L e a r N i N g & D e v e L o p m e N t a c t i v i t y, b u D g e t i N g & c u r r e N t t r e N D S S u r v e y r e p o r t N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 7 www.iitd.ie
P a g e 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. Executive Summary.. 01 Survey Participant Group Characteristics.... 04 Status of Learning and Development Strategy & Structure.. 06 Current Barriers to Enabling L&D. 08 Linkages between L&D and Performance Management.. 10 Responsibility for L&D Delivery.. 10 Learning and Development Titles Held.. 11 Areas of Activity Covered by L&D.. 12 Current Key Drivers for L&D Activity.. 13 Organisational Objectives over the Next Two Years.. 14 Requirements that Need to be in Place for Meeting Business Challenges... 15 Trends in Relation to the L&D Budget.. 16 Breakdown on Organisation Spend on Areas of L&D Activity. 18 Accreditation of L&D Programmes.... 19 Sources of L&D Programmes.. 19 Learning and Development Methods Used.. 21 Use of Bespoke Courses.. 22 How L&D is Currently Delivered.. 22 Engagement in External Consultancy in relation to L&D in 2016.. 23 Undertaking L&D Needs Analysis.. 24 Recording Formal Training & Development Hours on an Annual Basis.... 25 Evaluating the Impact of L&D on Business Performance... 26 Barriers to Conducting Further ROI Studies in the Organisation.. 28 Core Skills Needed for Front-Line, Middle and Senior Management in the Organisation 29 SUMMARY WALL.... 32
P a g e 2 Executive Summary The IITD Survey on Learning & Development Activity, Budgeting and Current Trends 2017 raised a number of comforting points for the Learning & Development profession in terms of a growing presence and structural positioning in Centres of L&D Excellence and evidence of activity feeding directly to organisation strategy and performance. However, this is not the position for the majority of L&D professionals with a number of significant needs being articulated by respondents. Of concern to the profession is the message of infrequent or absent L&D Needs Analysis activity as well as a lack of meaningful connection with ROI methodologies as an L&D tool. There is evidence of a fragmented approach in organisations with less defined L&D structures which do not lend to a value add positioning for L&D. Across the respondent pool there was an articulated need to leverage relationships with other L&D stakeholders in the organisation. Time, and capacity to release staff for training remains the most imposing factor in terms of barriers impacting buy in for L&D activity. Change, growing the organisation as well as the motivation and retention of staff emerged at the top focuses for last year as well as the coming forecasted year. There is a need to have focused support on how to embed and foster a positive L&D culture in connecting L&D with those setting business strategy and, most importantly, other internal learning and development stakeholders. There is evidence of a fragmented approach in organisations with less defined L&D structures which do not lend to a value add positioning for L&D. Networking for L&D professionals, especially the training consultant, emerged as a need Budgeting practices were expressed as predominately responsive to requirements from business units or based on previous years spend. There was little to no evidence of proactive budgeting for strategic needs outside the current or forecasted business requirements. Networking for L&D professionals, especially the training consultant, emerged as a need especially in the context of survey s participant s messaging on their use of internal versus external trainers/ consultants where referral was a significant influencer, following cost, in the engagement of external training consultants.
P a g e 3 10% of respondents undertaking an L&D Needs Analysis less than once in 5 years and 6% have never conducted a Needs Analysis. Only 60% of organisations articulated that they undertake a L&D Needs Analysis on an annual basis with 10% of respondents undertaking an L&D Needs Analysis less than once in 5 years and 6% have never conducted a Needs Analysis. A wealth of information was gathered in this survey which should inform IITD members in benchmarking their L&D Function, its activity as well as considering current trends at a national level across sectors. In this regard, this document is intended to reflect a summary of the findings and more detailed analysis will be completed over the coming months.
P a g e 4 Survey Participant Group Characteristics This survey compiled by the IITD was completed during Summer 2017. Individuals from 150 organisations engaged with this information gathering exercise on the range of L&D activity, budgetary and current trends. Survey participants represented a broad range of organisations of varying sizes with 27.3% of respondents employed in organisations employing more than 1000 people, 11.3% in organisations employing 500-100 individuals, a further 28% in organisations employing 100-500 and 33.3% in organisations with less than 100 employees. Participant Organisation Size by Employee Headcount 1000+ 500-1000 250-500 100-250 50-99 10-49 0-9 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% Figure 1: Survey participants by organisation size. # Answer % Count 1 1-9 18.00% 27 2 10-49 12.00% 18 3 50-99 3.33% 5 4 100-250 14.00% 21 5 250-500 14.00% 21 6 500-1000 11.33% 17 7 1000+ 27.33% 41 Total 100% 150 Table 1: Survey participants by organisation size.
