Building and Expanding the Learning and Talent Technology Architecture

Transcription

1 Research Brief Building and Expanding the Learning and Talent Technology Architecture Findings from the CorpU 10th Annual Learning Excellence and Innovation Benchmarking Study Copyright 2010 Corporate University Xchange 1

2 Building and Expanding the Learning and Talent Technology Infrastructure In the Corporate University Xchange 10 th Annual Benchmarking Study conducted with learning leaders across the globe, questions were asked regarding technology and how learning organizations are researching, selecting, and applying new technologies to their current Learning and Talent technology infrastructure. What we have found in the survey results is that there are no clear best practices for selecting learning technologies or incorporating them into the technology architecture. Currently, there are many different approaches to learning technology infrastructure integration, as well as several methods for finding and evaluating new technologies. This variety of methods indicates efforts to meet the unique needs of the enterprise. Figure 1. Learning technology selection resides in CorpU s 12 Dimensions Technology & Infrastructure dimension in the Organize quadrant. What is the current state of the corporate learning technology infrastructure? When asked the current state of the infrastructure used to manage Learning and Talent activities at their organizations, learning leaders responded across the board (Figure 2). Analysis of the responses revealed the following: There is no single infrastructure design or process that can be said to be best practice. The current state of technology infrastructure varies and includes all options. There is a slightly greater percentage of responses for separate, non-integrated systems from all respondents and experts 1, but the difference is not significant enough to claim it as a clear leader Very few organizations built their own enterprise-wide, proprietary Learning and Talent system. Only about 5% of experts and 10% of all respondents claim to have built their own, homegrown, enterprisewide, proprietary technology infrastructure. This indicates that the vast majority of systems are nonproprietary and/or non-integrated. Many expert organizations have not yet determined a need for systems beyond their LMS. This indicates a more conservative approach to adding new systems to the Learning and Talent infrastructure not acquiring new technology just for the sake of having new technology. In addition, qualitative research tells us that some learning leaders are exploring new technologies, but have not come across systems that specifically address problems they face. More expert organizations work with external technology partners. There are slightly more experts working with external technology partners than all respondents, with no significant difference in numbers between those who use a single external system or multiple external systems. In looking at the answers that tended to receive slightly higher response rates, it could be said that the current state of the corporate learning technology infrastructure is non-proprietary, non-integrated, and likely to be hosted by external partners. To strengthen this stance, other research conducted by CorpU has determined that a majority of top performing companies is testing multiple tools and systems on a regular basis often annually 1 Expert learning organizations are defined as the highest scoring 20% of companies in CorpU s 10th Annual study. The 10th Annual study is scored using practices that are deemed best by independent judges through CorpU s annual awards program. Copyright 2010 Corporate University Xchange 2

3 in order to ensure that the systems still meet corporate needs. In many cases, some tools are integrated and some are not, based on the ease of integration and upgrading. One might think that having a non-integrated learning and talent infrastructure is simply an ad hoc, non-productive approach. However, having a completely integrated system is not always necessary, and, with the number of tools and robust point solutions on the market, it might not make sense to commit to a single, fully integrated architecture quite yet. Figure 2. Both experts and all responses reflect a variety of approaches to the integration of Learning and Talent technology. (The blue bar indicates a sample response.) Copyright 2010 Corporate University Xchange 3

