Benchmarking report 6 30

Corporate Universities Benchmarking Report 6/23/2014

Benchmarking Report Contents

Page 2

Benchmarking Report

Introduction This document represents the benchmarking information collected during the assessment of UDOT University (UDOTu). The approach to this work included a four-stage process as follows: 1. Understanding those issues and elements of the structure and operations of a corporate university of greatest interest to UDOT, 2. Conducting a literature search for written studies and materials of particular interest that would shed light on these issues and elements of interest to UDOT, 3. Identifying and contacting organizations in operation whose profile indicate that their experience (lessons-learned and/or current practices) provide information on these issues and elements of interest to UDOT, and 4. Summarizing ‘findings’ and lessons of interest for further follow-up by UDOT University.

The focus of the literature search and the benchmarking outreach has been guided by the content of the RFP and by subsequent conversations with members of the Board of Trustees of the UDOTu and with the Deans of the Colleges with the UDOTu. These focus areas are intended to narrow the research enough to target those issues of most importance to UDOT, while providing enough latitude to capture innovative ideas, successes and direction from others that could and should be explored. With this in mind, we developed a research protocol to focus on the following: •

Structural organization. UDOTu is structured as a ‘corporate’ enterprise reporting to a board of trustees that reports to the Director of the enterprise. Comparisons of other reporting structures and the pros and cons related to results and sustainability are included.

UDOTu is primarily a ‘voluntary’ organization, where key players provide university and college services in addition to their normal job functions. How do other corporate universities structure themselves (pros and cons)? How do they manage the ‘volunteer’ nature of the structure? How do they finance/support something other than a volunteer structure? Other options to structure we have not considered?

•

Infrastructure design and support. The coordinating mechanisms of a working corporate university include tools –often called learning management systems (LMS) -- like an on-line course catalog, transcript data base, content-management tools for on-line training courses, virtual and on-line training infrastructure (everything from screens to data storage), video conferencing facilities, and field technology. This ‘suite’ of tools is ideally designed to function well together, serve the entire corporate enterprise, be easy to use, and be cost effective to maintain and upgrade.

UDOTu uses an assortment of tools, which may be interim solutions as the university grows.

What are the range of tools others use to support their universities, and how do they fund the Page 3

Benchmarking Report cost and implementation? How do others provide staffing, training in use of tools, and maintenance? How are these tools selected? How are they evaluated for cost effectiveness?

•

Partnerships for learning. A hallmark of corporate universities is the formal partnerships the enterprise uses to deliver training and education. These partnerships are typically with local public and private universities and colleges, contractors, consultants and professional organizations. UDOT has a number of such partnerships. Not all these partnerships for training and learning are managed by or under the guidance of UDOTu. How do other corporate university structures manage and guide such partnerships? How are such partnerships best leveraged for the benefit of strategic initiatives, university goals, and effective use of resources?

•

Needs and results assessment. Capturing the various practices corporate universities use to cost effectively conduct training and learning needs assessments, define and articulate core competencies, and assess results from the investments in training and learning is a part of this benchmarking research.

Literature Search Summary To ‘set the stage’ for understanding the information provided here, a description of the various types of corporate universities found in the literature is helpful. Mark Allen devotes an entire chapter in his handbook to discussing the various definitions of corporate colleges and universities.1 Key elements A corporate university is an educational entity of his definition (see side bar) that are critical to that is a strategic tool designed to assist its this research include: parent organization in achieving its mission by •

•

•

The strategic nature of the educational entity – its purpose is to align its activities and efforts with the strategic intent/mission of the enterprise.

conducting activities that cultivate individual and organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom.

-- Mark Allen, the Corporate University Handbook As an educational entity, the activities are broad and innovative, as long as they cultivate individual and organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom.

Characteristics of corporate universities (versus the corporate or division training division) are the strong tie to corporate strategy, focus on learning, evidence of partnerships, presence of infrastructure to support efficient learning, and strong corporate leadership.

There is an abundance of literature about corporate training, education and learning. There is less information specific to the subject of corporate universities within the public sector -- of the type and nature comparable to UDOTu – though these do exist. A summary of findings from the literature is provided in the following categories: 1 Mark Allen, the Corporate University Handbook: Designing, Managing and Growing a Successful Program.

Introduction.

Page 4

Benchmarking Report •

Structure of corporate universities – including funding, staffing, reporting relationships, alignment to strategy, etc.

•

Infrastructure of corporate universities – including choice of LMS and other tools, funding strategies, cost-benefit assessments, etc.

•

Partnerships in corporate universities – including types of agreements, impacts, decision frameworks, who manages? Etc.

•

Needs and results assessments in universities – including mechanics of how needs are identified, core competencies are defined, and results are assessed.

A survey of 210 North American corporate universities conducted in 2007 and published in the spring of 2012 revealed five prominent processes of corporate universities, including: alignment and execution, developing skills that support business needs, using technology to support the learning function, learning and performance evaluation, and partnership with academia.2 A profile of this population is illustrated in the charts shown – the majority surveyed have been in existence less than 10 years and the majority exist in small enterprises of less than 50 employees.

2 Amy Lui Abel and Jessica Li, Exploring the Corporate University Phenomenon: Development and Implementation of a Comprehensive Survey, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 23, no. 1, Spring 2012 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21122

Page 5

Benchmarking Report Findings from this survey suggested that CUs exist in a variety of types of industries. For example, 14% of respondents were from healthcare/pharmaceutical; 14% were from banking/financial services; and 13% were from manufacturing/ engineering. This is consistent with multiple examples found in the literature. The job titles of respondents revealed that more than half (53%) of the organizations had a chief learning officer, or equivalent.

Centralized and formal coordination are the most common forms of governance reported in this survey.

Funding is also primarily a corporate function for those surveyed.

Factors listed as most important keys to success by this group surveyed include: •

A well-defined strategy for executing the company’s learning function.

•

A clear vision and mission for supporting learning performance in the organization.

•

Partners with Corporate Human Resources to analyze employee development needs for new learning programs.

•

Creates learning programs aligned with Corporate Human Resources Performance Appraisal processes.

•

Provides skill-based and/or job-based programs customized for specific business units.

•

Provides competency-based curricula for entry-level employee learning.

•

Programs target specific employee groups.

•

Works together with line managers to determine requirements and design learning programs.

Page 6

Benchmarking Report •

Evaluates learning programs by measuring organizational-level results and/or impact to the business units.

•

Evaluates learning programs by measuring Return on Investment for learning efforts.

•

Evaluates the transfer of learning to the job role/tasks sometime after the completion of learning programs.

•

Partners with academic universities for customized design and/or delivery of noncredit learning programs.

•

Partners with academic universities for credit and/or degree programs.

•

Partners with academic universities for faculty exchange and/or faculty development programs.

•

Supports learning programs via online (distance learning) technologies to employees.

•

Uses a comprehensive LMS (Learning Management System).

Structural Considerations Designing the Optimal Organization Structure and Governance Model: How to Make Good Decisions to Maximize the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Your Learning Business, Sue Todd, Corporate University Xchange. Corpu.com Spring 2009 “Learning executives must apply … scrutiny to all aspects of how they are running the Learning & Development function to meet enterprise, regional and local learning needs at the optimal cost model, … without compromising program or service quality. Because L&D structures and governing models tend to mirror aspects of each organization’s unique business model and strategy, L&D teams can begin with a basic framework, but will find many activities require careful consideration and negotiations among teams to agree on how to staff and operate for optimal efficiency.

Not surprisingly, today’s L&D organizations illustrate a myriad of configurations because they’ve evolved from their own unique set of business conditions. For example, a company that’s grown rapidly through acquisitions often has many independent training functions operating throughout the enterprise because each training team came as part of the deal for the acquired organization. Acquired companies often conduct business-as-usual, until eventually, competitive conditions force the enterprise to drive bottom line growth by wringing costs out of their

Page 7

Benchmarking Report models through restructuring. Then the L&D leader confronts the difficult question about how best to consolidate the work and resources from the many independent teams.

In some cases, business units (BUs) have had nearly complete freedom to do what they think is necessary to achieve financial targets. These BUs also have owned responsibility to meet their own training needs. This complete decentralization often leads to dramatic inconsistencies, where BUs that are flush with cash operate sophisticated training functions, and smaller units with fewer resources outsource the little training they do to external partners, or beg, borrow and steal what they can from the larger units.

Or, when the company’s business model depends on strong core competencies in sales or information technology, it’s not unusual that those core functions have bigger budgets and more training resources than other functional teams or even the corporate L&D group.

This paper helps learning leaders think about the pros and cons of organization models and formal governance and how those help learning executives ensure the effective stewardship of corporate investments in workforce learning and development including: •

Characteristics of organizing models, and how to consider attributes of the business environment to find the most suitable model.

•

Example schematics for what some models look like as they’ve been implemented.

•

The value of establishing a formal governance structure, and considerations for how it should be formed.

Next, a look at extending factors for each of these models including: •

How to think about and resolve tensions in the pull and tug for Centralizing or decentralizing certain training activities.

•

New job roles a learning leader should institute to improve the learning team’s strategic focus and overall effectiveness.

•

Principles of operating a shared services function and the metrics L&D should implement to drive continuous improvement and cost reduction.

•

What to consider prior to making an outsourcing decision.

Page 8

Benchmarking Report As L&D sees its role more and more through a new strategic lens, Centralized teams have recognized the degree to which their success depends on creating many tighter connections to the businesses they support. Most have enhanced their structures by: •

Assigning L&D representatives to locate in the business units to deepen their specialized knowledge about the Unit, and build stronger relationships with leaders and managers.

•

Establishing a governing board or steering committee of senior executives to gain early

insight into the company’s strategic plans and critical initiatives.

•

Creating functional and regional advisory boards to get feedback on the unique needs of other work groups, and tailor programs and services around local needs.

