue 2—Retaining Talent: A BenchmarkingStudy

Volume 4: 2002–2003Issue 1—The State of E-Learning: DevelopingSoft Skills

Special ReportsGlobal High-Performance Work Practices:A Benchmarking Study (1998)

The Leadership Forecast: A BenchmarkingStudy (1999)

Leadership Forecast 2001: A Benchmarking Study

To order previous or additional reports, call:1-800-DDI-1514 (1-800-334-1514)

For more information or to join the HRBenchmark Group, visit us at:www.ddiworld.com/resources/benchmark.asp

Or contact:Paul Bernthal, Ph.D., ManagerCenter for Applied Behavioral ResearchDevelopment Dimensions International1225 Washington Pike, Bridgeville, PA 15017Phone: 412-257-7533 • Fax: 412-220-5204E-mail: [email protected]

ContentsPurpose ................................................................................................................1

Definition................................................................................................................2

Respondents and Methods....................................................................................3

The Case for E-Learning ......................................................................................4

Delivery of E-Learning ..........................................................................................6

E-Learning Effectiveness and Barriers to Effectiveness ......................................14

Impact of E-Learning ..........................................................................................23

Conclusions ........................................................................................................29

Appendix A ..........................................................................................................32

Appendix B ..........................................................................................................33

Participating Organizations..................................................................................34

About DDI ............................................................................................................36

© Development Dimensions International, Inc., MMII. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved under U.S., International, and Universal Copyright Conventions. Reproduction in whole or part without written permission from DDI is prohibited.

The State of E-Learning: Developing Soft Skills 1

PurposeRapid growth in the past five years has catapulted e-Learning into a $10-billion industry (Adkins, 2001).1 Inan attempt to keep up with the new technology, analysts’predictions about the evolution of e-Learning sometimeschange as fast as the industry itself. While newtechnology adds excitement and new areas for growth,human resource professionals must figure out whichtrends are real and which are passing fads.

The results of this study can help HR professionalsunderstand the many issues associated with selecting,implementing, and promoting e-Learning for soft skills.Of particular note, this study focuses specifically on therole of e-Learning in the development of soft skills. Mostexisting e-Learning studies and reports do not differentiatethe types of skill development. By their less tangiblenature, soft skills may present special challenges in the e-Learning arena.

1Adkins, S.S. (2001). Market analysis of the 2002 U.S. e-learningindustry: Convergence, consolidation, and commoditization.Sunnyvale, CA: Brandon-Hall.com.

Study Objectives

1. Understand the

advantages and

disadvantages of

e-Learning.

2. Benchmark current and

future use of e-Learning

technology.

3. Determine effectiveness

of e-Learning methods.

4. Describe the impact of

e-Learning on the HR

function.

While general e-Learning

receives much attention

in industry publications

and research studies, few

studies have focused

exclusively on the

application of e-Learning

for soft skills.

DefinitionAlthough a commonly used term, “e-Learning” can meandifferent things depending on the context and theaudience. In this study we used the following definition of e-Learning:

Instructional content or learning experiencesdelivered or enabled by computer-basedtechnology.

This definition of e-Learning includes practices such as web-based training (WBT), computer-based training(CBT), and CD-ROM. The definition also includeslearning resources that are less frequently classified as e-Learning, such as e-mail or voice mail (both of whichare enabled by the use of a computer).

While general e-Learning receives much attention inindustry publications and research studies, few studieshave focused exclusively on the application of e-Learningfor soft skills. We used the following definition of softskills:

Personal and interpersonal behaviors that develop and maximize human performance (for example, leadership, coaching, teambuilding, decision making, initiative). Soft skillsdo not include technical skills, such as financial, computer, quality, or assembly skills.

2 The State of E-Learning

Respondents and MethodsSurveys were sent to members of the DDI HR Benchmark Group, an international alliance oforganizations committed to sharing information andbenchmarking current HR practices. In addition,subscribers to Online Learning magazine completed the survey.

A total of 139 organizations from 15 countries respondedto the survey. Slightly more than half (56 percent) areheadquartered in the United States. We recommend thatall results presented in this report be interpreted in light ofthe demographic profile of the sample. A complete listingof participating organizations and their demographicsappears at the end of the report.

Developing Soft Skills 3

The Case for E-LearningThere are many reasons why an organization would want to use e-Learning. We created a list of 17 potentialreasons based on a literature review. Respondents wereasked to identify all the reasons why their organizationdecided to use e-Learning for developing soft skills.We submitted the ratings of these 17 items to a principlecomponents factor analysis to determine which itemstended to cluster together. This analysis yielded fourprimary factors or clusters (see Table 1).

Factor 1: Improving Learning Efficiency

In traditional learning paradigms, learners usually attend ascheduled session that requires them to spend time awayfrom the job. Often, these sessions are led by a facilitator,require travel, and are limited to a preset list of topics.With the advent of e-Learning delivery methods, most ofthese restrictions no longer apply. Increased flexibility oflearning was the most common reason for introducing e-Learning methods. Other benefits such as just-in-timedelivery, reduced travel, reduced costs, and increasedvariety add to the appeal of e-Learning.

Factor 2: Extending Global Reach

Although it is a unique benefit that might not apply to all organizations, e-Learning’s global reach allowsorganizations to offer a wide variety of learning optionsregardless of employee location. Web-based learning,electronic performance support systems (EPSS), and CD-ROMs can be delivered anywhere in the world, aslong as the appropriate equipment and infrastructure are present.