P a g e 5 The nature of respondent organisations varied widely and included those in education and training (22%), professional services (14%), financial services (10%), manufacturing (9.3%), retail (8%), engineering (5%), Health and Social Services (5%), hotel, catering and leisure (1.33%) and other services (25%) which includes government and public-sector departments & agencies, travel, insurance and other services. 78% of respondents confirmed that they were the only person in their organisation who had completed this survey. Other Services Professional Services Financial Services Hotels, Catering and Leisure Health and Social Services Electronic Services Education/ Training Engineering Retail Wholesale Distribution Other Manufacturing Pharma/Chemical Manufacturing Food and Drink Manufacturing Medical Devices Manufacturing Electronic Manufacturing Nature of Participant Organisations 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% Figure 2: Survey participants by nature of organisation.
P a g e 6 Status of Learning and Development Strategy & Structure Key challenges in relation to putting in place a strategy in this area included structural constraints arising from how the organisation is functionally organised which can create a fragmented approach to L&D delivery. No 17% Under Consideration 13% Yes 70% Figure 3: Organisation L&D strategy in place. 70% of respondents confirmed that their organisations have a Learning and Development (L&D) strategy in place while a further 13% indicated that a strategy was currently being considered. 17% of those who completed the survey reported that their employing organisation does not currently have a strategy in place. For over half of those who completed the survey, the L&D plan is tied into and fully integrated with the strategic objectives of the organisation while a further 44% indicated that the plan was partially linked to the strategic plan. For the remaining 4% of respondents, L&D is separate to and independent of the strategic organisational objectives. Key challenges in relation to putting in place a strategy in this area included structural constraints arising from how the organisation is functionally organised which can create a fragmented approach to L&D delivery in addition to the challenges of ensuring linkages between L&D and constantly changing business and regulatory requirements. Level of Integration to Organisation's Strategic Objectives Fully Integrated Partially Linked Independent Figure 4: Extent to which L&D Plan is linked to organisation strategy.
P a g e 7 84% of those who completed the survey stated that their organisation has a dedicated L&D function responsible for employee training while 72% confirmed that their organisation has a formal training 72% confirmed that their organisation has a formal training plan in place. plan in place. Where there is no dedicated L&D function and no formal training plan in place, this is due in some cases to the early development stage of the organisation, the structure, or the nature of the organisation itself. When asked what the structure is of the L&D function in their organisation, 38% indicated that the L&D structure is a centre of excellence which supports the entire organisation while 32% noted that the L&D function is not structured separately as it sits within the HR remit. 15% of respondents confirmed that the L&D function is embedded in the various business units. For the remaining 14% L&D is not currently active within the organisation. For 14% of organisations L&D is not currently active within the organisation. Postional Structure of L&D Function in Organisation 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% Centre of Excellence supporting the entire organisation Embedded in various business units Not structured on its own - it is within the HR remit Other Figure 5: Structure of the L&D function within the organisation. For most organisations (42%), L&D has been an established function for more than 10 years. For 31% L&D has been established for between 3-10 years with the remaining 27% indicating that it has been in place for less than 3 years.
P a g e 8 Length of Time L&D Function in Place 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Less than a year Between 1-3 years Between 3-5 years Between 5-10 years Between 10-15 years Greater than 15 years Not an established function Figure 6: Length of time L&D function has been established. Current Barriers to Enabling L&D When invited to identify the barriers which exist in relation to L&D in the organisation, the following were the main factors identified: Time and availability factors by 37% of respondents; Costs by 27% of respondents; L&D is not considered relevant in the organisation of 10.5% of respondents; There is a lack of suitable programmes according to 10.5% of respondents; L&D is not valued by employees according to 6% of respondents.
