Motivos para aplicar e-learning na sua empresa (Parte 1 de 5)
•
1 gefällt mir•937 views
Este documento discute os benefícios do e-learning em relação ao treinamento presencial no ambiente corporativo. Ele argumenta que o e-learning pode reduzir significativamente os custos com transporte, hospedagem e locação ao permitir que os funcionários sejam treinados remotamente, sem precisar se deslocar. Além disso, o documento aponta que o custo do e-learning é independente do número de funcionários treinados, tornando-o mais escalável do que o treinamento presencial. Um estudo de caso mostra que a Dow
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (14)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Motivos para aplicar e-learning na sua empresa (Parte 1 de 5)
- 1. Motivos para aplicar e-learning na sua empresa Parte 1 de 5
- 2. 1 O e-learning custa menos tempo e dinheiro
- 3. A nova economia mundial requer contenção de custos e aumento da eficiência...
- 4. A nova economia mundial requer contenção de custos e aumento da eficiência... Em treinamentos , isso significa ensinar mais, com menos recursos. Mas como?
- 5. Os treinamentos presenciais demandam diversos custos, como: Transporte Hospedagens Locações Coffee -breaks Material didático
- 6. ...além do tempo investido em: Traslados Atrasos Locações Intervalos Apresentações
- 7. Em tempos de crise, a área de capacitação é um alvo fácil:
- 8. Por outro lado, o e-Learning alcança o aluno no seu local de trabalho , tudo isso evita...
- 9. ...despesas de viagem... Transporte Hospedagens Locações Coffee -breaks Material didático
- 10. Transporte Hospedagens Locações Coffee -breaks Material didático ...despesas de viagem...
- 11. ...custos adicionais... Transporte Hospedagens Locações Coffee -breaks Material didático
- 12. Transporte Hospedagens Locações Coffee -breaks Material didático ...custos adicionais...
- 13. Traslados Atrasos Locações Intervalos Apresentações ... nem desperdício de tempo!
- 14. ... nem desperdício de tempo! Traslados Atrasos Locações Intervalos Apresentações
- 15. Com o e-learning, o aluno não pára o trabalho para ter a informação...
- 16. ...mas a informação alcança o aluno onde ele estiver.
- 17. Além disso, o e-Learning não possui despesas de aplicação, ou seja...
- 18. = ...ensinar 100 ou 10.000 funcionários tem o mesmo custo...
- 19. ...sendo que, quanto maior o público, menor o custo por aluno! $
- 20. Presencial e-Learning Veja um caso real: custo por aluno Dow Química (Fonte: Shepard 2002)
- 21. Percentual de redução de despesas Dow Química: 88% Economia gerada em um ano: US$ 24.000.000,00 (Fonte: Shepard 2002)
- 23. É isto o que veremos em breve...
- 24. 2 O e-learning ensina de verdade Em breve:
Hinweis der Redaktion
- “ Precisamos cortar despesas” The new economic realities mean that every manager up and down your organisation is going to have to fight to spend money on anything. You can expect e-learning to come under as much scrutiny as the next line item. It pays to be prepared. If you’re responsible for commissioning e-learning or running an internal team, be ready to fight the good fight. For this insight, let’s concentrate on the cost savings from e-learning, compared to instructor led alternatives. Here are a few bullets to have ready when someone comes asking why we should spend on e-learning. 1. Travel costs = zero May as well start with the no-brainer. Many organisations are currently putting a lockdown on all travel for employees, while still expecting training deliver to persist. This plays very well to e-learning, as it has no travel cost. I f you want to argue the benefits for e-learning, start there. With increasing numbers of home workers, bear in mind that their travel costs can also be reduced as they don’t need to get into an office for training events. It helps to have a few stats to support this: Dow Chemical reduced average spending of $95 per learner / per course on classroom training, to only $11 per learner / per course with electronic delivery, giving rise to an annual saving of $34 million (Shepherd, 2002). 2. Marginal cost of delivery = zero The cost of e-learning is all in the production. There’s no marginal cost of delivery – rolling our e-learning to 100 or 10,000 learners costs the same, assuming you’re not producing thousands of CD ROMS (and if you are – we assume you are also still listening to tapes in your ghettoblaster to score double retro points). No classrooms, no additional trainer costs, no lunches – and binders. Nice for your CFO – and the environment, lest we forget. 3. Learner time is better spent E-learning is generally shorter than classroom training on the same subject by up to 25-60% (according to Brandon Hall, 2001 and Rosenberg 2001). Time is compressed in e-learning, as you don’t have all the logistics that come with the classroom: welcomes, introductions, setting up and winding up sessions, breaks and the like. Since the biggest cost of any training is learner time spend in training, this makes a big difference to the bottom line. Need an example? Ernst & Young cut training costs 35 percent while improving consistency and scalability. They condensed about 2,900 hours of classroom training into 700 hours of web-based learning, 200 hours of distance learning and 500 hours of classroom instruction, a cut of 52 percent. (Brandon Hall, 2000). 4. It works for specialist content too Don’t think you have to be at the 1,000+ learners level before e-learning makes sense. The cost per hour of e-learning can be dramatically reduced by taking a rapid approach, using low-cost or open source tools, and taking on some tasks in-house. This means that even quite specialised areas which may have small audiences can still use e-learning and from a cost perspective come out better than they would with a classroom alternative. If in doubt, do the maths It’s not difficult to construct a side-by-side analysis of the cost of delivering one hour of e-learning vs an instructor led session (if you need help, ask us at Kineo). Prepare a simple spreadsheet showing what it costs for an hour of trainer time, learner time, travel costs, opportunity costs, material production, room rental and then scale it up to the size of your target audience. Compare it to e-learning’s upfront development costs. Even allowing for a small maintenance cost for e-learning, the business case for e-learning is nearly always going to win out – especially in a downturn. ==== here appears to be little argument that e-learning can be more cost effective to deliver than classroom based training, especially for larger organisations. There are a great many case studies including: Dow Chemical who reduced average spending of $95 per learner / per course on classroom training, to only $11 per learner / per course with electronic delivery, giving rise to an annual saving of $34 million (Shepherd, 2002). Ernst & Young who cut training costs 35 percent while improving consistency and scalability. They condensed about 2,900 hours of classroom training into 700 hours of web-based learning, 200 hours of distance learning and 500 hours of classroom instruction, a cut of 52 percent. (Hall, 2000). In addition to lower delivery costs there is a strong argument that e-learning is more cost-effective because there is a reduction in training time known as learning compression. This is because the single largest cost of training in organisations is the cost of staff attending the training course, rather than the direct delivery costs in terms of trainers, course materials, travel and accommodation. E-learning can deliver benefits by reducing the time it takes to train people because: Learners can go at their own pace, not at the pace of the slowest member of a group Time in classrooms can be spent on questions / topics introduced by other delegates that are irrelevant to the needs of the individual learner There is less social interaction time It takes less time to start and wind up a learning session There is less travel time to and from a training event Learners learn what they need to learn, they can skip elements of a programme they don’t need According to Brandon Hall (2001) these factors can add up to an average compression (saving of learning time) of 35-45 percent when a course is taken out of the classroom and delivered as e-learning. Rosenberg (2001), argues e-learning ‘can take anywhere from 25 to 60 percent less time to convey the same amount of instruction or information as in a classroom.’