Factor 3: Maximizing Impact and Integration

Some organizations believe that by offering e-Learningthey will increase the overall effectiveness and impact oflearning. Given that learners have different learning styles


Increased flexibility of

learning was the most

common reason for

introducing e-Learning

methods.

and preferences, it makes sense that a greater variety ofoptions will facilitate learning. Additionally, e-Learningtechnology has begun to blur the lines between learningand development and other organizational systems.For example, several different electronically basedmethods can link assessment, learning experiences, andperformance management into a single process.

Factor 4: Responding to Demand

Partly because of the high levels of attention it hasreceived in recent years, e-Learning has become anoption sometimes requested by learners and theirmanagers. It’s hard not to feel left behind when there is so much focus in the popular media on advances inlearning technology. However, internal demand is not astrong influence driving the adoption of e-Learning. Theoverall demand for e-Learning from within the organizationhas been low (16 percent).

Table 1: Reasons for using e-Learning.

59% Improving Learning Efficiency

78% Increase flexibility of learning (e.g., learn at one’s own pace)

71% Allow learning to be delivered just-in-time when it is needed

62% Reduce amount of travel for learning and development

61% Reduce amount of time learners spend away from the job

58% Reduce long-term costs

53% Increase variety or amount of learning resources

29% Give HR or training staff more time to do other things

47% Extending Global Reach

47% Global reach—meeting the needs of geographically dispersed employees

42% Maximizing Impact and Integration

48% Improve the overall effectiveness or impact of learning

35% Increase the level of integration between learning and development and other systems

16% Responding to Demand

19% Learners have asked for this method of learning delivery

15% Senior management expects or demands this method of learning delivery

14% Desire to keep up with what other organizations are doing (don’t want to be left behind)


Internal demand is not a

strong influence driving the

adoption of e-Learning.

(Numbers indicate the percentage of organizations selecting the reason.)

Delivery of E-LearningThe use of e-Learning for soft skills will continue to grow.

When comparing past, current, and future use of e-Learning methods, a strong upward trend emerges (see Figure 1). In 1999 most soft skills learning resources(87 percent) were delivered in a classroom setting.During the next two years, the number dropped to 77percent. Respondents indicated that, in the near future, e-Learning delivery will be used for 42 percent of all softskills learning resources.

Although the growth trend observed in this study isencouraging, the excitement about e-Learning may be greater than the actual growth rates. Adkins (2001)predicts that the adoption rate for e-Learning is likely to be 15 to 20 percent.2

In their 2002 State of the Industry report, Van Buren andErskine of ASTD state, “The growth of e-Learning and the decline of instructor-led classroom training has beenwidely heralded for several years.”3 However, theyobserved that many of the expected increases in e-Learning usage had not materialized. As a caveat totheir conclusions, they cautioned that organizations usingblended learning approaches (for example, classroominstruction combined with e-Learning technology) mighthave categorized these approaches as classroomlearning. In the future, it will not be so easy to classifylearning experiences as either e-Learning or non-e-Learning based.

2Ibid.

3Van Buren W., & Erskine, M. (2002). State of the industry report 2002:ASTD’s annual review of trends in employer-provider training in theUnited States. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.


The excitement about

e-Learning may be

greater than the actual

growth rates.

Electronic technology is seeping in to all aspects of theworkplace, and even traditional classroom delivery oftencontains elements of e-Learning. We asked respondentshow many of their soft skills learning programs wereoffered in more than one format and how many learningprograms used a blend of delivery formats. Only 13percent of organizations offered the same soft skillslearning content in more than one format. Additionally,few organizations (18 percent) in our sample were offeringlearning programs that used a blend of delivery methods.Although these numbers are not high, we predict thatmany organizations will eventually diversify their learningformats and take elements of different delivery options to create the best programs possible. At this point, e-Learning is still in its infancy, but is continuing to growand evolve rapidly.

��

��

��

��

�� !"""

��

��!#

��

��#

�� $%%!

��#�

��!

��

��

�� $%%�

Figure 1: Past, current, and future use of learning delivery methods.


We predict that many

organizations will eventually

diversify their learning

formats and take elements

of different delivery options

to create the best programs

possible.

Most e-Learning programs address technical skills.

Many early e-Learning applications focused on technicalskills. The process for learning how to use software orfollow a safety procedure, for instance, could easily bebroken down into a series of objective steps and deliveredin an automated format to one person. Because soft skillsare more interpersonally focused, most past learningdelivery methods relied on human interaction and wereless structured. As shown in Figure 2, most e-Learningdelivery still focuses on technical or other non-soft skills.Even so, soft skills do represent a significant proportion(33%) of the topics addressed through e-Learning.


��&��'�� %

��'��

��

Figure 2: Topics addressed by e-Learning.

Most e-Learning delivery

still focuses on technical

or other non-soft skills.

Most e-Learning programs are developedexternally.

Not many organizations have the resources or expertiserequired to create and deliver their own e-Learningprograms. Consequently, they often look to externalvendors to provide or co-develop the programs.

We asked respondents to indicate the percentage of e-Learning resources that were developed internally,externally, or through other methods (for example, co-development). Results show that more than half of e-Learning programs are developed externally (see Figure 3).

The challenge for organizations will be to determine whichexternally developed programs are of high quality andmeet the needs of their learners. Recently, severalorganizations such as ASTD have offered rating andcertification systems to help HR select the best programs.Although these systems may be useful, changingstandards will require constant updating and modificationof the rating system.

��(��)*��&��#�

��(��+&��&��$

��!#

Figure 3: Origin of e-Learning programs.