P a g e 9 BARRIERS TO LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT Too busy to release for L&D Costs Not seen as relevant Not valued by employees Lack of suitable programmes Other 9% 6% 10% 37% 11% 27% Figure 7: Reported barriers to enabling L&D in survey participant organisations. Other factors cited by 9% of respondents included a deficit within their organisation of the managerial mind-set, support and skills required to develop individuals and teams. Other factors such as the pace and nature of organisational change, employee turnover, traditional culture and work practices as well as the inability to effectively measure the impact of L&D activity were identified as barriers which exist in relation to enabling L&D within the organisation. 9% of respondents reported a deficit of the managerial mind-set within their organisation in relation to L&D. These barriers create a situation where there is limited buy in to enable the L&D agenda, delays to the enhancement of the internal skills base, poor progression and career development internally within the organisation. In turn this leads to morale, productivity and retention issues which then impact on business delivery and the positioning and reputation of the organisation within a competitive environment. In addition respondents noted that these obstacles to learning and development created a reactive rather than a strategic L&D function. The strain on resources and inadequacy of return which a number of these barriers create in terms of the organisational investment into L&D was also highlighted.
P a g e 10 Linkages between L&D and Performance Management Yes No In Theory but not in practice No PM system in place 11% 37% 32% 20% Figure 8: L&D Link to performance management. For 36.5% of respondents, L&D is linked directly to performance management while a further 32% confirmed that while the theory and understanding is that L&D is directly linked to performance 20% indicated that L&D is not directly linked to performance management. Responsibility for L&D Delivery management, in practice within the organisation, this is not the case. 20% indicated that L&D is not directly linked to performance management while 11.5% of those who completed the survey noted that their organisation has no performance management system currently in place. More than half of those who completed the survey stated that the Senior Head of the Unit i.e. L&D Director/Manager/Head of HR were responsible for the delivery of L&D objectives for the organisation. For other organisations, the heads of business units and senior management generally were identified as being responsible for the delivery of the organisational L&D objectives. In addressing those organisations where L&D is not the sole function of the most senior L&D person, respondents were asked what proportion of their time is spent on L&D. The answer to this question varied greatly across the participant group with answers ranging from 0% to 100% of time spent on L&D. Across all survey participants 35% was the average approximate proportion of time spent on L&D from organisations where L&D is not the only responsibility of the most senior L&D person.
P a g e 11 Over half (51%) of respondents indicated that there were other L&D resources available within the organisation separate to the core L&D team. These included Training Officers within business units, resources within IT, project management, marketing, shared services, skills coaches and subject matter experts. Across all survey participants 35% was the average approximate proportion of time spent on L&D from organisations where L&D is not the only responsibility of the most senior L&D person. The survey invited respondents to name the roles and titles of those working within the L&D team within their organisation. Learning and Development Manager is a very popular title used across organisations. Other titles used for those working in L&D included L&D Consultant, L&D/Training Executive, Training Officer, L&D Specialist, L&D Partner, L&D Trainer, Training Co-ordinator & L&D Administrator. Learning and Development Titles Held TITLE TITLE Head of HR and L&D Director - Audit, Training & Compliance Head of Centre for L&D Director, IT & elearning Head of Group Learning Director, L&D Head of Learning & Development L&D Business Partner Head of Culture & Capability OD Programme Manager L&D Manager Senior L&D Specialist L&D Specialist Senior L&D Consultant Training Administrator Training Officer Consultant Trainer Education Coordinator/ Trainer/ Technologists L&D Consultant Table 2: Most frequent L&D role titles in use in participant organisations. Respondents were invited to set out how many full-time employees they have with particular responsibility for L&D and what qualifications they hold. Again, there was significant diversity in the responses given with some responses stating that they had no full time employees to others noting that they had 20 full time employees with responsibility for L&D.
