Stateofe learning fullreport-ddi

The State of
E-Learning
Developing Soft Skills

in partnership with

and

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

HR Benchmark Group
Volume 4, Issue 1
July 2002

About the DDI HR Benchmark Reports
Benchmark Group Volume 1: 1997–1998
The DDI HR Benchmark Group is an alliance Issue 1—A Survey of Trust in the Workplace
of organizations committed to sharing Issue 2—Performance Management Practices
information and benchmarking current HR Survey Report
practices. These organizations, an international Issue 3—Workforce Development Practices
mix of DDI clients and non-clients, have agreed Survey Report
to respond to periodic surveys in order to Issue 4—Job/Role Competency Practices
provide current information in various areas of Survey Report
human resources. The organizations represent
a geographical and industry cross section. Volume 2: 1998–1999
Issue 1—Succession Management Practices
Survey Report
About DDI Issue 2—Recruitment and Selection Practices
Development Dimensions International (DDI) Survey Report
is an international human resource company
Volume 3: 2000–2001
that specializes in helping clients improve their
Issue 1—The Globalization of Human
business performance by aligning people
Resource Practices Survey Report
strategies with business strategies.
Issue 2—Retaining Talent: A Benchmarking
Study
About Training
Volume 4: 2002–2003
For nearly four decades Training has been the Issue 1—The State of E-Learning: Developing
business magazine of choice for executives Soft Skills
charged with training and human resource
development initiatives within their organizations. Special Reports
Global High-Performance Work Practices:
A Benchmarking Study (1998)
About Online Learning The Leadership Forecast: A Benchmarking
Online Learning magazine analyzes and Study (1999)
assesses vendors and their products, challenges Leadership Forecast 2001: A Benchmarking
current market thinking, and offers market-savvy Study
predictions.

To order previous or additional reports, call: Or contact:
1-800-DDI-1514 (1-800-334-1514) Paul Bernthal, Ph.D., Manager
Center for Applied Behavioral Research
For more information or to join the HR Development Dimensions International
Benchmark Group, visit us at: 1225 Washington Pike, Bridgeville, PA 15017
www.ddiworld.com/resources/benchmark.asp Phone: 412-257-7533 • Fax: 412-220-5204
E-mail: hrbench@ddiworld.com

Contents
Purpose ................................................................................................................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

Purpose Study Objectives

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

2. Benchmark current and
The results of this study can help HR professionals
understand the many issues associated with selecting,
implementing, and promoting e-Learning for soft skills.
future use of e-Learning
Of particular note, this study focuses specifically on the
role of e-Learning in the development of soft skills. Most technology.
existing e-Learning studies and reports do not differentiate
the types of skill development. By their less tangible 3. Determine effectiveness
nature, soft skills may present special challenges in the
e-Learning arena. of e-Learning methods.

4. Describe the impact of

e-Learning on the HR

function.

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

2 The State of E-Learning

Definition
Although a commonly used term, “e-Learning” can mean
different things depending on the context and the
audience. In this study we used the following definition
While general e-Learning
of e-Learning:

receives much attention Instructional content or learning experiences
delivered or enabled by computer-based
in industry publications technology.

and research studies, few This definition of e-Learning includes practices such
as web-based training (WBT), computer-based training
studies have focused (CBT), and CD-ROM. The definition also includes
learning resources that are less frequently classified as
exclusively on the e-Learning, such as e-mail or voice mail (both of which
are enabled by the use of a computer).
application of e-Learning
While general e-Learning receives much attention in
for soft skills. industry publications and research studies, few studies
have focused exclusively on the application of e-Learning
for soft skills. We used the following definition of soft
skills:

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

Developing Soft Skills 3

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

A total of 139 organizations from 15 countries responded
to the survey. Slightly more than half (56 percent) are
headquartered in the United States. We recommend that
all results presented in this report be interpreted in light of
the demographic profile of the sample. A complete listing
of participating organizations and their demographics
appears at the end of the report.


The Case for E-Learning
There are many reasons why an organization would
want to use e-Learning. We created a list of 17 potential
reasons based on a literature review. Respondents were
Increased flexibility of
asked to identify all the reasons why their organization
decided to use e-Learning for developing soft skills.
learning was the most We submitted the ratings of these 17 items to a principle
components factor analysis to determine which items
common reason for tended to cluster together. This analysis yielded four
primary factors or clusters (see Table 1).
introducing e-Learning
Factor 1: Improving Learning Efficiency
methods. In traditional learning paradigms, learners usually attend a
scheduled session that requires them to spend time away
from 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 of
these restrictions no longer apply. Increased flexibility of
learning was the most common reason for introducing
e-Learning methods. Other benefits such as just-in-time
delivery, reduced travel, reduced costs, and increased
variety 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 allows
organizations to offer a wide variety of learning options
regardless of employee location. Web-based learning,
electronic performance support systems (EPSS), and
CD-ROMs can be delivered anywhere in the world, as
long as the appropriate equipment and infrastructure
are present.