When the learning function operates in a Centralized structure, one major advantage is that the corporation has much greater control over its total investment in work force learning. The core team becomes a single point of accountability for how funds are spent. The Centralized Page 9

Benchmarking Report structure is a strong antidote to the proliferation of courses, vendor contracts, Learning Management Systems, and part-time program administrators.

Under a Centralized model and with a strong governance structure in place, the organization’s total learning investment can be optimized to support enterprise strategic initiatives.

The Case for Decentralization When an organization’s work is highly technical in nature, it demands very specialized training by technical experts, and this also can become a driver for Decentralization. BUs know they must rely on industry experts and internal Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to teach their complex topics and provide insights on the subtleties that distinguish top performance from mediocre work. The nature of this highly specialized training creates a challenging environment for L&D professionals to demonstrate they can add value with performance analysis, sound instructional design, as well as exercises, activities and follow-up to increase the degree that training translates to improved business results. L&D teams that can’t differentiate their value from the results that BUs can achieve on their own, quickly find their budgets will remain flat or decrease over time.

Page 10

Benchmarking Report

Each business unit operates its own L&D function to create and deliver learning programs and services, and is likely replicating many identical programs and services, with the exception of those that are truly unique to the work of that unit. While it’s obvious there are redundancies, there are times when the effort and cost to streamline activities does not yield enough savings and advantages to support the work required to consolidate or to add the required headcount to support regional or global coordination. This is often true of BUs that are very large and can justify staffing and operating their own L&D functions.

Summary of Centralized Model Centralized Model Advantages Improved ability to: • Manage and allocate tasks to learning staff to optimize the team’s full productivity.

• Quantify the total value of tactical work streams that might be targeted for outsourcing.

• Leverage enterprise-wide technologies to reengineer work processes and streamline administrative processes.

• Consolidate tracking and reporting within a single system for an enterprise view on costs, utilization rates and accomplishments against the learning strategy.

• Adhere to and enforce standard operating practices.

Centralized Model Disadvantages • If the core learning team fails to make deep connections into the businesses.

• A key indicator of failure shows up when BUs begin to procure their own programs and work around the core L&D group to meet their own learning needs. This is a risk even when the core team is in the process of making the necessary changes to become more strategic but has not quite crossed the chasm to achieve credibility as a strategic partner.

• The central team must do its best to implement effective processes, controls Page 11

Benchmarking Report • Apply continuous improvement practices to L&D process that reach across the enterprise.

• Institute a common approach for integration points between L&D and other HR and Talent Management processes.

and communications to prevent businesses from returning to a pattern of ad hoc spending.

Summary of Decentralized Model Decentralized Model Advantages • Offers BUs the most flexibility to invest their training dollars in programs and services they believe will best support their unique workforce capability and readiness requirements.

• BUs that can afford, and want to make larger investments in workforce development, aren’t constrained by limitations imposed when other business units want or need to pay less for programs or services.

• Greater willingness of business leaders to assign SMEs to augment local L&D teams because there’s a natural tendency for bus to rely more heavily on SMEs to conduct training.

• Stronger oversight on contracts with local vendors that are sourced at the BU level.

• Improved flexibility to address urgent BU performance challenges.

Decentralized Model Disadvantages Disadvantages to Decentralization that go beyond the obvious cost issues, including: • Teaching varied approaches to job skills across the enterprise making it more difficult to move people around the company.

• Challenges to drive continuous improvement in enterprise-wide learning processes since BUs have unique training processes, and few, if any, are consistent across the company.

• Developing conflicting methods for organizations practices like project management.

• No structures for BUs to work collectively to solve problems together, such as sourcing and delivering training to small, remote employee populations.

• Likelihood that more L&D roles are filled with SMEs and technical professionals who may not understand how to create programs that lead to behavior change and performance improvement.

Federated L&D Function Organizations that adopt a Federated model often believe they’ve combined what’s best of both the Centralized and Decentralized models. These organizations have a central, core team that’s dedicated to building and delivering programs that are common across the entire enterprise, and often include leadership, professional skills, project management, and new hire orientation.

The core team usually gets the job to select and implement a single LMS for the company, and to integrate that with the organization’s key HR processes like Performance Management,

Page 12

Benchmarking Report Individual Development Planning and Succession Management so that these activities are performed consistently throughout the company.

Part of the job of the core team in implementing new systems is to gather requirements from all business units, and to configure the new systems in the best way possible to meet the essential needs of all BUs. Core teams in a Federated model rarely have the authority to force BUs to adopt their systems or processes, and must convince BUs the new approach will not diminish or eliminate the capabilities they had when running their own systems. The risk here, of course, is that if the core team doesn’t work hard to ensure buy-in from all BUs, some will refuse to adopt the new methods and the company won’t achieve the benefits it defined to justify the investment in a new, consolidated approach.

Those who have implemented a Federated model say that one of the most challenging aspects they face is the constant reminders and education of new team members about why BUs need to relinquish control of their tactical work to the core team. While it is sometimes human nature to want to own the services that are offered to your customers, these situations require BU learning leaders to think like executives, and consider what is best for the enterprise as a whole.

When a core team owns responsibility to standardize technology across the enterprise, they must configure the system so that it accommodates as many requirements of BUs as possible.

Those configuration decisions also require the core team to establish and enforce rules about managing training activities to comply with the system configuration.

The following figure illustrates the basic elements of the Federated model where the central L&D team owns L&D programs that are applicable to the entire enterprise, the company’s learning technology platforms and tools, and shared services that they make available to the BUs. In time, if the core team builds confidence among BUs that its services are valuable, it often gains credibility to encourage BUs to adopt common processes such as standardized approaches for assessing performance problems, designing courses, and measuring performance improvement. Eventually, the core team may decide to coordinate additional services on behalf of the BUs such as sourcing and managing an approved list of vendors and partners, developing relationships with academic institutions that can support common learning needs worldwide, or creating a pool of performance consultants for BUs to share when performance problems arise.

Page 13

Benchmarking Report

Summary of Federated Model Federated Model Advantages • The Federated model helps to eliminate redundancies in programs and technologies, and drive greater consistency in common L&D practices across the enterprise.

• At the same time, BUs maintain ownership for their own workforce development programs and can target investments to build the workforce capabilities they see as most critical to their success.

• Federated models eliminate redundant learning technologies, and drive consistency for data entry and reporting activities.

• Gain economies of scale in purchasing third-party content that’s common across BUs. • Develop and adhere to standardized learning processes, and institute a discipline of continuous improvement.

Federated Model Disadvantages • The potential disadvantages of the Federated model arise when the core team fails in its efforts to have BUs adopt common technologies and processes.

• Core teams may have to make a business case to show BUs the value of taking advantage of central services, and be sure they can deliver equal or better service than BUs would achieve working alone.

Page 14

Benchmarking Report

Strengths

Centralized

Decentralized

Federated

Has strong control over all aspects of L&D, and central integration points to HR process.

Empowers BU L&D teams who are likely in a better position to understand the needs of the customer.

Balances freedom with control among the central team and separate BU L&D organizations.

Concentrates decision in the hands of a single group.

Allows freedom and ownership among training groups.

Fosters a strategic, longer-term approach and informal agreement exist between operating units.

Provides a single voice to ensure consistent messages across the enterprise.

Provides quick response to immediate needs.

Requires staff with strong consultative and team-building skills.

Offers easier developing and branding for a single identity for L&D.

Promotes the perception of programs as being more relevant to the needs of the workforce.

Eliminates redundancy.

Weaknesses

Eliminates diversity across programs that can provide insights on the Voice of the Customer.

Fosters fragmentation and duplication of effort.

Delays action as a result of consensus decision-making.

Presents challenges ensuring programs and services adequately meet the unique needs of the business units.

Presents difficulties in creating common skills and approaches across the organization.

Limits consistency as some L&D teams may opt out of agreed programs.

Page 15

Benchmarking Report Centralized

Decentralized

Sustains weaker relationships with BU managers.

Focuses on daily challenges, so may not be optimally strategic.

Federated

Puts forth “corporate� flavor in learning programs.

Creates image of central team being reactive.

Matching Organization Characteristics to the Right Model While L&D teams generally can say their structures adhere to one of the three models above, there often are nuances in the models as one looks deeper to the process level. For example, an organization might be mostly centralized but a separate training function exists to train channel partners or to teach specialized technical skills. Another might be mostly decentralized but has a core team that’s responsible for all leadership development. Even companies with a Federated model sometimes must allow one or two BUs to operate their own Learning Management Systems to deal with special compliance and regulatory issues.

Characteristics that Favor Selection of a Model:

Page 16

Benchmarking Report Governance Implementing formal governance involves asking senior executives to act like a “Board of Directors� overseeing the business of running the enterprise L&D business. Senior leaders who place significant value on work force learning and development recognize the significance of attending at least a quarterly meeting to dialogue with learning leaders about work force needs and progress.

When a Governing Board, Regional Advisory Boards and L&D Reps in the business units are connected by a formal governance structure, it strengthens the idea that all are working together in partnership to achieve business objectives and drive performance improvement. But governance doesn’t begin and end with the establishment of formal committees or boards of business advisors, even though they are essential. Good governance requires instituting all the mechanisms below and more.

Governance practices consider all aspects of the L&D function, and how each relates to making investments, incurring costs, tracking and reporting the allocation of funds, and monitoring the Page 17

Benchmarking Report value returning to the organization from the whole conglomeration of activities and decisions.

Finding the right structure and implementing good governance requires attention at the macro and detail level, and gives stakeholders confidence that learning leaders understand their fiduciary obligations for corporate investments.

Corporate Universities: A Powerful Model for Learning, Bonni Frazee, 11/1/02, http://clomedia.com/articles/view/corporate_universities_a_powerful_model_for_learning/1 Bonni Frazee is the vice president of New Horizons University, the corporate university for the world's largest computer training company, New Horizons Computer Learning Centers Inc. Bonni may be reached atbonni.frazee@newhorizons.com.

“Examining the differences between corporate universities and traditional training departments can illuminate many of the weaknesses that have often existed in a company's learning model.