P a g e 12 Areas of Activity Covered by L&D Areas Covered by the Organisation's L&D Remit 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 14.00% 16.00% 18.00% Talent Management Performance Management Succession Planning Change Management Occupational H&S Compliance and Risk Leadership Development Staff Development Organisation Development MS Office/ Systems Other Figure 9: Remit of the L&D function. Those areas covered by the L&D remit and the proportion of organisations surveyed within which these activities are included are listed below: Staff Development is covered by the L&D remit in 51% of organisations surveyed Leadership Development is carried out within the L&D function in 49% of organisations surveyed Performance Management is overseen within the L&D function in 33% of organisations surveyed Talent Management is covered by the L&D remit within 30% of organisations surveyed MS Office/Systems training is overseen within the L&D function in 28% of organisations surveyed Organisation Development is covered by the L&D remit within 28% of organisations surveyed Change Management is overseen within the L&D function within 21% of organisations surveyed In terms of remit the Leadership Development and Staff Development are predominant. Occupational H&S is under the L&D remit within 18% of organisations surveyed Succession Planning is the function of L&D within 16% of organisations surveyed Compliance and Risk is under the L&D remit within 15% of organisations surveyed
P a g e 13 Other (includes role specific specialist and technical training, continuous improvement) is overseen within the L&D function within 9% of organisations surveyed. Current Key Drivers for L&D Activity Organisation Change remains a top priority for the next 12 months. The key drivers for action within L&D from the past year (2016) and the future year (2018) for the area of Learning and Development within the organisations that participated in the survey were set out as follows: Figure 10: Key Drivers for the Learning and Development in Survey Participant Organisations by timeframe.
P a g e 14 Driver for L&D Activity Priority over past 12 months Priority over next 12 months Organisational Change Ranked 1st Ranked 1st Staff motivation/retention Ranked 2nd Ranked 2nd Growth of company/new hires Ranked 3rd Ranked 3 rd Technological change Ranked 4 th Ranked joint 4 th Risk/regulatory changes Ranked joint 5 th Ranked joint 4 th Managing performance Ranked joint 5 th Ranked joint 4th Meeting statutory obligations i.e. H&S Ranked joint 5 th Ranked 5 th Customer demands Ranked joint 5 th Ranked 7 th New products or services Ranked 6 th Ranked 6 th Quality demands Ranked 7th Not ranked Table 3: Drivers of L&D activity over the past and coming 12 months. While the general areas of priority remain unchanged between last year and next year, the survey responses highlighted that organisational change and staff motivation and retention together with organisational expansion and new recruitment activity are seen as the main drivers for L&D in the next year. Organisational Objectives Over the Next Two Years The key organisational objectives for the next 2 years as identified by those who completed the survey are presented below in order of importance as set out by the survey respondents: 1. To facilitate growth of the company 2. To increase productivity 3. Future leader development 4. Succession planning 5. To facilitate change 6. To improve staff motivation 7. To meet statutory obligations 8. To retain key staff 9. To increase competitiveness 10. To reduce costs The survey asked participants to pinpoint the top three organisational challenges faced by their organisation from 2017 into 2018. be classified into a number of headings as follows Achieving growth targets Delivering competitiveness in the market place Addressing leadership deficits Reducing costs Talent attraction and retention A broad and varied list was presented by respondents which can
P a g e 15 Responding to skills and knowledge deficits created by retirement of key staff Addressing challenges posed by Brexit Change management Technological challenges Employee engagement Requirements That Need to be in Place for Meeting Business Challenges When asked to rank the areas of importance in meeting business challenges identified, the following were highlighted in order of importance to the survey respondents Requirements Ranking Leadership 1 Employee Engagement 2 Communications 3 Motivation 4 Managing Change 5 Planning/Strategy 6 Finance 7 Managing Poor Performance 8 IT 9 Project Management 10 Managing people in the current climate 11 Table 4: Requirements for meeting business challenges.
P a g e 16 Trends in Relation to the L&D Budget 78% of those who responded to the survey confirmed that they have a budget for Learning and Development. For more than half of these respondents, the L&D budget is predominantly calculated based on training plans and requirements, while for a further 22% the previous year s budget determines the current budget. 15% of survey participants indicated that the For more than half of these respondents, the L&D budget is predominantly calculated based on training plans and requirements, while for a further 22% the previous year s budget determines the current budget. L&D budget is based on previous years spend while for approximately 8% of those who have a budget, an agreed formula is used which incorporates headcount to determine the L&D budget. For the 22% of those who indicated in the survey that they do not have a budget, the spend on L&D is determined as needs arise. Basis of Budget Calculation 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% On the basis of the previous year's spend On the basis of the previous year's budget On the basis of training plans and requirements On the basis of an agreed formula incorporating headcount Other Figure 11: Basis of calculation of L&D budget.