Factor 3: Maximizing Impact and Integration
Some organizations believe that by offering e-Learning
they will increase the overall effectiveness and impact of
learning. Given that learners have different learning styles


and preferences, it makes sense that a greater variety of
options will facilitate learning. Additionally, e-Learning
technology has begun to blur the lines between learning
and development and other organizational systems.
For example, several different electronically based
methods can link assessment, learning experiences, and Internal demand is not a
performance management into a single process.
strong influence driving the
Factor 4: Responding to Demand
Partly because of the high levels of attention it has adoption of e-Learning.
received in recent years, e-Learning has become an
option sometimes requested by learners and their
managers. It’s hard not to feel left behind when there
is so much focus in the popular media on advances in
learning technology. However, internal demand is not a
strong influence driving the adoption of e-Learning. The
overall demand for e-Learning from within the organization
has 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)
(Numbers indicate the percentage of organizations selecting the reason.)


Delivery of E-Learning
The use of e-Learning for soft skills will
continue to grow.
The excitement about 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
e-Learning may be
(87 percent) were delivered in a classroom setting.
During the next two years, the number dropped to 77
greater than the actual
percent. Respondents indicated that, in the near future,
e-Learning delivery will be used for 42 percent of all soft
growth rates.
skills learning resources.

Although the growth trend observed in this study is
encouraging, 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 and
Erskine of ASTD state, “The growth of e-Learning and
the decline of instructor-led classroom training has been
widely heralded for several years.”3 However, they
observed that many of the expected increases in
e-Learning usage had not materialized. As a caveat to
their conclusions, they cautioned that organizations using
blended learning approaches (for example, classroom
instruction combined with e-Learning technology) might
have categorized these approaches as classroom
learning. In the future, it will not be so easy to classify
learning 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 the
United States. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.


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

possible.

Delivery Methods—1999
Other
Other Delivery Self-Paced CBT
3% 4% 6%

Classroom
87%

Delivery Methods—2001 Delivery Methods—2003
Other Other
Other Delivery Self-Paced Other Delivery
3% Self-Paced
5% 4% 7%

CBT
15% CBT
Classroom Classroom
77% 31%
58%

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


Most e-Learning programs address technical skills.
Many early e-Learning applications focused on technical
skills. The process for learning how to use software or
follow a safety procedure, for instance, could easily be
broken down into a series of objective steps and delivered
Most e-Learning delivery in an automated format to one person. Because soft skills
are more interpersonally focused, most past learning
still focuses on technical delivery methods relied on human interaction and were
less structured. As shown in Figure 2, most e-Learning
or other non-soft skills. delivery 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.

Other
7%

Technical Soft Skills
Skills 33%
60%

Figure 2: Topics addressed by e-Learning.


Most e-Learning programs are developed
externally.
Not many organizations have the resources or expertise
required to create and deliver their own e-Learning
programs. Consequently, they often look to external
vendors to provide or co-develop the programs. The challenge for

We asked respondents to indicate the percentage of organizations will be to
e-Learning resources that were developed internally,
externally, or through other methods (for example, determine which externally
co-development). Results show that more than half of
e-Learning programs are developed externally (see developed programs are of
Figure 3).
high quality and meet the
The challenge for organizations will be to determine which
externally developed programs are of high quality and needs of their learners.
meet the needs of their learners. Recently, several
organizations such as ASTD have offered rating and
certification systems to help HR select the best programs.
Although these systems may be useful, changing
standards will require constant updating and modification
of the rating system.

Other
15%
Developed Developed
Externally Internally
53% 32%

Figure 3: Origin of e-Learning programs.


E-Learning is more effective when organizations
use a learning portal or a learning management
system (LMS).
The diversification of learning options can be confusing
and difficult to manage. Along with the growth of
Using a learning portal and e-Learning technology, we have seen a corresponding
growth in the use of learning portals and learning
an LMS helps organizations management systems (LMS). These tools are defined
as follows:
organize and keep track of
Learning Portal—A public or commercial site
their many e-Learning accessed on the Internet or an intranet using a
browser. Learning portals offer a large number
options. and variety of courses and other curricula/
learning assets.