Becoming a corporate university can strengthen the focus on learning and challenge corporate executives to think about how learning can affect their organizations.”

Advantages of Using a Corporate University Model • • • •

Provides a powerful model for people to embrace.

Offers a unique branding opportunity.

Engages senior executives in the process.

Decreased turnover.

Disadvantages of Using a Corporate University Model Name-only corporate universities damage the opportunity for impact.

Criticism that the learning does not convey "real-world" scenarios.

Added expenses.

Building and maintaining a corporate university is not an inexpensive endeavor.

Companies that have demonstrated a strong commitment to learning in their organizations by instituting a corporate university spend 2.5 percent of payroll on learning - double the U.S. national average. The costs will be justified when you get the return on your investment, but creating a corporate university brand without determining how you will measure and achieve results is not in the best interests of your company. The view should be on the long-term results that can be achieved, versus the short-term savings.

• • •

Top Dogs in the Corporate University Arena Since corporate universities have been around for decades, there are many examples to hold up as models of best practices. Some prominent corporate universities include Charles Schwab University, Disney University, General Electric's Crotonville, McDonald's Hamburger University, Motorola University, Oracle University and University of Toyota.

Page 18

Benchmarking Report Each of these training groups represents the best of breed in corporate universities. They tie their initiatives to their organizations' strategies, use technology to enhance learning, partner with the right training providers to maximize their organization's learning and measure their results.

Designing a Corporate University Determine with the senior executive team how learning supports the organization's strategy and vision.

• Identify how to align the training function with each of the company's initiatives.

• Create a corporate university name, logo and brand.

• Develop a vision, mission and values statement for the corporate university.

• Determine key initiatives and measures of success.

• Assess current team members' strengths and commitment to the change process.

• Work with your marketing group to create a marketing plan for the university.

• Create a rollout plan for the corporate university and ensure that it touches every part of the organization.

•

Running a Corporate University Make marketing a core competence.

Work closely with your marketing group to brand your corporate university. Be passionate and tenacious about the brand of your university and how you are perceived by your customers and stakeholders. Consider how you will advertise programs and events, what type of research needs to be conducted, how public relations can benefit your cause (success stories and best practices from the front lines and leadership teams) and how you will price your services.

•

Operate like a business.

In business, there are fundamental areas of practice: finance and accounting, sales and marketing, training, operations, administration, information technology, research and design and human resources. Create plans and have individuals who are responsible for each area of a traditional business. These may not be full-time jobs, but someone will be accountable for and passionate about a very important aspect of your corporate university.

•

Celebrate learning and use the power of recognition.

Maximize the power of recognition to drive your cause. Use any internal communication vehicles to recognize those who have committed to learning and those who have contributed to others' development. Post photos on your intranet of people, capture •

Page 19

Benchmarking Report stories of best practices and successes from the field, and find avenues of public recognition that will acknowledge contributors.

Be facilitators of learning.

If you think of your team as facilitators of learning and not necessarily as teachers, you will find that a multitude of possibilities emerge. Jack Welch of General Electric was the teacher much of the time for Crotonville's leadership programs, but you can bet there were people behind the scenes who were critical to the learning. You may find that your executive team not only consists of wonderful instructors, but also that they are challenged by the process and that learning needs are more often considered in organizational plans. There are also bound to be people in your organization who are experts in their field, or closer to the action than you are, and your programs can have greater impact by maximizing their expertise.

•

Embrace technology.

Using technologies, learning can become both continuous and immediate. Additionally, travel expenses can be minimized, and diverse learner populations can be brought together as communities of practice like never before.

•

Think of learning as an ongoing process.

Learning should be a process and not just an event or training program. Your corporate university needs to have the tools to help create success in your organization, and that means more than putting on a class. Determine how you will assess learners' knowledge, skills and needs, provide opportunities to learn in multiple ways (instructorled, online asynchronous, online synchronous) and utilize reinforcement tools, support functions and ways that individuals can validate what they have learned.

•

Consider offering certification or degree programs.

Instead of thinking on a course-by-course basis, determine long-term development plans for your employees and offer the chance to obtain a professional certification or corporate university degree. These designations can be strictly based on the requirements of the corporate university, or the training group can receive third-party approval for their programs.

•

Evaluate your learning initiatives.

In determining how you will define and measure success, consider the results you strive to achieve in terms of human resources (retention, development, etc.), the impact related to customers and stakeholders and how you will achieve results related to business goals and strategies.

•

Build communities of practice.

A community of practice is a group of people who come together to capitalize on their •

Page 20

Benchmarking Report collective knowledge on a given job role or function within a company. They can be either formal or informal and often use some type of technology to enable the collaboration. By building communities of practice, you enable your organization to be more innovative, as you create more opportunities for interaction and problem-solving.

You are able to speed the time it takes to get knowledge out to various groups, since you can capture learning as it occurs and instantaneously give others access to it.”

Table 1: Training Departments

Corporate Universities

Run classes based on popularity and demand.

Align learning opportunities with the company's initiatives.

Use e-learning as a cost-cutting device.

Utilize technology strategically in order to support and reinforce learning.

Outsource training to minimize full-time head count in the department.

Create outside partnerships to support organizational goals.

Executives view training as an expense that should be kept as low as possible.

Senior management is actively involved in the learning process and sees a commitment to learning as a competitive advantage.

Corporate Universities: a Lever of Corporate Responsibility, Abstract of the book of Annick RenaudCoulon, GlobalCCU Publisher – 2008 http://www.globalccu.com/globalccu-Corporate-Universities-arenot-training-Centres.html “Corporate universities are not training centers. The fact that corporate universities coexist with training centers in companies proves this point. And there are large groups that are organized in this way, because they have understood the difference between the two bodies. This distinction becomes evident when one examines the characteristics of a training center.

The organizational affiliation of a training center has no major political and strategic dimension. Dependent on the HR department, a training center is never a place of power, nor one of opposition. There are no major risks for the company because, at best, one works on case studies, but never on the real challenges facing the company, choosing instead to focus on routine issues. The objectives remain focused on the students and not on their professional situations, something that the parties involved have no chance of changing, except through advancing little by little. The ‘trainees’ or ‘students’ are responsible for putting this teaching into

Page 21

Benchmarking Report practice, appropriating the laws from the exercises and usually without help, with the exception of coaching, which has—and not without reason—witnessed enormous growth.

Its functional role distances it from operational realities. Training departments are organized like an organ pipe in the vertical tube of the HR department. They have a separate function from other departments, with their own funding, procedures, purchasing practices, operations and so on. The product offering, whether available by printed catalogue or computer, consists of seminars, cycles, conferences for future years, and better management by hiring trainers and other subcontractors, keeping attendance records, filling out evaluation questionnaires, and giving orders for payment. It's a small, ordinary bureaucracy, paced in annual cycles which are out of sync with the company's unpredictable and constantly changing economic, technological, and human environments. It is clear that training centers and even their finest leaders are obliged to act in a way that is removed from operational realities, even when they manage to identify actors' needs; which certainly isn't the case everywhere. Their position in the organization gives them little room to maneuver and confines them to a supporting role. While this has its advantages, it certainly does not give education the strategic importance it deserves.

That is particularly problematic when we think of the amount of money swallowed up by this function.

Its approach focuses on individuals rather than teams. This is a logical consequence of training centers’ lack of power. Their target is people, which is commendable though apart from relying on charismatic training directors, they have little opportunity to act collectively on genuinely transformational projects. It is not that they are incapable; rather their operating leverage does not contain the necessary elements, such as the production process, management tools, or customer–supplier relationships, and consequently lacks the legitimacy to act. At best, training centers can help people advance on their own paths, provide the means to learn new skills and maintain their employability.

These words are by no means a plea for the closure of company training centers; on the contrary. It is important that they continue developing to perfect individual learning, to prepare for changes of management by providing the knowledge, competencies and know-how necessary for career management, and that they exercise this responsibility with care. But a corporate university possesses other features that give it a much wider potential. It is a space for applied education and applied strategies, where priority is given to teams so that they can understand their company's dimensions—whether current or future, near or far, familiar or unfamiliar—and take new paths that depart from the beaten track and become true political instruments.”

Education in the Workplace: An Examination of Corporate University Models, Denise R. Hearn, 2014, http://www.newfoundations.com/OrgTheory/Hearn721.html Page 22

Benchmarking Report Ten Steps Jeanne Meister (1998), President of Corporate University Xchange (CUX), defined a corporate university as a “. . .centralized strategic umbrella for the education and development of employees . . . [which is the chief vehicle for disseminating an organization’s culture and fostering the development of not only job skills, but also such core workplace skills as learning-to-learn, leadership, creative thinking, and problem solving.” Organizations have created corporate universities to provide employees education that can evolve with changing business needs. According to Meister, there are ten primary steps to implementing and sustaining a successful corporate university.

First

Top management must create a corporate university governing body that provides commitment to the CU.

Second

A CU vision and strategic plan must be crafted to determine the CU’s goals.

Third

Identify a funding strategy – often through corporate allocations or through charges placed on individual business unit budgets.

Fourth

Determine the CU’s audience or stakeholders .

Fifth

Determine how the needs of the audience will be met while continually pursuing the strategic goal of the CU.

Sixth

Develop a template for how products and services will be designed.

Sevent h

Select suppliers, consultants, traditional universities and for-profit firms as learning partners, if appropriate.

Eighth

Determine how technology and other resources will be used in the CU.

Ninth

Develop a measurement system that will allow the organization’s progress against the CU’s strategic goals.

Tenth

The governing body must constantly communicate the CU’s vision. All stakeholders are aware of the CU mission, products and programs.

Organizational Models for CUs Margaret Kaeter (Virtual Cap and Gown), posits three CU models. These are Classic, Education Portals and Tailored Training.

Page 23

Benchmarking Report Classic

Organizational tuition support for degree-seeking employees at a traditional university.

Education Portals

Partnership with traditional universities or training businesses for on-line college courses. Universities provide corporations with their own corporate website (portal).