The challenge for

organizations will be to

determine which externally

developed programs are of

high quality and meet the

needs of their learners.

E-Learning is more effective when organizationsuse a learning portal or a learning managementsystem (LMS).

The diversification of learning options can be confusingand difficult to manage. Along with the growth of e-Learning technology, we have seen a correspondinggrowth in the use of learning portals and learningmanagement systems (LMS). These tools are defined as follows:

Learning Portal—A public or commercial siteaccessed on the Internet or an intranet using abrowser. Learning portals offer a large numberand variety of courses and other curricula/learning assets.

Learning Management System (LMS)—Asoftware platform to register students, launchand manage courses, track performance oflearners, associate courses with competencies,manage skill gaps, schedule venues andinstructors, and perform related activities.

About 40 percent of organizations in our sample use alearning portal or an LMS (see Figures 4 and 5). Aboutone quarter (24 percent) have both systems in place.Most organizations with a learning portal report that theyoperate the portal internally (70 percent). Although thesenumbers are not high, many of the respondents indicatedthat they were investigating the possibility of introducingthese systems. Using a learning portal and an LMS helpsorganizations organize and keep track of their many e-Learning options.


Using a learning portal and

an LMS helps organizations

organize and keep track of

their many e-Learning

options.

Analyses revealed that the perceived effectiveness of e-Learning in the organization is significantly higher whenorganizations use either a learning portal or an LMS.However, these tools are less likely to be used byorganizations first venturing into e-Learning and may beindicative of a more advanced or developed approach toe-Learning. Perhaps the use of a learning portal or anLMS indicates the seriousness with which theorganization has embraced e-Learning and the degree ofimplementation. We would expect organizations withmore invested in e-Learning to be more satisfied with theirimplementations.

,��! -�

��

-�.�/0�+&��1��&1

$!

Figure 4: Do you have a learning portal?

,��

-�$"

-�.�/0�+&��1��&1

��

Figure 5: Do you have a learning managementsystem (LMS)?


Perhaps the use of a

learning portal or an LMS

indicates the seriousness

with which the organization

has embraced e-Learning.

Organizations predict the greatest increase in the use of web-based learning and electronicperformance support systems (EPSS).

E-Learning encompasses a wide range of learningformats, and not all are being used to the same extent or growing at the same rate. We asked respondents toindicate the percentage of learning resources for soft skills that are delivered using 10 e-Learning formats.Respondents offered estimates for both today and for the next two years. Because resources can be deliveredusing multiple formats, we did not require that their totalestimates equal 100 percent. Figure 6 shows thepercentages for both current and expected use.(Appendix A contains definitions of all formats listed in Figure 6.)

None of the formats are being used by more than half of the organizations in our sample. Currently, e-mail (37 percent), telephone conferencing (18 percent), andweb-based learning (17 percent) are the mostly commonlyused delivery methods for developing soft skills. Overall,web-based learning and EPSS show the greatestpercentage-point increase in use over the next two years.These two delivery methods are newer than e-mail andtelephone conferencing and are currently receiving moreattention.


Overall, web-based learning

and EPSS show the

greatest percentage-point

increase in use over the

next two years.

� � ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

! ��"��

Current

Expected

#�

��$

��

��

��

��

%&��

'�()�� )��*��+

�,��-&*��

%.��

%�� (� �')��'+��(�/%''0

12&,��3��

��2��'��

Figure 6: Changes in use of e-Learning methods.


E-Learning Effectiveness and Barriers to EffectivenessIt can take years for e-Learning programs torealize maximum effectiveness.

Launching e-Learning programs can present manychallenges for organizations. Along with building internalsupport for changes, organizations must develop theappropriate infrastructure and determine criteria forselecting the best learning options. All of these challengesmay make it difficult for organizations to produce thedesired results.

We asked survey respondents to rate the overall effectiveness of their organizations’ use of e-Learning for soft skills. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = Not at all effective; 10 = Extremely effective),respondents provided an average rating of 3.9.Almost three quarters (73 percent) rated their currenteffectiveness at a 5 or lower. However, e-Learningeffectiveness does increase over time. Organizationsusing e-Learning for five years or more were significantlymore likely to provide positive ratings (see Figure 7).


Figure 7: Effectiveness of e-Learning over time.

Along with building internal

support for changes,

organizations must

develop the appropriate

infrastructure and determine

criteria for selecting the best

learning options.

We also asked users to rate the effectiveness of thevarious e-Learning delivery methods (see Figure 8).All programs were rated between slightly and moderatelyeffective. The most effective programs were simulators or virtual reality, EPPS, and web-based learning.

The effectiveness ratings for e-Learning tend to be much lower than effectiveness ratings for traditional classroominstruction. In an informal survey of 30 HR professionalsconducted during a DDI web-based seminar in 2002,average effectiveness ratings for classroom learning was a 3.4 (on a 4-point scale). The low ratings for soft-skills e-Learning effectiveness is troubling. HR will needto continue its focus on removing barriers and enhancingoverall effectiveness.

� � � �

�4��

5��%��"

��

��2��'��

! ��"��

��

%.��

�,��-&*��

%&��

12&,��3��

%�� (� �')��'+��(�/%''0

'�()�� )��*��+

�4��

�4��

�4�#

�4��

�4$�

�4$�

�4��

�4��

�4�#

'��+%��"

��+%��"

�+%��"

Figure 8: Effectiveness of e-Learning methods.


The effectiveness ratings for

e-Learning tend to be much

lower than effectiveness

ratings for traditional

classroom instruction.