Learning Management System (LMS)—A
software platform to register students, launch
and manage courses, track performance of
learners, associate courses with competencies,
manage skill gaps, schedule venues and
instructors, and perform related activities.

About 40 percent of organizations in our sample use a
learning portal or an LMS (see Figures 4 and 5). About
one quarter (24 percent) have both systems in place.
Most organizations with a learning portal report that they
operate the portal internally (70 percent). Although these
numbers are not high, many of the respondents indicated
that they were investigating the possibility of introducing
these systems. 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 when
organizations use either a learning portal or an LMS.
However, these tools are less likely to be used by
organizations first venturing into e-Learning and may be
indicative of a more advanced or developed approach to Perhaps the use of a
e-Learning. Perhaps the use of a learning portal or an
LMS indicates the seriousness with which the learning portal or an LMS
organization has embraced e-Learning and the degree of
implementation. We would expect organizations with indicates the seriousness
more invested in e-Learning to be more satisfied with their
implementations. with which the organization

has embraced e-Learning.

No, but
Investigating
Yes 21%
41% No
38%

Figure 4: Do you have a learning portal?

No, but
Investigating
Yes 34%
37%
No
29%

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


Organizations predict the greatest increase
in the use of web-based learning and electronic
performance support systems (EPSS).
E-Learning encompasses a wide range of learning
formats, and not all are being used to the same extent
Overall, web-based learning or growing at the same rate. We asked respondents to
indicate the percentage of learning resources for soft
and EPSS show the skills that are delivered using 10 e-Learning formats.
Respondents offered estimates for both today and for
greatest percentage-point the next two years. Because resources can be delivered
using multiple formats, we did not require that their total
increase in use over the estimates equal 100 percent. Figure 6 shows the
percentages for both current and expected use.
next two years. (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), and
web-based learning (17 percent) are the mostly commonly
used delivery methods for developing soft skills. Overall,
web-based learning and EPSS show the greatest
percentage-point increase in use over the next two years.
These two delivery methods are newer than e-mail and
telephone conferencing and are currently receiving more
attention.


17
Web-Based Learning
38

Electronic Performance 5
Support System (EPSS) 17

7
Extranet
17

16
CBT or CD-ROM 24

Simulators or 3
Virtual Reality 9

31
E-Mail
37

2
Cable or Satellite TV
7

4
Interactive TV
8

13
Voice Mail 17
Current
Telephone 18
Expected
Conferencing 20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Percentage of Organizations Using the Method

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


E-Learning Effectiveness
and Barriers to Effectiveness
It can take years for e-Learning programs to
Along with building internal realize maximum effectiveness.
Launching e-Learning programs can present many
support for changes, challenges for organizations. Along with building internal
support for changes, organizations must develop the
organizations must appropriate infrastructure and determine criteria for
selecting the best learning options. All of these challenges
develop the appropriate may make it difficult for organizations to produce the
desired results.
infrastructure and determine
We asked survey respondents to rate
criteria for selecting the best the overall effectiveness of their organizations’ use of
e-Learning for soft skills. On a scale of 1 to 10
learning options. (1 = Not at all effective; 10 = Extremely effective),
respondents provided an average rating of 3.9.
Almost three quarters (73 percent) rated their current
effectiveness at a 5 or lower. However, e-Learning
effectiveness does increase over time. Organizations
using e-Learning for five years or more were significantly
more likely to provide positive ratings (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Effectiveness of e-Learning over time.


We also asked users to rate the effectiveness of the
various e-Learning delivery methods (see Figure 8).
All programs were rated between slightly and moderately
effective. The most effective programs were simulators
or virtual reality, EPPS, and web-based learning.
The effectiveness ratings for
The effectiveness ratings for e-Learning tend to be much
lower than effectiveness ratings for traditional classroom e-Learning tend to be much
instruction. In an informal survey of 30 HR professionals
conducted during a DDI web-based seminar in 2002, lower than effectiveness
average effectiveness ratings for classroom learning
was a 3.4 (on a 4-point scale). The low ratings for soft- ratings for traditional
skills e-Learning effectiveness is troubling. HR will need
to continue its focus on removing barriers and enhancing classroom instruction.
overall effectiveness.

Simulators or
Virtual Reality 2.79

Electronic Performance
2.78
Support System (EPSS)

Web-Based Learning 2.75

E-Mail 2.68

CBT or CD-ROM 2.65

Extranet 2.58

Telephone
Conferencing 2.49

Interactive TV 2.34

Cable or Satellite TV 2.30

Voice Mail 2.00

1 2 3 4
Not Slightly Moderately Very
Effective Effective Effective Effective

Figure 8: Effectiveness of e-Learning methods.