This is a seamless blend of courses designed by colleges or vendors.

Tailored Training

Traditional universities/vendors work in tandem to develop distance learning courses designed to address organizational needs.

Corporate University Examples The Boeing Company – The Boeing Leadership Center focuses on executive learning. Newly-promoted supervisors must complete a web-based curriculum within 30 days. There is a prescribed curriculum to ensure supervisors’ success in their new positions. Entry-level managers spend a week at a local training site studying performance management, organizational structure and regulatory laws for their industry.

Boeing evaluates the Leadership Center’s success through annual surveys to determine if managers are more satisfied with their jobs than managers who have not attended the program.

Walt Disney – New employees start with the Disney University at orientation, and in their 40-hour apprenticeship program, most of which takes place on rides. In the classroom, new employees learn of managerial concern, Disneyland fact, lore, and procedure. Professional Disneyland trainers design and deliver the courses. Disneyworld employees enroll in classes at a local community college.

United Health/United Technologies Corporation – This health care provider has a Learning Institute (LI).

They use distance learning through Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). Courses are provided from Boston University, Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. LI operates on a tuition basis. A hybrid funding model requires those who attend the LI to pay for training from their business unit budget.

Oracle Corporation – More than 32,000 employees and partner organizations use a web-based learning model. There are also regional classrooms for training in industry knowledge, sales methods, technical skills, and Oracle-specific processes. Oracle University learning paths are tailored to job roles so one can see at a glance the courses that are recommended for a specific role. Each path suggests a sequence of courses that provide the knowledge and skills needed for on-the-job expertise. http://www.oracle.com/us/education/selectcountry-new-079003.html

Page 24

Benchmarking Report Ford Motor Company – FORDSTAR is Ford’s corporate university that provides training, access to experts and product information, and networking opportunities to their 6,000 dealerships. Training success is measured by employees’ abilities to progress through the course. Curriculum is changed as needed to address learning deficiencies. FORDSTAR cultivates its educators by providing instructional designers.

Creating a Mentoring Culture: The Organization’s Guide, Lois Zachary, Ed.D http://www.centerformentoringexcellence.com/upload/Creating_a_Mentoring_Culture_Featured_Revie w.pdf The need for mentoring has never been greater. Continuous learning, continuous improvement, and the hunger for human connection create an opportunity to produce an organizational culture of mentoring.

The results of mentoring include increased retention rates, improved morale, increased organizational commitment and job satisfaction, accelerated leadership development, better succession planning, reduced stress, stronger and more cohesive teams, and heightened individual and organizational learning.

A mentoring culture focuses on supporting mentoring throughout the organization, not just on a mentoring program. Launching a mentoring program without simultaneously creating a mentoring culture reduces long-term impact and sustainability and decreases the likelihood that a program or programs will grow and thrive over time. A mentoring culture says “we are serious about mentoring and we are committed for the long haul.” It supports all the mentoring that goes on within it and helps it become fully integrated into the organization.

Mentoring fails in organizations because there is a blatant cultural mismatch between the mentoring program that is being put in place and the organization, either because the program was too structured and formal, or too informal for the organizational culture. The dynamics of culture affect how implementation work goes forward, regardless of the scope of the mentoring effort. This is the groundwork for alignment.

Mentoring should be strategically driven and culturally congruent. This requires an intentional discovery process that includes raising culture consciousness, mapping the culture, understanding cultural ecology, and identifying cultural and learning anchors, in order to test for cultural congruence. Some organizations begin the process of creating a mentoring culture within the framework of an established learning culture.

Discovery work is necessary to establish ownership, promote shared responsibility, maximize resources, maintain integrity of the program, facilitate knowledge utilization, support integration of mentoring into the organization, and create openness and readiness for mentoring.

Mentoring must be linked to sound business reasons for engaging in mentoring. What are the desired outcomes of the program? Do they align with the organization’s values and mission or is there a Page 25

Benchmarking Report mismatch? When mentoring is aligned, the business reasons to engage in mentoring are evident and tied directly to results.

Creating a mentoring culture requires the following actions: •

Establish ownership for mentoring in the organization.

•

Get leadership on board to actively support the mentoring effort.

•

Make sure the scope, magnitude and form that the mentoring culture takes fits the organization.

•

Be open to the process and expect to make changes along the way.

•

Assume that the effort will take time to come to fruition.

•

Think “systems” and consider how to leverage and maximize both people and processes.

•

Keep the big picture top of mind, the “what” and the “why.”

•

Be prepared to face and deal with the “time-is-money mantra.” It is a reality.

•

Seek to combine quality effort with excellence of mentoring practices.

•

Keep it simple and manageable.

•

Don’t overcomplicate matters by trying to do everything at once.

•

Start where there is the most likelihood of success. Identify those aspects of your plan or a few immediate goals that are doable and get some success (and credibility) under your belt.

•

Be aware that there are many ways to maximize limited resources – In addition to one-on-one mentoring, there are multiple permutations of group mentoring (peer mentoring and facilitated mentoring.

Four mentoring stages: The preparing phase requires reflective practice and preparation of both oneself and the relationship.

Mentors and mentees explore personal motivation and their readiness to be either a mentor or a mentee. Clarity about expectation and role helps define parameters for establishing a productive and healthy mentoring relationship.

The second phase is about negotiating, depth, specificity and scaffolding that was created in the first phase. This is when details of the relationship get hammered out: when and how to meet, mutual responsibilities, ground rules, criteria for success, accountability, and how and when to bring the relationship to a close. The outcome of this iterative phase should be a partnership workplan consisting of well-defined goals, criteria and measurement for success, delineation of mutual responsibility, accountability mechanisms, and protocols for dealing with stumbling blocks.

The third phase is typically the longest. This phase offers the greatest opportunity for learning and development, yet mentoring partners often face challenges during this time that make them vulnerable Page 26

Benchmarking Report to relationship derailment. The mentor’s role during this phase is to nurture the mentee’s growth by maintaining an open learning climate.

The fourth, and final phase is coming to closure. This phase presents a dynamic learning opportunity for mentors and mentees to process their learning and move on. Coming to closure involves evaluating the learning, acknowledging progress and celebrating the learning achievement.

Reasons for mentoring failure: Time – For real success, mentoring time must be allocated and not begrudged or resented.

Fuzzy program goals – Goals must be SMART, and must be consistently and continuously communicated in order to manage expectations.

Untested assumptions – Agreeing on an operational definition manages expectations up front and offers an opportunity for shared understanding.

Inadequate training – Some organizations offer initial mentoring training and perhaps some networking sessions for mentoring participants. Frequently, training is not offered at point of need but at a point of convenience on the organizational calendar. Mentoring training, to be effective, needs to be available in many venues and formats, and for multiple points of need.

Leadership Leadership is indispensable to success. Leaders must be involved from the beginning and stay involved throughout. When leadership is not present and accounted for in the mentoring effort, people take notice. Creating a mentoring culture should involve individuals throughout the organization, their input and feedback is critical. All stakeholders need to be brought into the fold throughout the process, although not all at the same time or in the same way.

Mentoring Best Practices, http://www.management-mentors.com/resources/identifying-modelprogram-managers/ What is mentoring?

Mentoring is most often defined as a professional relationship in which an experienced person (the mentor) assists another (the mentoree) in developing specific skills and knowledge that will enhance the less-experienced person’s professional and personal growth.

Why do organizations implement formal mentoring programs?

Interest in mentoring has varied over time and has been affected by economic and social factors.

Organizations recognize that workforce demographics have changed dramatically in recent years, as women and members of different minority groups have joined the workforce in greater numbers. In addition, technology has automated traditional employee functions and continues to affect on-the-job performance, altering the way people see themselves within the corporate structure.

Page 27

Benchmarking Report With these changes, organizations are finding it difficult to recruit and retain qualified personnel. As corporate downsizing continues, organizations are also experiencing a flattening of their organizations, challenging them to provide sufficient growth opportunities for employees.

On the plus side, organizations find today’s employees exhibit a more flexible approach to work. On the minus side, employees may feel less loyalty to the organizations for which they work. Organizations now look to mentoring to implement a strategic game plan that includes: • Recruitment • Retention • Professional development • Development of a multicultural workforce Why do organizations need a structured mentoring program? Aren’t managers already performing this role?

While many managers demonstrate mentoring behavior on an informal basis, it is very different from having a structured mentoring program. There is a qualitative difference between a manager-employee relationship and a mentor-mentoree relationship.

• Managerial Role The manager-employee relationship focuses on achieving the objectives of the department and the company. The manager assigns tasks, evaluates the outcome, conducts performance reviews, and recommends possible salary increases and promotions. Because managers hold significant power over employees’ work lives, most employees demonstrate only their strengths and hide their weaknesses in the work environment.

Mentoring Role A mentor-mentoree relationship focuses on developing the mentoree professionally and personally. As such, the mentor does not evaluate the mentoree with respect to his or her current job, does not conduct performance reviews of the mentoree, and does not provide input about salary increases and promotions. This creates a safe learning environment, where the mentoree feels free to discuss issues openly and honestly, without worrying about negative consequences on the job. The roles of manager and mentor are fundamentally different. That’s why structured mentoring programs never pair mentors with their direct reports.

How does an organization know when it’s ready to implement a formal mentoring program?

An organization that values its employees and is committed to providing opportunities for them to remain and grow within the organization is an ideal candidate for initiating a mentoring program.

Ideally, the organization has an internal structure to support a successful program. Examples include: •

A performance management program Developed competencies A valued-training function Diversity training A succession-planning process A management development program Strategic business objectives In addition, there should be individuals within the higher ranks of the organization who will champion the mentoring initiative and help make it happen. Advocates may include the organization’s president, • • • • • • •

Page 28

Benchmarking Report vice presidents and other influential executives.

A Mentoring Program Manager (MPM) is also needed to coordinate the mentoring program. The MPM should be someone who is perceived as a facilitator, listener and coalition-builder – a person who is trusted. MPM is not a full-time position, so mentoring responsibilities must be balanced with the MPM’s other duties. Typically, such a person works in a Human Resources, Organizational Development, Training or Diversity Department.