P a g e 17 On average across all organisations surveyed, approximately 2.91% of payroll costs is spent on learning and development. Generally for the greater number of survey participants, the L&D budget provides for the following: cost of room rental and refreshments externally training and exam materials fees external courses, training programmes and conferences hiring external consultants and trainers tuition reimbursement On average across all organisations surveyed, approximately 2.91% of payroll costs is spent on learning and development. While for at least one third of respondents, the following costs are not provided for within the L&D budget: Salaries of in-house trainers and administrators (absorbed to core role held) In-house variable costs utilities, refreshments, telephone etc. Allocated floor space, PC equipment etc for L&D activity Psychometric assessments and diagnostics Provision for travel and subsistence costs # Question Yes No 1 Provision for travel and subsistence costs 54.90% 45.10% 2 Cost of room rental and refreshments externally 70.00% 30.00% 3 Salaries of in-house trainers and administrators 38.00% 62.00% 4 Training and exam materials fees 86.27% 13.73% 5 External courses, training programmes and conferences 98.08% 1.92% 6 Hiring external consultants and trainers 88.46% 11.54% 7 Mentoring and coaching 70.59% 29.41% 8 Psychometric assessments and diagnostics 51.92% 48.08% 9 E-learning systems/learning management systems 62.50% 37.50% 10 In-house variable costs costs of utilities, refreshments, telephone 43.75% 56.25% etc. 11 Content development and licenses 67.35% 32.65% 12 Tuition reimbursement 84.31% 15.69% 13 Allocated floor space, PC equipment etc for L&D Activity 31.25% 68.75% Table 5: Costs outside of L&D budget associated with L&D activity.
P a g e 18 In 6 out of 10 organisations surveyed, there is no further spend on training by functions/units outside of L&D/HR. While in 40% of organisations, local units and functions other than HR and L&D incur additional spend on training. These costs include: Graduate training Subsistence expenses and travel costs Coaching and mentoring Technical and other specialist programmes provided externally Specific strategy initiatives Attendance at seminars and conferences In 6 out of 10 organisations surveyed, there is no further spend on training by functions/units outside of L&D/HR. Overall spend on training has remained more or less unchanged in the past year. However where spend has increased, this is due to a greater focus on training, greater linkages between employee development and strategy and facilitating the outcomes of performance management as well as some Overall spend on training has remained more or less unchanged in the past year. increases in workforce. Some increases have also been experienced where there has been a larger training budget made available. 63% of respondents indicated that they expected spend in the area of L&D to increase in the next year. Breakdown of Organisation Spend on Areas of L&D Activity As highlighted from the survey, organisational spend is spread across a number of L&D activities. Where areas of activity are clearly identified, these are listed below in order of the area of the highest to the area of the lowest spend: Professional or industry specific Executive development Managerial and supervisory Mandatory and compliance training Processes and procedures training Sales training Customer service training Accreditation of L&D Programmes The survey invited participants to give their opinion as to the importance of accreditation on the National Framework of Qualifications (or equivalent) for programmes provided to employees. While
P a g e 19 a quarter of respondents noted that this was very important, 44% indicated that accreditation was viewed as being important, with the remaining 31% confirming that this was not important. # Answer % 1 Very important 25.45% 2 Important 43.64% 3 Not important 30.91% Total 100% Table 6: Importance attributed to accreditation on National Qual. Framework for employee programmes. Sources of L&D Programmes The survey also reviewed the degree to which programmes are external, internal or bespoke (delivered by an external vendor specifically for the organisation). The greater proportion of courses are bespoke in nature (49%), followed by external programmes (37%) and internal programmes (14%). Bespoke courses are valued on the basis that they can be tailored to address the specific contextual requirements of the organisation such as technological/process requirements, culture, specialised skill sets or knowledge areas.
P a g e 20 External Education & Training Providers Used 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Private Training Companies Private Colleges Skillnets Education and training board services (e.g. Institutes of Technology Universities Other Figure 12: External education and training providers usage by type. Private training companies are the most popular provider of external education and training with universities, institutes of technologies, Skillnets and private colleges used to a lesser degree Universities Institutes of Technologies Skillnets Private colleges Education and training board services (e.g. further education colleges) are the least popular education and training providers. Education Policy Two thirds of organisations have a separate education policy for staff to support employee professional development and encourage professional development generally within the organisation as well as staff retention. Generally, where this policy is in place, it is available to staff with at least 12 months service. It is of value to note that several organisations indicated that the policy covers programmes which are clearly of relevance to the strategic and operational needs of the organisation.