Organizations are most concerned about the
content and quality of e-Learning programs.
Organizations encounter a broad range of barriers that
reduce the effectiveness of e-Learning programs. We
asked respondents to indicate the largest barriers their
organizations had encountered when using e-Learning
to develop soft skills. Statistical analyses of their
responses 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 quality
of e-Learning offerings that are accepted by all providers
and users. Some groups do “certify” vendor programs
or evaluate offerings in terms of a set of predetermined
criteria. However, Adkins states, “The adoption of The mere presence of
standards that aren’t compatible with new integrated
platforms, blended services, and evolving learning e-Learning is not enough
technology may actually impede the adoption of
e-Learning in some sectors.”4 The number of to ensure its success.
organizations selling e-Learning programs is large,
and organizations have difficulty determining the best
programs 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 will
not participate. Some HR professionals may also be
concerned that learners won’t feel motivated to complete
e-Learning offerings even when programs are of the
highest quality. Personal motivation may not be a
sufficient driver to ensure the widespread use of
e-Learning resources. The mere presence of e-Learning
is not enough to ensure its success. As with any learning
program, e-Learning must address a clear need, provide
appropriate content, and be delivered effectively.

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


The type of e-Learning resources provided can make
a big difference for learner acceptance. We asked
respondents to rate the effectiveness of two e-Learning
delivery methods for developing soft skills:
Synchronous—All learners participate in the
learning event at the same time, although not
necessarily at the same location (for example,
chat rooms, videoconferences, learning
sessions with a facilitator).
Asynchronous—Learners do not participate
in the learning event at the same time (for
example, videotaped lectures, bulletin boards,
WBT, CD-ROM).

Overall, interactive synchronous learning approaches
were perceived as more effective than asynchronous
approaches (see Figure 9).

Synchronous Learning
Not Effective Asynchronous Learning
6%
Not
Slightly Effective Effective
Moderately 15% Moderately 15%
Effective Effective Slightly
50% 41% Effective
Very Effective 32%
29% Very Effective
12%

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


Barrier 2: Not Ready for E-Learning
Successfully introducing change in an organization
usually requires a good strategy, a communication plan,
the involvement of internal resources, support from
senior management, and a budget. A fair percentage of
organizations in our sample encountered problems in The bottom line is that
several of these areas. Many do not have the resources
or funding to develop or introduce the types of programs many organizations just
they would like to use. Additionally, they may lack a
strategy and clear support from senior management. aren’t prepared to do all of

Figure 10 shows that few organizations (25 percent) in the things it takes to make
our sample have a clear strategy for how they plan to
implement e-Learning programs. Still, organizations e-Learning successful.
realize that a good strategy can make a difference, and
they are either working to put one together or hope to
create one in the near future.

The bottom line is that many organizations just aren’t
prepared 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 experiencing
some obvious growing pains.

No Strategy; No
Plan to Develop
8%

No Strategy;
Developing a Want to Develop One
Strategy 22%
45%
Have a Strategy
25%

Figure 10: State of e-Learning strategy.


Barrier 3: Technical Issues
By definition, e-Learning requires a specific technical
infrastructure and technical resources to ensure success.
Few organizations are equipped with the right computer
resources and support systems to allow e-Learning
Few organizations are functionality for all eligible learners. Even if an
organization can provide the necessary equipment and
equipped with the right support, those resources may quickly become obsolete if
the technology changes significantly. Issues associated
computer resources and with bandwidth, reliability, and security make the technical
aspect even more complicated.
support systems to allow
Streaming video is becoming an increasingly popular
e-Learning functionality for method for delivering e-Learning on the computer. To
better understand the viability of video-based learning,
all eligible learners. we asked organizations to provide information about the
percentage of employees who play video on their desktop
computers for learning and development purposes. Only
44 percent of all employees of the organizations in our
sample are permitted to play streaming video and have
the necessary software. Of that group, only 23 percent
actually use their computers for learning and development
purposes. Thus, only 10 percent of all learners are
using their computers to play video for learning and
development (44 percent times 23 percent). This rather
small percentage indicates that even when learners have
the necessary equipment and software, they may not
make use of the capability.


Barrier 4: Low Receptivity
Moving to an e-Learning platform represents a
fundamental shift in how organizations provide learning
resources for their employees. Classroom instruction
has been taking place for centuries, and most learners
are accustomed to receiving instruction in this well- Although e-Learning offers
established format. Although e-Learning offers some
obvious advantages, not all learners are receptive to it. some obvious advantages,
Some learners may see e-Learning as an infringement on
their busy work schedules. Others might like the idea of not all learners are
separating learning from the daily work routine, and they
might enjoy the high level of interaction in the classroom. receptive to it.