Organizations are most concerned about thecontent and quality of e-Learning programs.

Organizations encounter a broad range of barriers thatreduce the effectiveness of e-Learning programs. Weasked respondents to indicate the largest barriers theirorganizations had encountered when using e-Learning to develop soft skills. Statistical analyses of theirresponses yielded five major clusters of barriers (see Table 2).


Table 2: Barriers to e-Learning.

43% Concerns about Content and Use

47% Concern about the content quality of e-Learning programs

42% Difficulty finding e-Learning that effectively covers the right topics

40% Doubt that learners will use the learning resources on their own

36% Not Ready for E-Learning

45% Lack of resources to develop the e-Learning programs needed

43% Lack of funding

37% Lack of an e-Learning strategy

18% Lack of support from senior management

31% Technical Issues

40% Lack of necessary equipment or infrastructure to support e-Learning

37% Technical problems or issues—breakdowns, incompatibility, bandwidth, etc.

16% Security issues—viruses, privacy, hacking, etc.

27% Low Receptivity

29% Lack of receptivity to e-Learning in workforce

25% Low participation rates in e-Learning programs

3% Impact on HR Staff

3% Concern that e-Learning will reduce the need for HR or training staff

Barrier 1: Concerns about Content and Use

Currently, there are no standards for ensuring the qualityof e-Learning offerings that are accepted by all providersand users. Some groups do “certify” vendor programs or evaluate offerings in terms of a set of predeterminedcriteria. However, Adkins states, “The adoption ofstandards that aren’t compatible with new integratedplatforms, blended services, and evolving learningtechnology may actually impede the adoption of e-Learning in some sectors.”4 The number oforganizations selling e-Learning programs is large, and organizations have difficulty determining the bestprograms for their needs.

Organizations also worry that learners will not use the e-Learning resources on their own. If organizations do not provide high-quality e-Learning offerings, learners willnot participate. Some HR professionals may also beconcerned that learners won’t feel motivated to completee-Learning offerings even when programs are of thehighest quality. Personal motivation may not be asufficient driver to ensure the widespread use of e-Learning resources. The mere presence of e-Learningis not enough to ensure its success. As with any learningprogram, e-Learning must address a clear need, provideappropriate content, and be delivered effectively.

4Adkins, S.S. (2001). Market analysis of the 2002 U.S. e-learningindustry: Convergence, consolidation, and commoditization (p. 33).Sunnyvale, CA: Brandon-Hall.com.


The mere presence of

e-Learning is not enough

to ensure its success.

The type of e-Learning resources provided can make a big difference for learner acceptance. We askedrespondents to rate the effectiveness of two e-Learningdelivery methods for developing soft skills:

Synchronous—All learners participate in thelearning event at the same time, although notnecessarily at the same location (for example,chat rooms, videoconferences, learningsessions with a facilitator).

Asynchronous—Learners do not participate in the learning event at the same time (forexample, videotaped lectures, bulletin boards,WBT, CD-ROM).

Overall, interactive synchronous learning approacheswere perceived as more effective than asynchronousapproaches (see Figure 9).


��)��#% 2��)��

$"

-��)��

��&��&�0��3��&�&1

��1��)��!# ��

)��!

��1��)��$

2��)��!$

4��&��&�0��3��&�&1

-��)��!#

Figure 9: Comparison of synchronous and asynchronous e-Learning approaches.


Barrier 2: Not Ready for E-Learning

Successfully introducing change in an organizationusually requires a good strategy, a communication plan,the involvement of internal resources, support from senior management, and a budget. A fair percentage oforganizations in our sample encountered problems inseveral of these areas. Many do not have the resourcesor funding to develop or introduce the types of programsthey would like to use. Additionally, they may lack astrategy and clear support from senior management.

Figure 10 shows that few organizations (25 percent) in our sample have a clear strategy for how they plan toimplement e-Learning programs. Still, organizationsrealize that a good strategy can make a difference, andthey are either working to put one together or hope tocreate one in the near future.

The bottom line is that many organizations just aren’tprepared to do all of the things it takes to make e-Learning successful. Change takes time to implement,and the organizations in our sample are experiencingsome obvious growing pains.

The bottom line is that

many organizations just

aren’t prepared to do all of

the things it takes to make

e-Learning successful.

��(�&1��1��#

5��1�$#

-��1�6�-��&��(

�

-��1�67�&��(��&�

$$

Figure 10: State of e-Learning strategy.

Barrier 3: Technical Issues

By definition, e-Learning requires a specific technicalinfrastructure and technical resources to ensure success.Few organizations are equipped with the right computerresources and support systems to allow e-Learningfunctionality for all eligible learners. Even if anorganization can provide the necessary equipment andsupport, those resources may quickly become obsolete ifthe technology changes significantly. Issues associatedwith bandwidth, reliability, and security make the technicalaspect even more complicated.

Streaming video is becoming an increasingly popularmethod for delivering e-Learning on the computer. Tobetter understand the viability of video-based learning, we asked organizations to provide information about thepercentage of employees who play video on their desktopcomputers for learning and development purposes. Only44 percent of all employees of the organizations in oursample are permitted to play streaming video and havethe necessary software. Of that group, only 23 percentactually use their computers for learning and developmentpurposes. Thus, only 10 percent of all learners are using their computers to play video for learning anddevelopment (44 percent times 23 percent). This rathersmall percentage indicates that even when learners havethe necessary equipment and software, they may notmake use of the capability.


Few organizations are

equipped with the right

computer resources and

support systems to allow

e-Learning functionality for

all eligible learners.