P a g e 21 Learning and Development Methods Used Figure 13: Learning and Development methods used by number of survey respondents. The following learning and development methods are ranked in order of popularity Internal training programmes delivered by internal personnel On-the-job training External programmes delivered by external consultants Coaching E-learning Internal programmes delivered by external consultants Mentoring External programmes jointly delivered by external consultants and internal personnel Attendance at conferences and online learning resources such as webinars are also viewed as key learning methods.
P a g e 22 Use of Bespoke Courses # Answer % 1 The company/ industry is different so it requires a bespoke solution 35.21% 2 The quality of the generic approach/ content is not good enough 26.76% 3 The enhanced credibility and buy in that you comes from engaging with an 29.58% external provider 4 Other 8.45% Total 100% Table 7: Rationale for bespoke course usage. More than one third of respondents noted that bespoke courses are delivered arising from the industrial/company characteristics. For 27% of those who participated in the survey, it was felt that the quality of generic content and a generic approach are not sufficient for organisational requirements. How L&D is Currently Delivered The popularity of the various approaches to how L&D is currently delivered is as follows in ranked order of popularity: 1. Internal instructor-led class room in-house training 2. External instructor-led classroom in-house training 3. Use of learning technologies i.e. E-learning etc. 4. One-to-one approach 5. External instructor-led classroom at an external location 6. Led remotely via online media by an instructor 7. On-line by an instructor # Answer % 1 Yes 58.18% 2 No 41.82% Total 100% Table 8: Change in L&D methods over the last three years.
P a g e 23 For 58% of respondents, L&D methods have changed in the last three years. These changes had arisen primarily due to the needs of the changing workforce and the nature of the workforce and had in the main taken the form of significantly more digital learning oriented approaches such as e-learning. For this group also, individual approaches such as mentoring and coaching had also grown in importance. 85% of respondents confirmed that they expected L&D delivery to continue in this way for the next 12 months. For those who indicated that their current approach to the delivery of L&D would change, the main developments envisaged included a greater focus on value for money in addition to a move to more on-line delivery. Engagement in External Consultancy In relation to L&D in 2016 # Answer % 1 Yes 61.54% 2 No 38.46% Total 100% Table 9: Engagement in L&D external consultancy in 2016. 62% of survey participants confirmed that they had engaged with external consultants in 2016. Those areas where external vendors had been employed included: Delivery of bespoke training i.e. performance management, management development and soft skills training Addressing technical skills requirements i.e. IT, H&S Team building initiatives Training incorporating use of psychometric instruments i.e. MBTI Coaching Skills analysis and training curriculum design Cultural change projects including the development of agile and lean competencies 62% of survey participants confirmed that they had engaged with external consultants in 2016.
P a g e 24 The expenditure related to this work varied significantly from organisation to organisation from a figure quoted of 3k to another figure noted of 1.5 million The primary criterion which respondents use for selecting external L&D consultants is the previous experience of the consultants (65% of respondents ranked this criterion as the most important). Other criteria used in the decision to hire external L&D consultants are ranked below in order of popularity: Cost Referral Customised Offer Brand Skillnets provider Expenditure figures quoted by participants in relation to external consultant engagement ranged from 3k to 1.5 million. Undertaking L&D Needs Analysis # Answer % 1 Every Year 60.00% 2 Every 2 Years 14.00% 3 Every 3-5 Years 10.00% 4 Less than once every 5 years 10.00% 5 Never 6.00% Total 100% Table 10: Frequency at which participant organisations conduct a L&D Needs Analysis. 60% of participant organisations conduct a L&D Needs Analysis every year but 6% never do with 10% conducting one less than once every 5 years. The most popular methods used to identify the learning and development needs of organisation members are arising from employee requests (26%), requests from line management (27%), performance appraisal (25%), survey (8%) and assessment centre (3%).
P a g e 25 # Answer % 1 Requests from line manager 26.76% 2 Requests from employee 26.06% 3 Performance appraisal 24.65% 4 Other 11.97% 5 Survey 7.75% 6 Assessment Centre 2.82% Total 100% Table 11: Methods used to identify L&D Needs. Requests from employees and their line managers represent the most popular method for identifying L&D needs. Recording Formal Training & Development Hours on an Annual Basis # Answer % 1 Yes 63.64% 2 No 36.36% Total 100% Table 12: % of Participant Organisations that record hours of Training/Development 64% of survey respondents confirmed that they currently record the number of formal training/development hours on an annual basis. Of this number, 29% of employees within respondent organisations receive more than 32 hours training/development each year. A further 28.5% receive between 9-16 hours while a further 28.5% receive between 1-9hours formal training/development hours on an annual basis. 14% of employees within respondent organisations receive between 25-32 hours training/development annually.