Regardless of the reason, some organizations (27
percent) experience resistance or apathy from learners
when attempting to promote e-Learning. As with any
program, learners must be motivated to participate and
should be held accountable for acquiring new skills.
These requirements are especially salient in the context
of e-Learning, because the learning is often at the
learners’ discretion. This can be a difficult adjustment for
many. Through years of formal education many learners
may be accustomed to the structure of an education
system that incorporates grading and strict accountability
for 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 number
of classroom sessions, its presence introduces a new set
of demands and opportunities for HR. HR professionals
must now manage learning management systems,
evaluate e-Learning offerings, communicate and educate,
and perform a whole new list of activities. We asked HR
professionals if the introduction of e-Learning in their
organizations had changed their roles. Nearly half
(40 percent) indicated that their job roles had changed.


Figure 11 shows the types of changes HR professionals
have 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 are
For many HR professionals, expanding their responsibilities to include strategy
creation, consulting, and program coordination. Finally,
the range of e-Learning some professionals find that the new e-Learning options
are putting a strain on their resources and budgets.
options can be

overwhelming. Greater Demand on
HR Resources
11%

Increased Need for Knowledge Miscellaneous
and Education of HR Staff 23%
40%
Expanded HR Role
(Strategist, Coordinator)
26%

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 them
internally.”
• “I must try to stay informed of advances in e-Learning—what the
opportunities 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 limited
associate access to one having close to 300 different courses available to
the entire associate base of approximately 5,000. This now includes
internally developed content as well as vendor content.”


Impact of E-Learning
Each organization may experience a variety of outcomes
as a result of using e-Learning technology. Although
many organizations hope to improve the efficiency and
Several organizations noted
availability of learning by introducing e-Learning, they may
realize other related outcomes. We created a list of 14
potential outcomes of e-Learning and asked respondents
that a greater “learning
to indicate if the outcome had decreased, stayed the
same, or increased as a result of using e-Learning
culture” had begun to
technology. Figure 12 shows the net change
(organizations indicating an increase minus organizations develop as a result of
indicating a decrease) in outcomes. We also conducted
an analysis to see if the outcomes clustered into unique introducing e-Learning
factors. The following four factors represent many of the
common outcomes of e-Learning. programs.

Outcome 1: E-Learning promotes participation
in learning activities.
Some of the most apparent increases in Figure 12 relate
to the greater utilization of learning resources within
the organization. Simply by increasing the diversity of
training options and making the training more accessible,
people are more likely to take advantage of learning
opportunities. Learners have different needs, and many
like the flexibility that e-Learning offers. Interestingly,
several organizations noted that a greater “learning
culture” had begun to develop as a result of introducing
e-Learning programs.


Availability or accessibility 73%
of learning options
Need to demonstrate return
54%
on investment (ROI)
Employees participating in 53%
learning activities
Measurement of learning outcomes 39%

Program development cost 36%

Consistency in quality
36%
of learning programs
Focus on the individual
35%
needs of the learner
Presence of a “learning
culture” in the organization 34%

Time employees spend learning 29%

Reputation of the L&D
29%
function in the organization
Money spent on employee learning 9%

Time for new workers
5%
to reach maximun productivity
Number of staff in the learning
–12%
and development function

Cost per learner –28%

–40% –20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Percentage of Organizations Indicating an Increase or Decrease

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

By increasing the flexibility of learning, organizations can
show that learning is a priority and that they are taking
steps 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)


Outcome 2: E-Learning increases the need to
demonstrate impact and ROI.
About half of the organizations in our sample have
experienced an increased need to measure and
demonstrate the return on investment (ROI) of e-Learning.
Although e-Learning programs might not cost more The need to demonstrate
than traditional learning programs, the introduction of
e-Learning often requires substantial investments in added value is a key
equipment and technical infrastructure.
component of most new
To justify the investment, HR must prove several points.
First, HR must show that e-Learning programs are as programs or approaches.
effective or more effective than traditional learning
programs. Next, it needs to demonstrate that a real need
exists for e-Learning programs and that their introduction
will offer some benefit to the learner and/or the
organization. After all, if employees are already learning
effectively, why introduce changes? The need to
demonstrate 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)