What does a Mentoring Program Manager do?

Coordinating the mentoring process within the organization means working with a Management Mentors consultant, as well as fellow employees, to design and implement a mentoring initiative that fits the organization’s culture.

The initiative forms the basis for ongoing mentoring. During the pilot, a Mentoring Program Manager (MPM) typically works with 20 to 30 individuals (10 to 15 pairs). The manager contacts them on a regular basis, making certain the relationships are going well and that the mentoring program is achieving its goals. The MPM offers each pair whatever resources may be needed. The MPM also becomes the organization’s internal mentoring expert, serving as a resource for various departments and divisions that have an interest in pursuing mentoring. The amount of time this take varies. Normally, a MPM spends one to four hours per week coordinating the project, depending on how often the mentor-mentoree pairs meet.

Further reading: Identifying Model Program Managers How can we create a pilot mentoring program?

The Mentoring Program Manager forms a task force of 6-8 people. Members of the task force should represent a cross-section of the organization, including potential mentors and mentorees, supervisory personnel and any stakeholders who can bring value to the process. For example, a representative from Human Resources might help tie department goals with the goals of the mentoring program. The task force: • Determines the goals of the program • Chooses the proper mentoring model • Selects criteria for mentors and mentorees • Defines other critical components of the program • Interviews potential candidates • Matches participants • Evaluates results at the end of the pilot program How can you determine an organization’s need for mentoring?

Some organizations conduct focus groups, employee surveys or both to determine where the need for mentoring is greatest, and whether there is sufficient support for a mentoring program. Other organizations rely on task force members, who have been asked to participate because of their knowledge of the organization and the population being targeted. The appropriate method depends on what steps an organization has already taken as well as what resources are available. In general, focus groups are relatively low-cost, while surveys can be costly.

Are there different types of mentoring models in a structured program? What are they?

Page 29

Benchmarking Report One of the advantages of mentoring is that it can be adapted to any organization’s culture and resources. There are several mentoring models to choose from when developing a mentoring program, including: Further reading: Corporate Mentoring Models -- One Size Doesn't Fit All • One-On-One Mentoring

The most common mentoring model, one-on-one mentoring matches one mentor with one mentoree. Most people prefer this model because it allows both mentor and mentoree to develop a personal relationship and provides individual support for the mentoree. Availability of mentors is the only limitation.

• Resource-Based Mentoring Resource-based mentoring offers some of the same features as one-on-one mentoring. The main difference is that mentors and mentorees are not interviewed and matched by a Mentoring Program Manager. Instead, mentors agree to add their names to a list of available mentors from which a mentoree can choose. It is up to the mentoree to initiate the process by asking one of the volunteer mentors for assistance. This model typically has limited support within the organization and may result in mismatched mentor-mentoree pairing.

• Group Mentoring Group mentoring requires a mentor to work with 4-6 mentorees at one time. The group meets once or twice a month to discuss various topics. Combining senior and peer mentoring, the mentor and the peers help one another learn and develop appropriate skills and knowledge.

Group mentoring is limited by the difficulty of regularly scheduling meetings for the entire group. It also lacks the personal relationship that most people prefer in mentoring. For this reason, it is often combined with the one-on-one model. For example, some organizations provide each mentoree with a specific mentor. In addition, the organization offers periodic meetings in which a senior executive meets with all of the mentors and mentorees, who then share their knowledge and expertise.

• Training-Based Mentoring This model is tied directly to a training program. A mentor is assigned to a mentoree to help that person develop the specific skills being taught in the program. Training-based mentoring is limited, because it focuses on the subject at hand and doesn’t help the mentoree develop a broader skill set.

• Executive Mentoring This top-down model may be the most effective way to create a mentoring culture and cultivate skills and knowledge throughout an organization. It is also an effective succession-planning tool, because it prevents the knowledge "brain drain" that would otherwise take place when senior management retires.

Why shouldn’t we create a program ourselves?

Creating a structured mentoring program requires a solid understanding of mentoring dynamics. There are myriad examples of mentoring programs that failed because organizations mistakenly believed they fully understood mentoring. Rather than create a successful program, they negatively impacted the careers of both mentors and mentorees. Typically, such programs have put people together without clear guidelines, offered no training about mentoring relationships, lacked internal support, paired employees with the bosses of the employees’ immediate supervisors, and violated other fundamentals Page 30

Benchmarking Report of mentoring. The amount of outside expertise needed to establish a mentoring program varies from organization to organization. Most organizations have found that using a consultant to set up a pilot program has made the difference between success and failure. http://www.managementmentors.com/resources/corporate-mentoring-programs-faqs/#Q9 Credibility: Aristotle called it "ethos," and no doubt your MPM must have high credibility at all levels of the organization: senior management, mentors and mentorees. Remember, people need to feel comfortable going to the MPM to discuss issues and other confidential matters. Not only must the MPM be trustworthy and well respected, but also must be perceived as trustworthy and well respected by the people in your company. People's perceptions are just as important (if not more important) than reality.

Is a person born with credibility? Or is it something people can develop? While different schools of thought exist, a person can become more credible by taking on other leadership roles within the organization--i.e. becoming more visible--so that people are familiar with him or her.

Compassion: MPMs must have the best interest of the company and the mentoring pairs at heart. You don't want mentors to bypass the MPM and go directly to a mentoree's manager or to the HR manager.

All three relationships must be protected: mentoree/mentor, company/mentor and company/mentoree. The MPM must also have the ability to understand people. If the MPM asks participants how things are going, he or she needs to interpret, based on things like nonverbal gestures, how things are really going. This requires a sensitivity and ability to read people. While compassion is very much an innate quality, if people are willing to learn about communication techniques, such as active listening and the meaning of nonverbal gestures, people can increase their ability to show compassion toward others.

"Confident" Common Sense: We all know people with high IQs, yet their "street smarts" are lacking.

Common sense goes a long way, especially in mentoring programs. The MPM needs wisdom to exercise good judgment on sensitive issues and to resolve them appropriately. For example, if a mentor is too aggressive or if mentors are not meeting with their mentorees, MPMs need to be comfortable with confronting people, but they also need to be diplomatic and tactful in how they go about it. Confidence plays a huge role here. Confidence is often an innate quality, although an MPM can develop more confidence as he or she grows in the role.

Other Tips for MPM Success: It's critical for MPMs to have the necessary support from their own managers. The time commitment and roles need to be explained and understood by both parties. The MPM should never be in a position where he or she feels blindsided by an unsupportive boss. The Mentoring Program Manager is not an administrative role (i.e. it's not just about making sure pairs are meeting). It's an HR role; therefore, the MPM needs a certain stature and respect in the organization so people will feel comfortable going to him or her.

Final Thoughts: Don't underestimate this extremely important role. We've seen good programs go bad because of weak managers. Likewise, we've seen so-so programs do well because of strong MPMs. When selecting yours, keep the three C's in mind: credibility, compassion, and confident common sense. http://www.management-mentors.com/resources/identifying-model-program-managers/

Infrastructure Insights Technologies that support learning delivery and administration provide enormous potential with constantly advancing tools that support employee learning and development. Examples include

Page 31

Benchmarking Report technology that allows quick customization of content for specific needs at the time of use. 3 Learning management systems (LMS) create an online learning space that support employee development, 4 and administer learning programs such as transcripts, course catalogs, and evaluations. Increasing utilization of Internet learning technologies (e.g., video conferencing) extend the reach of learning initiatives.

Social networking tools are another new trend that can potentially revolutionize the learning and development functions in organizations. 5 Arlington, VA — Capterra, an online service that connects buyers and sellers of business software, released "The Ultimate Guide to Finding an LMS You'll Love." The free eBook provides actionable steps to help training professionals narrow down their options for a learning management system.

"Unfortunately, a lot of people hate their LMS," said Capterra CEO, Michael Ortner 6. "And it's not because they're using a bad product. It's because they're using a bad product for them."

The eBook guides buyers through the entire LMS selection process, from determining whether it's time for an LMS, to identifying their LMS needs, and ultimately, making the right LMS software selection.

"I work with people every day who call in because they're overwhelmed by all the LMS options out there," said Capterra Software Advisor, Michael Kotchish. "They want to make a quick and easy choice, but it's not really that simple. This eBook breaks down the steps so people can make a smart choice even if it's not an easy one."

"The Ultimate Guide to Finding an LMS You'll Love" is full of checklists, quizzes and other visual aids to help buyers narrow down their options from 300+ to the one that will meet their needs.”

Learning management systems help both businesses and academic institutions distribute eLearning courses to employees, students, and other learners. Capterra's eBook focuses specifically on the corporate LMS audience, who typically use learning management software to train employees, onboard new hires, conduct client training, offer certification programs, and track employee development. For a comprehensive list of learning management systems, visit Capterra's LMS Software Directory.

3 Douglas, M. (2003). E-volution at corporate u. Learning and Training Innovations, 4(1), 36–41.

4 Alvarado, P. (2007, February). Effective business requirements for the LMS. Chief Learning Officer, 6, 18–21.

5 Jue, A. L., Marr, J. A., & Kassotakis, M. E. (2010). Social media at work: How networking tools propel organizational performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

6 Media Contact: Besa Pinchotti, Capterra Inc. Phone: 703-994-4151 Email: bpinchotti@capterra.com

Page 32

Benchmarking Report Capterra released an infographic titled “The Top 20 Most Popular LMS Software Solutions.” This is the third infographic in a series that Capterra has produced to both promote a particular software sector, in this case LMS, as well as highlight the most popular vendors within that sector.

As emphasized ten months earlier when Capterra's first "Top 20 Most Popular" infographic was launched, this list is not intended to imply that these are the best solutions. Capterra CEO, Michael Ortner, reiterated that ranking the best LMS purchase for any company is much more complicated.