P a g e 26 # Answer % 1 Zero hours 0.00% 2 1-9 hours 28.57% 3 9-16 hours 28.57% 4 16-25 hours 0.00% 5 25-32 hours 14.29% 6 Greater than 32 hours 28.57% Total 100% Table 13: Hours of employee training/ development delivery per annum. 29% of participant organisation employees receive 32 hours training/development per annum. Over half of respondents (53%) currently evaluate the impact of L&D on business performance. Evaluating the Impact of L&D on Business Performance # Answer % 1 Yes 52.94% 2 No 47.06% Total 100% Table 14: % of survey participant organisations that evaluate the impact of L&D on business performance. Over half of respondents (53%) currently evaluate the impact of L&D on business performance. Resource constraints together with the challenge of developing a methodology for measurement of the actual impact of L&D within the organisation were cited by several respondents as some of the reasons why the impact of L&D within the organisation was not measured. Other survey participants commented that measuring the impact of L&D was not currently a business requirement.
P a g e 27 # Question Yes 1 Reaction of participants following 89.58% training (i.e evaluation sheets) 2 Behaviour of participants 68.89% 3 Learning achieved 76.09% 4 Results achieved 54.55% 5 ROI using a defined formula 10.26% Table 15: Impact Measurements Used. Impact is largely measured via participant reaction, learning achieved and behaviour with only 10% using formalised ROI formula. For those who currently measure the impact of learning and development, the most popular method is through feedback of participants following training (i.e. evaluation sheets) with 31% of respondents confirming that they apply this approach. 26% of those who responded to the survey confirmed that learning achieved by participants is the method used to evaluate impact of L&D while 23% of participants stated that the behaviour of participants following training is used as a measure of its impact. For 18% of respondents the results achieved following a learning initiative or training is the measure used while just 3% of respondents measure impact through application of a defined return on investment (ROI) formula. For those who apply a formula, the challenges of having readily available data was highlighted. Some organisations measure impact in relation to a certain proportion of the programmes or learning and development initiatives that they run. For those respondents who indicated that they measure the impact of L&D through application of ROI over the course of the past year, generally a very limited number of audits have been conducted. The most popular approaches to gathering information which is applied to evaluate return on investment in L&D include:
P a g e 28 # Answer % 1 Questionnaires 32.47% 2 Performance Appraisals 22.08% 3 Coaching 6.49% 4 Focus Groups 19.48% 5 Productivity Results 14.29% 6 Other 5.19% Total 100% Table 16: Methods used to gather ROI information. Where this information is used effectively, it is used for reporting purposes to inform stakeholders including senior managers as to the impact L&D is having on organisational objectives. Where it is used for operational purposes, this includes making manpower planning decisions and to assess future needs. It is also used for strategic planning purposes and to assess training effectiveness and value for money. Barriers to Conducting Further ROI Studies in the Organisation The main difficulties raised by survey participants in terms of conducting further ROI studies in their organisation related to resources; primarily time. Other secondary difficulties included a lack of knowledge and expertise in relation to ROI, problems relating to the availability and accessibility of the data and limited buy in from business leaders. Barriers to ROI are reported to include time and resources, knowledge and expertise as well as availability/ accessibility of data and business leadership buy-in.