Barrier 4: Low Receptivity

Moving to an e-Learning platform represents afundamental shift in how organizations provide learningresources for their employees. Classroom instruction has been taking place for centuries, and most learners are accustomed to receiving instruction in this well-established format. Although e-Learning offers someobvious advantages, not all learners are receptive to it.Some learners may see e-Learning as an infringement ontheir busy work schedules. Others might like the idea ofseparating learning from the daily work routine, and theymight enjoy the high level of interaction in the classroom.

Regardless of the reason, some organizations (27percent) experience resistance or apathy from learnerswhen attempting to promote e-Learning. As with anyprogram, learners must be motivated to participate andshould be held accountable for acquiring new skills.These requirements are especially salient in the context of e-Learning, because the learning is often at thelearners’ discretion. This can be a difficult adjustment formany. Through years of formal education many learnersmay be accustomed to the structure of an educationsystem that incorporates grading and strict accountabilityfor compliance.

Barrier 5: Impact on HR Staff

Few respondents in our sample are concerned that e-Learning will reduce the need for HR or training staff.Although e-Learning could potentially reduce the numberof classroom sessions, its presence introduces a new setof demands and opportunities for HR. HR professionalsmust now manage learning management systems,evaluate e-Learning offerings, communicate and educate,and perform a whole new list of activities. We asked HRprofessionals if the introduction of e-Learning in theirorganizations had changed their roles. Nearly half (40 percent) indicated that their job roles had changed.


Although e-Learning offers

some obvious advantages,

not all learners are

receptive to it.

For many HR professionals,

the range of e-Learning

options can be

overwhelming.

Figure 11 shows the types of changes HR professionalshave observed in their roles. For many HR professionals,the range of e-Learning options can be overwhelming.As a result, they are forced to become knowledgeable in many new areas. In addition, HR professionals areexpanding their responsibilities to include strategycreation, consulting, and program coordination. Finally,some professionals find that the new e-Learning optionsare putting a strain on their resources and budgets.


+&��-��8&�9��1��&��)�0��&��5:��

�%)*(�&��5:�:��

;��1��.��&��<$

=��&��&5:�:��0��

!!

��&��0�$�

Figure 11: E-Learning impact on the role of HR.

Sample Comments about the Changing Role of HR Professionals• “A challenge is finding the best mix of programs and delivery methods—

these are always changing!”• “My role has become more of a consultative one, where I will often search

for learning solutions from other sources rather than creating theminternally.”

• “I must try to stay informed of advances in e-Learning—what theopportunities are and the cost. Also need to learn how to author courses in e-Learning format.”

• “Grown from managing a program of just over 100 different titles with limitedassociate access to one having close to 300 different courses available tothe entire associate base of approximately 5,000. This now includesinternally developed content as well as vendor content.”

Impact of E-LearningEach organization may experience a variety of outcomesas a result of using e-Learning technology. Althoughmany organizations hope to improve the efficiency andavailability of learning by introducing e-Learning, they mayrealize other related outcomes. We created a list of 14potential outcomes of e-Learning and asked respondentsto indicate if the outcome had decreased, stayed thesame, or increased as a result of using e-Learningtechnology. Figure 12 shows the net change(organizations indicating an increase minus organizationsindicating a decrease) in outcomes. We also conductedan analysis to see if the outcomes clustered into uniquefactors. The following four factors represent many of thecommon outcomes of e-Learning.

Outcome 1: E-Learning promotes participation in learning activities.

Some of the most apparent increases in Figure 12 relateto the greater utilization of learning resources within the organization. Simply by increasing the diversity oftraining options and making the training more accessible,people are more likely to take advantage of learningopportunities. Learners have different needs, and manylike the flexibility that e-Learning offers. Interestingly,several organizations noted that a greater “learningculture” had begun to develop as a result of introducing e-Learning programs.


Several organizations noted

that a greater “learning

culture” had begun to

develop as a result of

introducing e-Learning

programs.

By increasing the flexibility of learning, organizations canshow that learning is a priority and that they are takingsteps to make it easier.

The first cluster of outcomes included the following:• Availability or accessibility of learning options

(73 percent)• Employees participating in learning activities

(53 percent)• Focus on the individual needs of the learner

(35 percent)• Presence of a “learning culture” in the organization

(34 percent)• Time employees spend learning (29 percent)


6��7

6��7

�� ! �� ! ��-��

��

5)(2�� "��( ��) ��

��(�� 8�8��9��(�.�() ��)��"��+

�� +�� (��+��

*�)�� 3:-�) ��

��(�(��+��

�� ;�� )��)�<��

=��)�� "��)��

�� +�� >)��+�� (�

��(��"��( ��

6��7

�7

#7

�#7

�#7

��7

��7

�$7

�$7

6��7 �7 ��7 ��7 $�7 ��7

��)�( �� )��(�

%(��+�� "��

5��(� ��)� � �� "��( ��/*�!0

?"��2��+��2��+��

�#7

��7

��7

��7

Figure 12: Net change in outcomes as a result of e-Learning.

Outcome 2: E-Learning increases the need todemonstrate impact and ROI.

About half of the organizations in our sample haveexperienced an increased need to measure anddemonstrate the return on investment (ROI) of e-Learning.Although e-Learning programs might not cost more than traditional learning programs, the introduction of e-Learning often requires substantial investments inequipment and technical infrastructure.

To justify the investment, HR must prove several points.First, HR must show that e-Learning programs are aseffective or more effective than traditional learningprograms. Next, it needs to demonstrate that a real needexists for e-Learning programs and that their introductionwill offer some benefit to the learner and/or theorganization. After all, if employees are already learningeffectively, why introduce changes? The need todemonstrate added value is a key component of most new programs or approaches.