"As time consuming as it was to perform the market research necessary to identify the top 20 vendors, following through and finding the best software match for any given company is the ultimate goal and is much more challenging," said Ortner. "The reason we do this is that it serves as a decent starting point for the many software buyers who like to begin their research by knowing the market leaders. Much of our research is original and simply cannot be found online anywhere."

The popularity index was broken down into three components: number of clients (40%), number of end users (40%) and online presence (20%). Online presence includes traffic estimates from Compete.com, as well as LinkedIn followers, Facebook likes, Twitter followers and Klout scores each weighted equally in the 20%. This combination led the research team to the Top 20 Most Popular LMS software with Moodle, Edmodo and Blackboard claiming the three most popular.

LMS has been one of the fastest growing software sectors over the last decade and is now a billion dollar plus industry with hundreds of competing offerings. "We want to stress that this [infographic] should just be a starting point. There are hundreds of software offerings to choose from, so take a look at the leaders, but then continue your search for the best fit," said Ortner.

Learning management systems are used by academic institutions and companies to manage, track and deliver courses and training programs. Organizations can determine which LMS software is right for their needs by visiting Capterra's Learning Management System Software Directory and comparing more than 300 LMS programs.

Capterra released an infographic titled “The Top 20 Most Popular Talent Management Software Solutions.” By publishing this infographic, Capterra hopes to draw attention to the entire talent management software industry while also highlighting some of the top vendors in the space, such as Kenexa, Taleo and SuccessFactors - named the top three most popular solutions.

Page 33

Benchmarking Report "We can't stress enough that this list does not imply that these are the best solutions in the talent management market. Rather, these are the ones that we determined to be the market leaders based off of the popularity index," said Capterra President and CEO, Michael Ortner.

The vendor rankings were determined by a popularity index that consisted of three components: number of customers (40%), number of end users (40%) and online presence (20%). The online presence metrics included traffic estimates from Compete.com, as well as the company's number of LinkedIn followers, Facebook page likes, Twitter followers, and Klout scores ¿ each weighted equally to comprise 20% of the vendor's overall score.

This infographic is the fourth in a series of "Top 20 Most Popular" rankings done by Capterra.

"As we move along with this series, the research continues to become more detailed and involved," said Ortner. "We are constantly looking for better ways to approach the data in order to end up with an accurate picture of the marketplace. This means researching additional data points as we go along just to fact check that our research is on the right track."

Talent Management software gives employers the tools to accurately manage, evaluate and compensate for employee performance. By tracking performance and standards, Talent Management software allows companies to create and maintain a high-performance workforce.

Organizations can determine which talent management program is right for their needs by visiting Capterra's Talent Management Software Directory and comparing more than 300 solutions.

Building and Expanding the Learning and Talent Technology Architecture: Findings from the CorpU 10th Annual Learning Excellence and Innovation Benchmarking Study, Research Paper, Copyright 2010 Corporate University Xchange 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. 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 7, but the difference is not significant enough to claim it as a clear leader 7 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.

Page 34

Benchmarking Report • 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, enterprise-wide, 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.

Page 35

Benchmarking Report 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 are testing multiple tools and systems on a regular basis – often annually –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.

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. 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 Page 36

Benchmarking Report 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.

An Inside Peek to the State of the LMS Industry 2014 Report – Includes Top 10 LMSs http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigweissinla. http://elearninfo247.com/2014/01/20/an-inside-peek-to-the-state-of-the-lms-industry-2014-report/ The report at this link includes •

The latest trends and forecasts

•

Product Profiles

•

o

Name, web site, contact phone number

o

Social media

o

Number of clients.

o

Pricing

o

Implementation process

o

Support/Training

o

Where vendor’s support is located and availability

o

What does support look like, and is training included.

LMS Rankings o

Ranked from #1 to #44

o

Criteria: points for various capabilities, features, design, vertical reach, support/service, future thinking approach and processes.

Page 37

Benchmarking Report •

Mini Profiles o

Vendor’s contact email, vendor’s web site, Vendor’s LMS demo.

•

Product Reviews

•

Visuals of LMS products and demos

•

High Importance

•

o

User Interface – Modern and crisp

o

Support and service

o

Features in general

o

Speed of innovation

o

Latest “hot” features

o

Adoptability and adaptability

o

Consumer feedback

Medium Importance o

Vertical reach

o

Hone dashboards

o

Social or engagement

o

What is included in the system

Army learning Management System (ALMS) http://www.lmslogin.org/army-learning-managementsystem/ The Army Learning Management System (ALMS) has one of the top training and career development learning online platform systems. They use an advanced web-based platform specifically for Army soldiers to deliver, manage, schedule, and collaborate training and career planning for all Army personnel.

The Army LMS helps the instructors, trainers and the training manager to stay on top of the training for soldiers, including Department of the Army (DA) civilians. Using their Army Knowledge Online – AKO ID and password, Army personnel can log in and access their training remotely, practically from anywhere they have internet access. Personnel can use the system on their own time, or participate in classrooms.

Page 38

Benchmarking Report ALMS also is a synchronous e-learning platform where instructors can invite people to be involved in real-time discussions. There are thousands of courses available.

The ALMS tracks course records and training progress for all Soldiers in the system. This allows Soldiers and others to identify knowledge or training deficiencies. The Soldier and his or her leader can use the classes to address shortcomings and keep the Soldier in compliance with standards and policies enforced throughout the ranks. This is important since many Army staff and Soldiers need to stay current with performance standards.

ALMS is powered by Saba LMS, one of the more effective and feature-rich LMS systems.

More information about the Army system is at http://www.dls.army.mil Saba LMS http://www.lmslogin.org/saba-lms/ Saba is at the top of the LMS spectrum as far as the Fortune 500 is concerned. In the past there were complaints that Saba was behind times and the user interface was too complex and difficult to navigate compared to other learning management systems, but all of that has been corrected and today they command a leading share of the LMS portals. From international corporations like McDonald’s and the Red Cross to one of the most advanced government agencies, the Army.

They have too many product offerings and it gets a little complicated and intimidating to choose one that fits your needs and properly launch your company’s Saba learning center. You feel like you will lose on an important feature if you choose say the Saba Social Learning versus the other Saba products in their vast lineup. The good news is that they have been working hard to consolidate and focus on their product lines a bit to better target the different needs and sectors out there without a completely new LMS training (no matter what you will only have one Saba login).

An Overview It’s not an easy task to do a Saba LMS review with all the product choices available from them, but considering many of the changes in the core products have trickled down to the core components of their software solutions, you can definitely see an overall improvement in their user interface. Simple and intuitive navigation, as well as a robust system performance without errors that can make you pull your hair out!

To put it in a nut shell, Saba is to corporations as Sakai is to Universities. And it goes without saying that they too are Scorm and Tin Can compliant. Saba learning management system has plenty of options for any organization size and their varied needs. The main product solutions are Saba Learning, Performance, Planning, Collaboration and Succession @ Work. Succession@Work, is a very innovative Page 39

Benchmarking Report solution since it is not a common product that is available in the market. It allows for tracking of detail progressions and notes throughout the worker’s history in the company.

Prioritizing and Maximizing the Impact of Corporate Universities, Jessica Li and Amy Lui Abel, T+D, May 2011 Research shows that superior employee knowledge and competencies contribute to positive organizational competitive advantages and financial performance. Li and Abel discuss the key functions for a CU to do resource allocation for optimum effectiveness and efficiency. The results of a survey of 210 corporate universities across industries and geographies in North America led to identification of five essential strategic areas on which CUs should focus.

Alignment and Execution All aspects of a CU must be in alignment with corporate goals and the execution of its learning strategy.

First, the CU must have a clear learning vision and mission that aligns with the company’s overall goals and objectives. A learning governance board, composed of leaders from the business units will facilitate this alignment. The executive committee works alongside the CU to develop the organization’s learning strategy. Second, the CU must partner with corporate HR leaders to analyze employee skill gaps and to develop learning programs that support employee development. The CU can be viewed as a critical component of the organization’s strategic HR management efforts. Third, leaning efforts should be in alignment with HR performance appraisal processes to identify employee development areas. HR can aggregate employee development issues that span the organization. Based on the aggregated findings, learning and development professionals can collaborate with HR to design appropriate learning programs. The CU mission is to support organizational goals and employee learning in alignment with those goals.

Development of Skills that Support Business Needs Developing with line managers the competency-based curricula for various employee roles in different business functions ensures relevancy to business operations. Skill gaps are identified collaboratively with business units, and targeted programs are designed to fill these gaps. Collaboration with BUs is essential for learning professionals to grasp the business knowledge domain and understand business processes.

If learning initiatives are not aligned directly with business objectives, CUs run the risk of becoming ineffective, inefficient, or redundant.

Evaluation of Learning and Performance The goal of learning and performance evaluation is to measure the impact of learning efforts on organization-wide results as well as the effect on business units. The article presented Kirpatrick’s model, but did not discuss how to operationalize application beyond Level 2.

Page 40

Benchmarking Report Use of Technology to Support Learning Learning management systems provide tracking and administration support to learning leaders so that resources can be allocated appropriately based on demand. The technology dimension underscores the need to implement technologies that support learning delivery and administration, and offer additional programs to employees. Technology can extend the reach of learning initiatives for CUs with relatively small staffs. Fifty percent of those organizations surveyed had fewer than 25 full-time employees.

Partnerships with Academia In addition to partnering with academia for customized design and delivery of non-credit learning programs and for-credit/degree programs, faculty exchanges and development programs assist CU expansion because external resources and expertise are needed to supplement existing staff and knowledge.

Motorola University in China partners with 21 Chinese higher education institutions to deliver executive management programs. General Motors offers a customized MBA program with Indiana University.