Outcome 3: E-Learning can improve the quality
of the learning experience.
In the past, learning programs may not have been well
integrated or consistent in quality. The use of e-Learning
has forced organizations to pay greater attention to the
E-Learning may require a quality and content of the programs they use. While it is
true that greater consistency does not assume greater
better planned approach quality, some respondents (36 percent) indicated a
corresponding increase.
and a careful review of
E-Learning may require a better planned approach and
content. a careful review of content. Many organizations have had
to review their entire range of learning and development
offerings to see how e-Learning can play a role. HR
professionals have become more educated about learning
delivery options and are now more savvy about their
choices. As a result, some HR professionals are doing a
better job of choosing the right programs and are
improving their reputations within the organization. As a
side effect, HR is becoming more efficient and may
choose to restructure its staff as new roles and
responsibilities 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)


Outcome 4: E-Learning might reduce long-term
costs for learners.
A fourth cluster of outcomes addressed the costs
associated with e-Learning. About one-third of
organizations (36 percent) pointed out that program
development costs have increased with the introduction More than half of the
of e-Learning programs. Some (9 percent) also indicate
that the amount of money spent on employee learning has organizations in our sample
increased. Although these costs may have increased,
slightly more than one quarter (28 percent) of feel that classroom-based
organizations indicate that the overall cost per learner has
decreased. programs should cost more

The fourth cluster of outcomes included the following: than e-Learning-based
• Program development costs (36 percent)
• Money spent on employee learning (9 percent) programs.
• Time for new workers to reach maximum productivity
(5 percent)
• Cost per learner (–28 percent)

How can an organization spend more money on employee
learning but have a reduced cost per learner? Several
of the questions in our survey dealt with the costs of
purchasing, implementing, and maintaining e-Learning
programs. Figure 13 shows that more than half of the
organizations in our sample feel that classroom-based
programs should cost more than e-Learning-based
programs. Essentially, many believe e-Learning should
not cost as much to purchase. However, when estimating
which type of program costs more to implement,
organizations are almost evenly split between classroom-
based and e-Learning. Each type of program has unique
costs that make it hard to give either approach an
advantage in terms of implementation.


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 beyond
the initial outlay. Thus, long-term costs per learner may
be reduced.

Cost to Introduce E-Learning vs. Classroom
Both Cost About
the Same
8%

The E-Learning The E-Learning
Program Costs More Program Costs Less
50% 42%

Long-Term Cost of E-Learning vs. Classroom Should Classroom and Web-Based Programs Have the
Same Purchase Price?
E-Learning Program Web-Based Should
Costs More Both Methods Cost
About the Same be Higher
7% 18%
9%

E-Learning Program Classroom Should
Costs Less be Higher Should be
84% 57% the Same
25%

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


Conclusions
1. E-Learning for soft skills development is
working to fulfill its promise.
Not all of us would choose to buy a new car model or new E-Learning is off to a slower
personal electronic device in its first year of production.
History shows that it takes us a while to figure out which
start than many predicted,
features are really necessary and how much technology is
appropriate for human consumption. Many organizations
but it is growing in use and
are running into barriers related to user acceptance,
equipment, features, and quality. However, few would
acceptance.
deny that e-Learning offers a great deal of promise for the
future. No matter what happens in the next few years,
technology will advance, and e-Learning will eventually
become 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 fall
and adoption increases, more users learn to leverage the
primary advantages of the technology.

2. E-Learning success is dependent on a
complex mix of factors.
Some would argue that the introduction of e-Learning has
produced a true paradigm shift in our understanding of
learning. Using e-Learning is not simply a matter of
adding a listing to a course catalog. Along with the new
technology comes a host of changes and adjustments
related to learning strategy, infrastructure, implementation
planning, HR roles, learning styles, and organizational
support. In many cases, introducing e-Learning requires
experimentation and constant adjustment to determine
what works best. It can be hard to foresee barriers in the
context of new paradigms. Even the best quality e-
Learning program can fail if there is no organizational
support or if learners are not held accountable for
applying their skills. In this sense, the process for
ensuring the effectiveness of e-Learning is no different
from any other program. Good planning, careful needs
analysis, building support, effective implementation, and
thorough follow-up are the keys to success.