The second cluster of outcomes included the following:• Need to demonstrate return on investment (ROI)

(54 percent)• Measurement of learning outcomes (39 percent)


The need to demonstrate

added value is a key

component of most new

programs or approaches.

Outcome 3: E-Learning can improve the qualityof the learning experience.

In the past, learning programs may not have been wellintegrated or consistent in quality. The use of e-Learninghas forced organizations to pay greater attention to thequality and content of the programs they use. While it istrue that greater consistency does not assume greaterquality, some respondents (36 percent) indicated acorresponding increase.

E-Learning may require a better planned approach and a careful review of content. Many organizations have hadto review their entire range of learning and developmentofferings to see how e-Learning can play a role. HRprofessionals have become more educated about learningdelivery options and are now more savvy about theirchoices. As a result, some HR professionals are doing abetter job of choosing the right programs and areimproving their reputations within the organization. As aside effect, HR is becoming more efficient and maychoose to restructure its staff as new roles andresponsibilities develop.

The third cluster of outcomes included the following:• Consistency in quality of learning programs

(36 percent)• Reputation of the L&D function in the organization

(29 percent)• Number of staff in the learning and development

function (–12 percent)


E-Learning may require a

better planned approach

and a careful review of

content.

Outcome 4: E-Learning might reduce long-termcosts for learners.

A fourth cluster of outcomes addressed the costsassociated with e-Learning. About one-third oforganizations (36 percent) pointed out that programdevelopment costs have increased with the introduction of e-Learning programs. Some (9 percent) also indicatethat the amount of money spent on employee learning hasincreased. Although these costs may have increased,slightly more than one quarter (28 percent) oforganizations indicate that the overall cost per learner hasdecreased.

The fourth cluster of outcomes included the following:• Program development costs (36 percent)• Money spent on employee learning (9 percent)• Time for new workers to reach maximum productivity

(5 percent)• Cost per learner (–28 percent)

How can an organization spend more money on employeelearning but have a reduced cost per learner? Several of the questions in our survey dealt with the costs ofpurchasing, implementing, and maintaining e-Learningprograms. Figure 13 shows that more than half of theorganizations in our sample feel that classroom-basedprograms should cost more than e-Learning-basedprograms. Essentially, many believe e-Learning shouldnot cost as much to purchase. However, when estimatingwhich type of program costs more to implement,organizations are almost evenly split between classroom-based and e-Learning. Each type of program has uniquecosts that make it hard to give either approach anadvantage in terms of implementation.


More than half of the

organizations in our sample

feel that classroom-based

programs should cost more

than e-Learning-based

programs.

Finally, we see the real value of e-Learning in estimates of long-term costs. A large majority of organizations (84 percent) believe that in the long-run, the costs of e-Learning are less than the costs of classroom delivery.Once the e-Learning programs are set up and running,HR no longer needs to invest much more money beyondthe initial outlay. Thus, long-term costs per learner may be reduced.


��)�3��&�&1��1��

#%

��)�3��&�&1��1��3��

�$

��4/�0��

��+&��0��)�3��&�&1��>��

)�3��&�&1��1��3��

��4/�0��

"

)�3��&�&1��1��

3�&1��)�3��&�&1��>��

��0��/��5�1��#

��0��/��$#

7�/��0��/��5�1��!�

��0��&��7�/��1��5��0��?

Figure 13: Cost issues associated with classroom-based programs and e-Learning.

Conclusions1. E-Learning for soft skills development isworking to fulfill its promise.

Not all of us would choose to buy a new car model or newpersonal electronic device in its first year of production.History shows that it takes us a while to figure out whichfeatures are really necessary and how much technology isappropriate for human consumption. Many organizationsare running into barriers related to user acceptance,equipment, features, and quality. However, few woulddeny that e-Learning offers a great deal of promise for thefuture. No matter what happens in the next few years,technology will advance, and e-Learning will eventuallybecome a mature component of the learning environment.E-Learning is off to a slower start than many predicted,but it is growing in use and acceptance. As barriers falland adoption increases, more users learn to leverage theprimary advantages of the technology.

2. E-Learning success is dependent on acomplex mix of factors.

Some would argue that the introduction of e-Learning hasproduced a true paradigm shift in our understanding oflearning. Using e-Learning is not simply a matter ofadding a listing to a course catalog. Along with the newtechnology comes a host of changes and adjustmentsrelated to learning strategy, infrastructure, implementationplanning, HR roles, learning styles, and organizationalsupport. In many cases, introducing e-Learning requiresexperimentation and constant adjustment to determinewhat works best. It can be hard to foresee barriers in thecontext of new paradigms. Even the best quality e-Learning program can fail if there is no organizationalsupport or if learners are not held accountable forapplying their skills. In this sense, the process forensuring the effectiveness of e-Learning is no differentfrom any other program. Good planning, careful needsanalysis, building support, effective implementation, andthorough follow-up are the keys to success.


E-Learning is off to a slower

start than many predicted,

but it is growing in use and

acceptance.

3. HR professionals need not fear e-Learningtechnologies, but there is a lot of learning to do.

For many HR professionals, the introduction of e-Learninghas served as a forced primer in modern learningtechnology. Just keeping up with the long list of acronymsand terms can be exhausting, especially as new ideas areintroduced and old approaches become obsolete. In ourconversations with e-Learning users and prospectiveusers, we quickly realized that buyers are becoming muchmore sophisticated and capable of assessing programquality. HR departments are working more closely withMIS and IS professionals or hiring technical experts to bepart of the HR team. As new standards for quality anddelivery develop, it may become easier to navigate thewave of information and choices. Nevertheless,knowledge of technology has increased and will continueto increase in the HR function.