Synopsis of the Five Strategic Areas Alignment and Execution

Developing Skills to Support Business Needs

Technology to Support Learning

Learning and Performance Evaluation

Partnerships with Academia

Well-defined strategy with HR

Skill- or job-based programs

Online learning

Evaluate organizational results

Customized design and delivery

Clear vision and mission

Competencybased curricula

Using a comprehensive learning management system

Measure returnon-investment

Credit/degree programs

Align with performance appraisal processes

Align with line managers

Evaluate learning transfer

Faculty exchange and development

Supporting employee groups

Page 41

Benchmarking Report A Functional Model for CUs The five areas presented here are not perceived as equally important. The top areas are Alignment and Execution, Developing Skills that Support Business Needs, and Technology to Support Learning. The reason that these five strategic areas are essential for CUs is because they capture 70 percent of CU activities based on statistical analysis. Focusing CU efforts on these specific areas instead of on a wide array of dimensions may help CUs to reduce operational complexity.

Partnerships Given the complexity of supporting the learning function, CUs cannot provide all services and programs alone. To be successful, CUs require the ability to develop and manage multiple relationships -- internal and external -- to meet learning demands. These relationships range from internal partnerships with business leaders and other departments to outsourcing relationships with external vendors, professional organizations, and academic universities.

The Growing Role of Executive Education in University-Corporate Partnerships, Lindsay Ryan, Journal of Executive Education, Volume 6, Issue 1, University of South Australia, enquires@corpedadvisers.com.au Mr. Ryan states that, “Unlike training programs, which have an operational focus and can be readily delivered by in-house trainers or competency-based training firms, corporations are recognizing the need to provide higher-level executive education programs in partnership with universities to expand the range of education programs offered and to support the development of managers and future leaders.” This article looks at the partnerships between corporations and universities to develop and customize delivery of executive education programs.

The projection in the United States to 2020 is for 70 million baby boomers to retire from the workforce.

During that period, only 40 million workers will enter the workforce. This provides a pressing need for corporations to modify their business culture by developing more of their own future leaders to provide for future employment requirements. In response to this trend, Bednar (1999) finds that more than 50% of corporations worldwide are planning to use existing or future partnerships with accredited universities to deliver executive education programs. In some cases this allows the organization to grant degrees in fields of business/management, engineering/technical, computer science, and finance/accounting.

Six organizations participated in the work done in this study. They represented the: •

Not-for-profit sector.

•

Public sector.

•

Quasi-government sector.

•

Government agency.

Page 42

Benchmarking Report •

Consortium of national and international manufacturing.

•

Government agency in the human services sector.

Questions asked of each organization: Why establish a university-corporate executive education partnership?

• To partner with an education organization to obtain a combination of theory and practice drawing on up-to-date education and curriculum.

• To enable the organization to have a point of difference from other organizations.

• To bring people with leadership potential from the organization’s offices around the world together to discuss issues in an open forum and achieve a university qualification (MBA) at the same time.

•

To deliver a leadership program and develop future leaders from within.

• To be consistent with national trends to professionalize the industry and to recognize the status of people and the study they undertake.

• To facilitate an organization restructure and provide an accredited process for managers to develop their skills.

• To provide strength and credibility to the delivery of in-house training and executive education programs.

•

To have the ability to centralize resources.

• To establish an external benchmark of the quality of the corporate executive education programs.

The role of executive education in the context of a learning organization involves a diverse range of functions which include: facilitating an increased rate of learning within a corporation to match the increased rate of change in the business environment, assisting a corporation to respond to the challenges of globalization, aligning learning strategies with the business goals of a corporation, centrally directing and coordinating the education and training activities of a corporation, maintaining and evolving a corporate culture even when a corporation has diverse cultures across its global operations, and harnessing the learning and knowledge of employees to create and sustain a competitive advantage for the corporation, and attracting and retaining the best talent.

To what extent does the partnership directly relate to your organization’s corporate objectives or strategies?

The most effective university-corporate executive education programs are those that assist a corporation to achieve its corporate goals. Each university-corporate executive education partnership is unique, and the role and structure of each program is related to the Page 43

Benchmarking Report organization’s level of commitment, the resources allocated, the stated learning objectives, and the culture of the organization. (Kent, 2005 and Plompen, 2005).

To what extent is senior management involved in the partnership?

Senior management’s involvement is key to the success of the partnership. In one of the organizations researched, virtually all senior managers in the corporation are, or have been, involved with the partnership at various times. This commitment must start at the level of chief executive officer. Senior managers should be directly involved in the delivery of programs so that participants see first-hand the level of commitment to the program.

Who is responsible for managing the partnership/relationship in your organization?

Each interviewed organization said responsibility for managing their university-corporate executive education partnership is with a senior or executive manager. In one case, the responsibility is shared by a team of four senior managers, who are actively involved as participants in the university-corporate executive education program.

Within your partnership arrangement/agreement, to what extent is there flexibility to make changes in programs, content or delivery dates and times once they have been planned/scheduled.

The interviewed organizations indicated there is considerable flexibility provided by the university and generally the university listens to their requests. There is flexibility, but there are parameters as it can have further problems with too many changes and flexibility. An implication for universities in regard to providing flexibility in university-corporate executive education partnerships is to find out early what their corporate partner’s expectations are and to have the corporation define what they mean by the term flexibility. The earlier a university understand what their corporate education partner expects in regard to flexibility, the better equipped they are to manage the partnership or advise up-front of any limitations to be able to meet the corporate partner’s expectations for flexibility.

To what extent does your organization recognize and support the partnership?

All organizations interviewed said there was strong support, particularly at the senior and executive management level. Examples of this support include managers providing their time as guest speakers in the programs; the corporation paying all fees for participants, and giving them time to attend and study; the program is part of a structured program for the corporation, and the partnership recognizes as part of the corporation’s business plan, with its own budget line.

How would you rate the value of this partnership to your organization?

Page 44

Benchmarking Report Most respondents rated the value as very valuable. One interviewee said that the partnership is not as good as it could be, although this is not a reflection on the university, but on the corporation, as it is not drawing from student assignments and applying the knowledge back into the corporation. The partnership is most effective when the university assists the corporation to achieve its corporate goals.

Do you have any quantitative measures in place for determining the value of the partnership in your organization?

Half of the interviewed corporations had no quantitative measures to determine value. While the remaining respondents do not have any quantitative measures, one interviewee indicates they would like to explore a range of aspects, such as the value of the industry-based project assignments, the opportunity cost of not doing a project or later, after implementation of a project, the value generated from the project. Those corporations with quantitative measures the main measures include: competency assessment of individual participants against outcomes of the program on a scale of zero-to-five; the budget and number of enquires for the program; a Key Performance Indicator relating to training as a percentage of payroll.

Do you have any qualitative measures in place for determining the value of the partnership to your organization?

Qualitative measures include being a big “happy family� or students as measured by internal surveys’ anecdotal information from senior managers to executive; staff feedback processes and surveys; learning and development incentives with milestones celebrated throughout the corporation. It is recommended that both the corporation and its university partner should use a balance measurement approach of quantitative and qualitative criteria in order to identify cultural benefits arising from the partnership, as well as financial and other tangible performance measures. The quantitative measures include: the amount of money spent on learning, the number of programs delivered, the number of people in each program, the number of people successfully completing each program and staff retention among participants completing the programs. Qualitative measures include: improvements in staff morale, effective teamwork and cooperation across the corporation, the development of confidence amongst program participants, the contribution to the development and retention of corporate knowledge and the number of innovative ideas generated in such learning environments.

To what extent does the university name add strength and credibility to your executive education program?

Respondents indicated unanimously that the university name adds strengths and credibility to their programs. Being linked to a university creates an expectation amongst participants of academic rigor, credibility and quality.

Page 45

Benchmarking Report To what extent do the university programs add strength and credibility to your executive education programs?

Answers included: • It provides a framework to feedback to the university to ensure evolution and relevance to changing issues confronting the corporation and industry.

• It adds credibility as people look for credible programs that they could learn from and take back into the workplace.

• The programs are offered to assist the corporations to be an employer of choice.

• The program, linked with the university, is for people in management and to develop management skills.

• The partnership with a university facilitates learning with the corporation to shift from being reactive to change to anticipating change.

• The association with a university provides external recognition of the quality of the corporate executive education program and the commitment a corporation has to its employees.

What would be the key achievements from your organization as a result of having this partnership agreement?

Answers included: • It provides us with a pool of leadership talent that enhances succession planning and professionalism.

• It provides a context to test the caliber of certain people through a leadership development program at a tertiary level.

• It provides participants a pathway of study and assists the corporation to be seen as an employer of choice.

• Employee satisfaction, as measured by reduced staff turnover, higher results in staff surveys, and the trade-off between salary increases and education opportunities.

• Culture – establishing and reinforcing a culture that supports change and innovation.

Needs and Results Assessments Measurement and Evaluation in Corporate Universities, The Corporate University Handbook, Mark Allen, Ph.D. and Philip McGee, Ed.D, American Management Association, New York, 2002

Page 46

Benchmarking Report Corporate universities (CUs) in America can be traced to Pre-World War II. One of the contemporary elements of CUs is measurement and evaluation of the learning of those who attend CU learning experiences. All measurement of learning is directly tied to the organization’s strategic direction. The raison d’etre of CUs is organizational betterment. The learning process is for both the individual and the organization and involves the acquisition of knowledge, which may be declarative (know) or procedural (do), and the application of that knowledge.

Kirkpatrick and ROI Models Since CUs are direct descendants from training departments, the Kirkpatrick Four Level Model (1994) is often used to assess learning outcomes. The third level of Kirkpatrick’s taxonomy is behavior change. In order to measure behavior change, employees’ behaviors need to be tracked prior to the training so a baseline is established. Then, post-training, behavior needs to be observed in order to establish the extent of the change. Measurement of behavior change, especially across a large number of students, is not a simple task and requires a high level of commitment by the organization an investment in time and energy.

Kirkpatrick’s fourth level is results or organizational impact. While the locus of measurement for learning and behavior change is typically the individual employee, results are typically measured at the organizational level, which means there is often a lag time between the training and the results measurement. The organization needs to determine what sorts of results it is looking for prior to the training, and track correlation over time.