4 What is the most effective approach for adding new technologies to the learning technology infrastructure? When asked what they thought was the most effective approach for adding new technologies to the Learning and Talent infrastructure, experts primarily chose one of two approaches while all respondents expressed opinions across the board (Figure 3). The responses to this question revealed the following: Learning leaders recognize multiple approaches as effective for adding new technologies to the learning technology infrastructure, although there is no consensus on the most effective approach. As no objective criteria were offered in the wording of the question, this lack of consensus may reflect a decision-making process based on what would best meet their own, unique industry or organizational needs and/or experience. Experts test technologies through pilots. This is the most significant different between the two groups. Other CorpU research indicates that it is possible that top performing organizations have greater leadership support and buy-in for and a willingness to commit resources to take risks on new technology. Ironically, technology pilots also mitigate risk by bringing to light potential problems and also increasing buy-in through early exposure to stakeholders with a vested interest in the success of the new technology. The majority of learning leaders prefer to have a dedicated person or team research and recommend technologies. Survey participants say they want a dedicated person or team to evaluate, recommend, and present a business case for adding new technology. Some companies may not have the time or resources to design, run and evaluate the results of technology experiments in pilot programs. They overcome this limitation by making a person or team responsible for evaluating technologies. The challenge with this approach is making sure the new technology adequately addresses the use cases for your workforce. That can be hard to do without doing at least a minimal test in your environment where you can observe how capabilities of the technology adapt to the unique situations that arise when the system is being used, but that don t show up in demonstrations or by observing how the system gets used in other companies. The majority of learning leaders say they are finding ways to use other technologies their companies own, avoiding the need to invest their learning budgets. It is possible that those organizations that do not have the ability to spend money on new technology see this as the most effective option because it is their only option. Or, as many companies are doing with software such as SharePoint, leveraging existing technology to serve other technological needs may offer a significant cost savings. Survey respondents may actually believe that research, benchmarking, piloting, and looking internally are all valid approaches to choosing new technologies, but when pressed to choose the most effective, their opinions vary. Although their opinions are different, it appears that experts prefer to use experimentation through pilots, while the larger population relies on the research by a dedicated individual or team. Research in the realm of social learning among cutting edge technology companies has revealed a preference for failing fast when it comes to adopting new learning technologies. In other words, using free trials or shortterm contracts to conduct quick, intense experiments with technologies to find out what works for the organization and what does not, as opposed to more time-intensive research. Finally, some of these approaches may work better for certain types of technologies versus others. A pilot for an LMS or entire Talent Management System may be possible, but would be more cumbersome and difficult than pilots of smaller, point solution software programs. Based on the spread of responses in this study, as well as additional research with multiple companies regarding technology implementation, we recommend that a pilot should never be conducted without the due diligence of research and recommendations first. Copyright 2010 Corporate University Xchange 4

5 Figure 3. Experts lean toward experimentation and research to adopt new technologies while All Responses reflect a preference for a variety of approaches. (The blue bar indicates a sample response.) Copyright 2010 Corporate University Xchange 5

6 Conclusion Based on the responses to these two questions, CorpU recommends researching and experimenting with new technologies, especially with those that provide point solutions to immediate learning challenges. However, we would not suggest that organizations commit to adopting an integrated, enterprise-wide Learning and Talent system yet. Learning technologies are growing and changing fast right now much like the LMS technologies did several years ago. Years ago, the LMS market was full of small vendors developing and offering tools that met the learning management needs of organizations, each with a set of different, interesting features. Often, the features that differentiated LMS systems emanated from the vendor s knowledge of unique requirements of an industry, or even a single company. Over time, the LMS landscape consolidated and settled into a few top brands and more homogeneous set of features that were more broadly useful across companies and industries. The current wave of new performance, competency, workforce, succession, and talent management systems not to mention the collaboration and networking platforms are now in the initial growth stage, but will soon go through the winnowing process just as the LMS vendors did. With this in mind, learning leaders who put all their proverbial eggs into one basket too early might find themselves with a vendor and/or tool that no longer exists, is no longer supported, or does not have the features that the more fully developed tools will have down the road. It may be wiser to keep systems separated for the time being and keep watching the market for signs of settling before committing to a fully integrated system. About the Study The Corporate University Xchange 10th Annual Benchmarking study featured over 100 questions covering Corporate University Xchange s 12 Dimensions of Learning Excellence and Innovation Framework. This framework focuses on important operational processes and practices within the learning function that include but are not limited to, strategy, performance consulting, branding, measurement, technology, etc. The study gathered information from over 150 companies that completed all or part of the detailed question set. Most of the study research was conducted in a twelve-week period from November 2009 to February Copyright 2010 Corporate University Xchange 6

7 Corporate University Xchange is a private membership of senior learning and talent executives, founded in We believe that the most valuable advice for senior executives comes from peers who have wrestled with and successfully overcome similar challenges, and we make this exchange of information happen through our research, events and peer-to-peer networking. Resources available to CorpU members include: The Learning and Innovation Excellence benchmarking study which measures how well learning and talent functions meet the needs of their companies CorpU s Learning Brand, a holistic voice-of-the-customer survey for the learning function Case Studies of the work done by leading edge practitioners Tools that support the learning decision-making process For more information about joining CorpU, see our website, Copyright 2010 Corporate University Xchange 7