4. E-Learning cost savings come from longer-term use and scale.

In addition to the promise of greater learning flexibility,many organizations are counting on the long-term benefitsof reduced costs through e-Learning technologies. Whenthe learning process becomes more automated, it shouldalso cost less to deliver. Every time an employee uses anautomated e-Learning system, it reduces the overall costper learner. Additionally, the ability to immediately updatee-Learning resources eliminates the need to purchase all-new materials. Scheduled instructor-led sessionsaddressing predetermined topics can be replaced by just-in-time application of automated systems over abroad population. The move toward e-Learning can incurhigh initial costs in addition to the cost of the programsthemselves. However, the real payoff appears in volumeand ongoing use.


In addition to the promise

of greater learning flexibility,

many organizations are

counting on the long-term

benefits of reduced costs

through e-Learning

technologies.

5. The e-Learning landscape is constantlychanging.

In the time after the data was collected for this survey,new technologies and trends have already developed.Recently, “live e-Learning” has been the topic of muchdiscussion. In this approach learning is synchronous and connected across distance by technology. Just whenwe think we have defined and analyzed the e-Learninglandscape, it changes before our eyes. As e-Learningblends with other forms of learning, we may no longeridentify e-Learning as a separate delivery mechanism.Rather, many learning experiences will have electroniccomponents, and studying e-Learning as a separate topicmay no longer be relevant.

6. We need more hard and objective research for e-Learning.

We acknowledge that it has been very difficult to find solid,objective research about the value of e-Learning. Numerousstudies (for example, www.nucleusresearch.com) haveshown that technology can reduce learning costs andimprove efficiency. However, we know much less about thee-Learning experience and what drives its effectiveness.The wide range of quality, content, and delivery formatsmakes it difficult to draw general conclusions.

It is hard to ignore the media buzz about e-Learning, andmany fall into a bandwagon mentality when consideringthe future of learning in organizations. No one can predictthe future, not even the users. Many have touted thebenefits and impending growth of e-Learning, but it istaking longer to take root than was expected. In addition,industry surveys and opinions may not always be entirelyobjective and representative of what is actuallyhappening. For example, few organizations will respondto a survey about e-Learning if they are not actively usingit. All users should maintain a skeptical and critical viewof new developments, always asking questions whiletrying to make the right choices for their organizations.


As e-Learning blends with

other forms of learning,

we may no longer identify

e-Learning as a separate

delivery mechanism.

Appendix AE-Learning Formats

Cable or Satellite TV: The reception of television signals for learning and developmentpurposes (for example, business courses).

CBT or CD-ROM: Any learning event that is text- or multimedia-based and delivered from asingle computer (diskettes, hard drive, or CD-ROM).

Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS): A computer application that uses anycombination of expert systems and media to help a user perform a task in real time quickly andwith a minimum of support by other people.

E-Mail: The exchange of messages through computers—used to send or receive messagesassociated with learning or performance support.

Extranet: A network that uses Internet technology to link organizations with their suppliers,customers, or other organizations that share common goals or information—used for thepurpose of activities associated with learning and development.

Interactive TV: Video combined with a method of providing interactive responses (audio orotherwise).

Simulators or Virtual Reality: A device or system that replicates or imitates a real device or system.

Telephone Conferencing: The instantaneous exchange of audio between two or moreindividuals or groups at two or more locations.

Voice Mail: An automated, electronic telephone system—used to send or receive messagesassociated with learning or performance support.

Web-Based Learning: Access to learning experiences delivered through the Internet or anorganization’s intranet.


Appendix BDemographics of Organizations*


Public/Private

Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51%

Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49%

For-Profit/Non-Profit

For-profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73%

Non-profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

Nationality*

U.S.-based . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%

Non-U.S.-based . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%

* 15 Countries are represented in the sample

Demographics of Respondents

Job Titles

HR Director/Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%

Other HR professional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31%

Other role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%

HR Vice President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%

Due to rounding, not all percentages will total 100.

Number of Employees

Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,440

Standard deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,215

499 or fewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%

500–999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

1,000–4,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

5,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30%

Industry Classification

Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30%

Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%

Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

Social Assistance and Health Care . . . . . . 14%

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate . . . . . 10%

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%

Participating Organizations


Aboitiz & Company, Inc.Advanced Business IncorporatedAffinity LogicAlbany Medical CenterAMC Entertainment Inc.AndragogicsAnonymousApplied Industrial TechnologiesAT&T WirelessBall CorporationBally Total Fitness CorporationBank of America CorporationBanque Nationale du CanadaBaptist Health Systems of South FloridaBayer CorporationBayer Corporation, Consumer Care DivisionBlackfox Training InstituteBlue Cross and Blue Shield of MontanaBMW Manufacturing Corp.Bravo! Development, Inc.Bristol-Myers Squibb Philippines, Inc.Brown-Forman CorporationBrunswick Bowling and BilliardsBunnings Building SuppliesCable & Wire Optus LimitedThe Carousel Casino & Entertainment

World, Sun InternationalCCL Industries Inc.CEMEX, Inc.Cigarrera La Moderna, S.A. de C.V.Cingular Wireless LLCCity of OaklandCorporate HR SolutionsCorporate Information Solutions, Inc.Courseware A/SDelta Motor CorporationDHL Systems LtdDomtar Inc.