3. HR professionals need not fear e-Learning
technologies, but there is a lot of learning to do.
For many HR professionals, the introduction of e-Learning
has served as a forced primer in modern learning
technology. Just keeping up with the long list of acronyms
In addition to the promise and terms can be exhausting, especially as new ideas are
introduced and old approaches become obsolete. In our
of greater learning flexibility, conversations with e-Learning users and prospective
users, we quickly realized that buyers are becoming much
many organizations are more sophisticated and capable of assessing program
quality. HR departments are working more closely with
counting on the long-term MIS and IS professionals or hiring technical experts to be
part of the HR team. As new standards for quality and
benefits of reduced costs delivery develop, it may become easier to navigate the
wave of information and choices. Nevertheless,
through e-Learning knowledge of technology has increased and will continue
to increase in the HR function.
technologies.
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 benefits
of reduced costs through e-Learning technologies. When
the learning process becomes more automated, it should
also cost less to deliver. Every time an employee uses an
automated e-Learning system, it reduces the overall cost
per learner. Additionally, the ability to immediately update
e-Learning resources eliminates the need to purchase
all-new materials. Scheduled instructor-led sessions
addressing predetermined topics can be replaced by
just-in-time application of automated systems over a
broad population. The move toward e-Learning can incur
high initial costs in addition to the cost of the programs
themselves. However, the real payoff appears in volume
and ongoing use.


5. The e-Learning landscape is constantly
changing.
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 much
discussion. In this approach learning is synchronous As e-Learning blends with
and connected across distance by technology. Just when
we think we have defined and analyzed the e-Learning other forms of learning,
landscape, it changes before our eyes. As e-Learning
blends with other forms of learning, we may no longer we may no longer identify
identify e-Learning as a separate delivery mechanism.
Rather, many learning experiences will have electronic e-Learning as a separate
components, and studying e-Learning as a separate topic
may no longer be relevant. delivery mechanism.

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. Numerous
studies (for example, www.nucleusresearch.com) have
shown that technology can reduce learning costs and
improve efficiency. However, we know much less about the
e-Learning experience and what drives its effectiveness.
The wide range of quality, content, and delivery formats
makes it difficult to draw general conclusions.

It is hard to ignore the media buzz about e-Learning, and
many fall into a bandwagon mentality when considering
the future of learning in organizations. No one can predict
the future, not even the users. Many have touted the
benefits and impending growth of e-Learning, but it is
taking longer to take root than was expected. In addition,
industry surveys and opinions may not always be entirely
objective and representative of what is actually
happening. For example, few organizations will respond
to a survey about e-Learning if they are not actively using
it. All users should maintain a skeptical and critical view
of new developments, always asking questions while
trying to make the right choices for their organizations.


Appendix A
E-Learning Formats
Cable or Satellite TV: The reception of television signals for learning and development
purposes (for example, business courses).
CBT or CD-ROM: Any learning event that is text- or multimedia-based and delivered from a
single computer (diskettes, hard drive, or CD-ROM).
Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS): A computer application that uses any
combination of expert systems and media to help a user perform a task in real time quickly and
with a minimum of support by other people.
E-Mail: The exchange of messages through computers—used to send or receive messages
associated 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 the
purpose of activities associated with learning and development.
Interactive TV: Video combined with a method of providing interactive responses (audio or
otherwise).
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 more
individuals or groups at two or more locations.
Voice Mail: An automated, electronic telephone system—used to send or receive messages
associated with learning or performance support.
Web-Based Learning: Access to learning experiences delivered through the Internet or an
organization’s intranet.


Appendix B
Demographics of Organizations*

Public/Private Number of Employees

Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51% Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,440

Private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49% Standard deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,215

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

For-Profit/Non-Profit 500–999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

For-profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73% 1,000–4,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

Non-profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27% 5,000 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30%

Nationality* Industry Classification

U.S.-based . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56% Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30%

Non-U.S.-based . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44% Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%

* 15 Countries are represented in the sample Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

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

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

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

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.


Participating Organizations
Aboitiz & Company, Inc. Edu Media Web
Advanced Business Incorporated e-Learning Technologies
Affinity Logic Eli Lilly and Company
Albany Medical Center Emory Hospitals
AMC Entertainment Inc. Equate Petrochemical Company
Andragogics First Union/Wachovia
Anonymous Franklin Templeton Investments
Applied Industrial Technologies Frontline Technology Center
AT&T Wireless The Gillette Company
Ball Corporation Harleysville Insurance Company
Bally Total Fitness Corporation Hotel Dieu Hospital
Bank of America Corporation Hotel Inter-Continental Toronto
Banque Nationale du Canada Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Baptist Health Systems of South Florida hyperstudy.com
Bayer Corporation IDS (Philippines), Inc. (formerly a
Bayer Corporation, Consumer Care Division division of JDH [Phils], Inc.)
Blackfox Training Institute Imperial Oil Limited
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana Indian River Community College
BMW Manufacturing Corp. Intellinex LLC
Bravo! Development, Inc. Iron Ore Company of Canada
Bristol-Myers Squibb Philippines, Inc. Istituto Orga
Brown-Forman Corporation J.C. Bamford Excavators Ltd
Brunswick Bowling and Billiards Jardine Salmat Corporation
Bunnings Building Supplies Johnson & Johnson
Cable & Wire Optus Limited Johnson & Johnson Medical
The Carousel Casino & Entertainment Keystone Mercy Health Plan
World, Sun International Kimberly-Clark Corporation
CCL Industries Inc. Legato Systems
CEMEX, Inc. LOMA
Cigarrera La Moderna, S.A. de C.V. Lowe’s
Cingular Wireless LLC Masonite (Africa) Ltd
City of Oakland Mayford Seeds (Pty) Ltd
Corporate HR Solutions Media Scan S.A.
Corporate Information Solutions, Inc. Medihelp
Courseware A/S Medtronic Physio-Control
Delta Motor Corporation Metrorail
DHL Systems Ltd Moog Controls Corp
Domtar Inc. Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation


MRI Siemens Ltd.
M-Web SkillPath Seminars
National Australia Bank Limited Sprint Canada
National Grange Mutual Insurance Company Star Tribune
National Semiconductor Corporation Stora Enso North America
ORBI Consultores SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank
Orlando Utilities Commission Financial Telecommunication)
The Partnering Group, Inc. Synetics
Pearson Technology Group Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. Company Ltd
Philips Semiconductor Calamba Tech Data Corporation
Pitney Bowes Limited Technicolor
Pitt County Memorial Hospital Tellumat (Pty) Ltd
Possis Medical Inc Tetra Pak South Africa (Pty) Ltd
PPG Industries TMX Philippines, Inc.
Pratt & Whitney Canada Toyota Team Europe
Praxair Mexico, S.A. de C.V. UCI Medical Center
Praxair, Inc. Union Pacific Railroad
Premier System Integrators, Inc. Unisys Africa Ltd (Incorporated
ProHealth Inc in Delaware, USA)
Puyat Vinyl Products, Inc. United Airlines—WHQTD
QAD Inc. United Sleep Products
Radio Frequency Systems University of Colorado Hospital Authority
The Reynolds and Reynolds Company University HealthSystem Consortium
Rolls-Royce Plc. UnumProvident Corporation
Root Learning Inc. Valassis Communications, Inc.
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. VF Playwear, Inc.
St. John’s Health System Wesleyan Assurance Society
Sanofi-Synthélabo West Bromwich Building Society
Sappi Fine Paper South Africa Wheaton USA Inc., an Alcan
Schindler Lifts (SA) (Pty) Ltd Packaging Company
SEH America, Inc. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
SGL Carbon Group The Wood Company
Siam Guardian Glass Company, Ltd.


About DDI
For more than three decades, DDI has helped thousands of organizations worldwide achieve
superior business performance through selecting, developing, and retaining extraordinary
people. The firm’s two major areas of expertise are helping companies find and hire better
people 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 realize
results. DDI’s team of 1,000 experienced associates in 70 locations can meet client needs
anywhere in the world and in any industry. Visit www.ddiworld.com for more information.

About the Authors
Paul 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 of
DDI’s HR Benchmark Group. His publications have appeared in Training and Development
Journal, Group and Organizational Management, and Advances in International Comparative
Management.

Pete Weaver is a senior vice president and heads DDI’s leadership solutions group. He is also
chief 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 (Online
Performance and Learning). Pete is a frequent speaker at major conferences on topics related
to the integration of emerging technologies with learning and assessment sciences.

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

The Americas Europe/Africa Asia-Pacific

World Headquarters— Düsseldorf Hong Kong
Pittsburgh 49.2159.91680 85.2.2526.1188
412.257.0600
London Singapore
Monterrey (Mexico) 44.1753.616000 65.226.5335
528.152.3200
Paris Sydney
Toronto 33.1.41.9686.86 61.2.9466.0300
416.601.5500
Other major offices in Capetown, Other major offices in Bangkok,
Other major offices in Atlanta, Durban, Johannesburg, and Brisbane, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur,
Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Warsaw Manila, Melbourne, Perth, Seoul,
Los Angeles, Montreal, New York, Taipei, and Tokyo
San Francisco, Santiago,
São Paulo, and St. Louis

For more information, visit our web site at www.ddiworld.com.
Or e-mail us at info@ddiworld.com.

*IV9B*
© Development Dimensions
IV9B $50.00 International, Inc., MMII.
MICABERSR9
All rights reserved.

Stateofe learning fullreport-ddi

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (18)

Ähnlich wie Stateofe learning fullreport-ddi

Ähnlich wie Stateofe learning fullreport-ddi (20)

Stateofe learning fullreport-ddi