P a g e 29 Core Skills Needed by Front Line, Middle and Senior Management in the Organisation # Question Front Line Staff Middle Managers Senior Managers 1 Managing People Skills 24.72% 42.70% 32.58% 2 Marketing using Social Media 31.03% 44.83% 24.14% 3 Mediation Skills 11.43% 42.86% 45.71% 4 Leadership Skills 15.63% 40.63% 43.75% 5 Stress Management/ Resilience 32.95% 37.50% 29.55% Training 6 Performance Management Skills 15.48% 46.43% 38.10% for Managers 7 Coaching Skills for Managers 11.76% 48.24% 40.00% 8 Clerical and Administrative 70.00% 26.67% 3.33% Support Skills 9 Strategy and Business Skills 11.67% 38.33% 50.00% 10 Employee Engagement 23.75% 40.00% 36.25% 11 Professional and Technical Skills 43.84% 32.88% 23.29% 12 Creativity and Innovation 34.33% 34.33% 31.34% 13 Managing Change 20.93% 39.53% 39.53% 14 Communications/ Influencing 26.32% 37.89% 35.79% Others 15 Occupational Health and Safety 49.09% 27.27% 23.64% 16 Personal Development 33.65% 34.62% 31.73% 17 Risk and Compliance 32.97% 34.07% 32.97% Table 17: Skill Needs by Management Level in Participant Organisations. The survey invited participants to identify those core skills required by management at senior level, middle management level and front-line level. The key skills for front line staff are predominantly related to their own personal development and the development of hard skills related to professional
P a g e 30 and technical skills, risk and compliance, occupational health and safety. Stress management and resilience skills are also highly ranked as skills required at this level. In identifying the skills needs of middle managers, the softer skills around managing people, leadership skills, stress management/resilience training, performance management and coaching skills are seen as important as are communications skills, personal development and managing change. Addressing the skills needs of senior management, leadership is viewed as the key core skill requirement followed by communications/influencing skills, coaching skills and the ability to manage change which are all viewed as of equal importance. For this group comprising senior management, the harder technical and professional skills are viewed as a lot less important. Other development needs identified for management included regulatory training, project management and lean-six sigma in addition to training delivery skills.
Page 32 S U M M A R Y WA L L N E T W O R K I N G F O R L & D P R O F E S S I O N A L S, E S P E C I A L LY T H E T R A I N I N G C O N S U LTA N T, E M E R G E D A S A K E Y N E E D. T H E R E I S E V I D E N C E O F A F R A G M E N T E D A P P R O A C H T O L & D I N O R G A N I S AT I O N S W I T H L E S S D E F I N E D S T R U C T U R E S W H I C H D O E S N O T L E N D T O A VA LU E A D D P O S I T I O N I N G F O R L & D. 2.91% average % of payroll spent on L&D. 9% of respondents reported a deficit in the managerial mind-set within their organisation in relation to L&D. 14% % of organisations where L&D function is inactive. 20% indicated that L&D is not directly linked to performance management. 35% average % of time allocated to L&D where L&D is not the primary function of the individual. O R G A N I S AT I O N C H A N G E R E M A I N S A T O P P R I O R I T Y F O R T H E N E X T 1 2 M O N T H S. www.iitd.ie K E Y C H A L L E N G E S F O R P U T T I N G A N L & D S T R AT E G Y I N P L A C E I N C LU D E S C O N S T R A I N T S A R I S I N G F R O M H O W T H E O R G A N I S AT I O N I S F U N C T I O N A L LY O R G A N I S E D, R E S U LT I N G I N A F R A G M E N T E D A P P R O A C H T O L & D D E L I V E R Y.
Page 33 s u m m a r y wa l l of participant organisation employees receive 32 hours training/development per annum. 29% based their L&D budget on training plans and requirements, while for a further 22% the previous year s budget determines the future budget. 53% over half of respondents (53%) currently evaluate the impact of L&D on business performance. 53% of participant organisations conduct a L&D Needs analysis every year but 6% never do with 10% conducting one less than once every 5 years. 60% of survey participants confirmed that they had engaged in external consultancy in 2016. 62% confirmed that their organisation has a formal training plan in place. 72% r e q u e s t s f r o m e m p lo y e e s a n d t h e i r l i n e m a n a g e r s r e p r e s e n t t h e M O S T P O P U L A R m e t h o d f o r i d e n t i f y i n g l & d n e e d s. o v e r a l l s p e n d o n t r a i n i n g h a s r e m a i n e d S TAT I C i n t h e pa s t y e a r. B A R R I E R S T O R O I a r e r e p o r t e d t o i n c lu d e t i m e a n d r e s o u r c e s, k n o w l e d g e a n d e x p e r t i s e a s w e l l a s ava i l a b i l i t y / a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f d ata a n d b u s i n e s s l e a d e r s h i p b u y - i n.
sycamore house, millennium park, naas, co. kildare. t: +353 (0)45 881 166 e: info@iitd.ie www.iitd.ie