Edu Media Webe-Learning TechnologiesEli Lilly and CompanyEmory HospitalsEquate Petrochemical CompanyFirst Union/WachoviaFranklin Templeton InvestmentsFrontline Technology CenterThe Gillette CompanyHarleysville Insurance CompanyHotel Dieu HospitalHotel Inter-Continental TorontoHoward Hughes Medical Institutehyperstudy.comIDS (Philippines), Inc. (formerly a

division of JDH [Phils], Inc.)Imperial Oil LimitedIndian River Community CollegeIntellinex LLCIron Ore Company of CanadaIstituto OrgaJ.C. Bamford Excavators LtdJardine Salmat CorporationJohnson & JohnsonJohnson & Johnson MedicalKeystone Mercy Health PlanKimberly-Clark CorporationLegato SystemsLOMALowe’sMasonite (Africa) LtdMayford Seeds (Pty) LtdMedia Scan S.A.MedihelpMedtronic Physio-ControlMetrorailMoog Controls CorpMortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation

MRIM-WebNational Australia Bank LimitedNational Grange Mutual Insurance CompanyNational Semiconductor CorporationORBI ConsultoresOrlando Utilities CommissionThe Partnering Group, Inc.Pearson Technology GroupPhilippine Stock Exchange, Inc.Philips Semiconductor CalambaPitney Bowes LimitedPitt County Memorial HospitalPossis Medical IncPPG IndustriesPratt & Whitney CanadaPraxair Mexico, S.A. de C.V.Praxair, Inc.Premier System Integrators, Inc.ProHealth IncPuyat Vinyl Products, Inc.QAD Inc.Radio Frequency SystemsThe Reynolds and Reynolds CompanyRolls-Royce Plc.Root Learning Inc.S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.St. John’s Health SystemSanofi-SynthélaboSappi Fine Paper South AfricaSchindler Lifts (SA) (Pty) LtdSEH America, Inc.SGL Carbon GroupSiam Guardian Glass Company, Ltd.

Siemens Ltd.SkillPath SeminarsSprint CanadaStar TribuneStora Enso North AmericaSWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank

Financial Telecommunication)SyneticsTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing

Company LtdTech Data CorporationTechnicolorTellumat (Pty) LtdTetra Pak South Africa (Pty) LtdTMX Philippines, Inc.Toyota Team EuropeUCI Medical CenterUnion Pacific RailroadUnisys Africa Ltd (Incorporated

in Delaware, USA)United Airlines—WHQTDUnited Sleep ProductsUniversity of Colorado Hospital AuthorityUniversity HealthSystem ConsortiumUnumProvident CorporationValassis Communications, Inc.VF Playwear, Inc.Wesleyan Assurance SocietyWest Bromwich Building SocietyWheaton USA Inc., an Alcan

Packaging CompanyWinn-Dixie Stores, Inc.The Wood Company


About DDIFor more than three decades, DDI has helped thousands of organizations worldwide achievesuperior business performance through selecting, developing, and retaining extraordinarypeople. The firm’s two major areas of expertise are helping companies find and hire betterpeople faster and building leadership capacity and capability at all levels.

DDI is a human resource pioneer—recent innovations include blended learning strategies, web-based training, and selection technologies. DDI’s solutions are built to help clients realizeresults. DDI’s team of 1,000 experienced associates in 70 locations can meet client needsanywhere in the world and in any industry. Visit www.ddiworld.com for more information.

About the AuthorsPaul Bernthal, Ph.D., is the manager of DDI’s Center for Applied Behavioral Research. Paul,who conducted more than 100 large-scale measurement projects for DDI, is also director ofDDI’s HR Benchmark Group. His publications have appeared in Training and DevelopmentJournal, Group and Organizational Management, and Advances in International ComparativeManagement.

Pete Weaver is a senior vice president and heads DDI’s leadership solutions group. He is alsochief technology officer and has been instrumental in the success of many DDI projects,including award-winning CD-ROM and intranet learning systems, such as OPAL (OnlinePerformance and Learning). Pete is a frequent speaker at major conferences on topics relatedto the integration of emerging technologies with learning and assessment sciences.

Richard Wellins, Ph.D., is senior vice president of global marketing for DDI. Recentaccomplishments include conducting a nationwide study with Gallup on workforce effectiveness,helping new manufacturing facilities select and train highly participative workforces, andmanaging DDI’s internal knowledge management function. Rich has written for more than 20publications, published six books, including the best-seller, Empowered Teams, and spoken atnumerous professional conferences around the world.


The Americas

World Headquarters—Pittsburgh412.257.0600

Monterrey (Mexico)528.152.3200

Toronto416.601.5500

Other major offices in Atlanta,Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, Montreal, New York,San Francisco, Santiago, São Paulo, and St. Louis

Europe/Africa

Düsseldorf49.2159.91680

London44.1753.616000

Paris33.1.41.9686.86

Other major offices in Capetown,Durban, Johannesburg, andWarsaw

Asia-Pacific

Hong Kong85.2.2526.1188

Singapore65.226.5335

Sydney61.2.9466.0300

Other major offices in Bangkok,Brisbane, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur,Manila, Melbourne, Perth, Seoul,Taipei, and Tokyo

*IV9B*IV9B

MICABERSR9© Development DimensionsInternational, Inc., MMII.All rights reserved.

$50.00

For more information, visit our web site at www.ddiworld.com.Or e-mail us at [email protected].

stateofe learning fullreport-ddi

Documents