Return on Investment (ROI) has been called Level Five evaluation. The quantification of benefits of training can be extremely tricky. Direct costs for a training class are only one part of the formula for ROI. Organizations must calculate both direct and indirect costs of the learning in order to determine the ROI. Calculating benefits of the learning requires that the organization needs a clear picture of what it is trying to accomplish, and define what a successful outcome looks like.

Many organizations find ROI desirable, but too complicated or costly to calculate. Tennessee Valley Authority University has developed a method for calculating the ROI of each of the hundreds of courses it offers each year. After calculating costs through some standard measures, TVA University then calculates benefits by measuring the (1) extent to which each worker uses the material taught in the class in the course of his or her job, the (2) amount of improvement in that area as a result of the course, and the (3) worker’s value to the organization (as measured by annual salary). Needless to say, some of the measures are hard to get at, but the statisticians at TVA University have devised ways of measuring each of these elements and the university can assess the ROI for each its courses.

Motorola University uses human capital as the locus of measurement. By analyzing performance gaps, employee performance, and business opportunities, Motorola University can calculate the value of closing the performance gaps and therefore determine the ROI of investing in improving human capital.

Page 47

Benchmarking Report Organizational Metrics for Corporate University Effectiveness A more holistic approach is recommended when evaluating a CU in its entirety. The best approach is mission-based metrics that are organization-specific. Each CU should have its own mission statement based on the specific needs of the organization. The question, “Why do you have a corporate university?” should drive the measurement of the effectiveness of the CU. That should serve as a roadmap for what to measure.

Measurement is not something to be undertaken after the completion of educational activities – it must be baked in up front during the planning process. As a CU and its activities are being planned, the question of “why?” must be asked at all times. All CU activities must be goal-directed. If the goals cannot be articulated for each activity and for the CU as a whole, then achievement of those goals is what should be measured. The question of what to measure is simply the answer to the question, “What were you trying to accomplish?” The close connection between goals and measurement reinforces the notion that measurement is a part of the planning process, not something to be considered after the fact.

Organizational measures (profitability, growth, employee retention, employee satisfaction, productivity, etc.) are the appropriate metrics for gauging corporate university success. An example is MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, known as the University of Oz. Early in the planning process, the management decided to make a conscious effort to focus on employee retention. The University of Oz was at the heart of the retention effort. They created a Th.D. (Doctor of Thinkology). A sequence of courses spanning many months were required to earn the “degree.” The degree was meaningless outside of the company, so employees tended to stay with the hotel. When it came time to determine if the University of Oz was doing a good job, management did not need any complex formulas. Since the primary focus of the U of O was employee retention that was the organizational metric. The organization had a specific result it wanted to achieve, it set up a mechanism to help achieve those results, and the ultimate goals were met.

The Productivity Model CUs value and implement a variety of instructional systems to achieve predetermined goals and outcomes. It is possible to describe any system as being composed of three basic elements: Resources + Activity = Results. The dynamic relationship between elements of a system must be considered.

Effectiveness A system is effective only when an activity creates or produces a predetermined result with a higher degree of predictability, in other words, effectiveness is concerned with “how well” something works.

Efficiency

Page 48

Benchmarking Report Efficiency is the dynamic relationship between resources and an activity – “how much?” The optimum balance between resources and activity, and activity and results is productivity.

Applying the Model to Improving the Training System Productivity To improve productivity of a training system, focus must be on a) the quality of the instruction, and b) the quantity of resources needed to deliver instruction.

What Should Be Taught?

A curriculum standard should be developed during the curriculum development. Instructional quality is measured by how well participants are able to achieve the program objectives. These data are often gained through traditional testing.

Instructional quantity asks, “By what means should the curriculum be taught?” Performance standards must be established by which to measure this dimension. Common standards include money, time, instructional staff, equipment required, etc. To determine the instructional system’s productivity, consider both results produced by the curriculum and the instructional resources required to deliver the curriculum. Productivity is a ratio or composite measure of both the effectiveness and efficiency of the system.

Factors that influence the effectiveness of an instructional system (curriculum development) include: •

Needs assessment

•

Assessment of learners

•

Analysis of work settings

•

Job, task, or content analysis

•

Statements of performance objectives

•

Performance measurements (test items)

•

Sequence performance objectives

Factors that influence the efficiency of an instructional system (instructional strategy) include: •

Instructional techniques

•

Designs for instructional materials

•

Instructional resources, i.e., money, time, instructional staff, required equipment

Page 49

Benchmarking Report Where and When to Use the Productivity Model The Model may be used to evaluate and fine-tune the development activities within any phase of the ADDIE model (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation). The Model may be used at all levels of Kirkpatrick’s levels.

Learning and Talent Development, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2010 Annual Survey 8 A summary of findings about employee skills from this annual survey include: •

The main gaps in skills identified by organizations continue to be business skills/acumen and commercial awareness, and management/leadership skills.

•

The skills which employers say they need to focus on in order to meet their business objectives in two years’ time are mainly leadership skills (65%), front-line people management skills (55%), and business acumen/awareness (51%).

•

Looking more closely at leadership skills, the main gaps identified by employers are performance management (setting standards for performance and dealing with underperformance), and leading and managing change.

•

The main focus of leadership development activities in the next 12 months will be improving the skills of leaders to think in a more strategic and future-focused way, and enabling the achievement of the organization’s strategic goals, as cited by four in ten organizations (42% and 39% respectively).

•

School leavers are seen to be most lacking in business skills/acumen and commercial awareness (59%), closely followed by management/leadership skills (54%) and communication/interpersonal skills (53%). The main gap in skills for university graduates differs slightly, as most employers would like to see better management/leadership skills (59%), followed by the same business skills/acumen and commercial awareness (56%) that school leavers lack the most. Employees coming from another organization are less likely to be seen as deficient in skills. Management/leadership skills are still cited, but only by three in ten (29%) employers.

Current and future trends in learning and talent development •

The most effective learning and talent development practices are in-house development programs (56%) and coaching by line managers (51%).

•

E-learning is the learning and talent development practice that has increased the most, with six in ten (62%) organizations saying they use it more than in 2009; in-house development programs are also used more by 58% of organizations, and coaching by line managers is used more by 56%. Attendance at external conferences, workshops and events has decreased the most, with a quarter (26%) of organizations using it less.

8 Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 151 The Broadway London SW19 1JQ ,Tel: 020 8612 6200 Fax: 020 8612 6201,Email: cipd@cipd.co.uk Website: www.cipd.co.uk

Page 50

Benchmarking Report •

Learning and talent development specialists are most likely (53%) to hold the main responsibility for employees’ learning and talent development, followed by senior managers (33%), the HR department (30%) and line managers (29%).

•

Employees/learners are mostly expected to show ‘some’ involvement (54%), but few (17%) organizations expect them to be mainly responsible for their own learning.

•

The two main tasks for learning and talent development specialists are to deliver courses (46%) and to manage the overall planning of learning (46%).

•

For almost half (46%) of organizations, the major organizational change affecting learning and talent development in the next five years will be a greater integration between coaching, organizational development and performance management to drive organizational change. For almost four in ten (37%), it will be greater responsibility devolved to line managers.

Internships •

Almost eight in ten employers (78%) consider that internships are beneficial to interns in the long run, and three-quarters (76%) think they can be used as a way to test potential new staff. A majority (69%) see internships as a good way to develop new talent in an industry sector, while only a third (33%) say that interns help firms to improve productivity. About half believe they are a cost-effective resource (52%), and that they can help to develop management and leadership skills among existing staff (50%).

•

The most common way for UK organizations to remunerate their interns is to pay them more than the national minimum wage for adults, but less than a full-time salary comparable to other workers (29%), while 18% do not pay them any salary, but cover their travel expenses.

Talent management •

Almost six in ten (59%) organizations undertake talent management activities. Among these, half (50%) rate these as ‘effective’, although only 3% consider them ‘very effective’.

•

Talent management activities tend to be directed at high-potential employees and senior managers.

•

The main objectives of talent management activities are to develop high-potential employees (67%) and to grow future senior managers/leaders (67%). The third main objective is to meet the future skills requirements of the organization (36%).

•

The three most effective activities to manage talent are coaching (39%), in-house development programs (32%), and high-potential development schemes (31%).

•

The three most common ways to evaluate talent management activities are to obtain feedback from line managers (42%), to measure the retention of those identified as high-potential (35%), and the anecdotal observation of change (35%).

Economic circumstances and training spend Page 51

Benchmarking Report •

Two-thirds (65%) of responding organizations declare that their economic circumstances have declined in the past 12 months, compared with 46% in 2009, when the recession had already begun.

•

It is not surprising that funds available for learning and development in the past 12 months have decreased for over half (52%) of organizations, while only one in ten employers (11%) expect these to increase in the year to come.

•

Learning and Training Development departments’ headcounts have largely remained the same in the last year, while resources available have stayed the same for four in ten (41%), and decreased by a similar proportion of organizations.

•

Main changes in organizations’ learning and talent development departments over the last year included the department becoming more business-focused (38%), a reduction in external suppliers and a move to in-house provision (31%), and redundancies of staff (20%).

•

Eight in ten organizations (78%) have a training budget; for half of organizations this is over £200,000, and for half of them this is under £200,000. This represents an increase of nearly £90,000 from last year. The median number of employees it covers has increased too, from 500 last year to 785 in 2010.

•

Among UK organizations, a quarter (25%) consider themselves ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ successful at securing government funding, notably apprenticeship funding (57%) and Train to Gain for basic skills funding (53%).

•

Training budgets cover external courses and conferences for nine in ten (88%) organizations, hiring external consultants and trainers for eight in ten (83%), but only cover salaries for in-house trainers in two-fifths (40%) of organizations.

•

Seven in ten (71%) keep a record of the number of training/development days employees receive every year. This represents a median of four days among organizations which track such data.

Strategic Plans and Assessments for Any Corporate University to Consider 9 Understand Your Business Goals: Train with the end result in mind to benefit from investments in worker education programs. Assess the organization’s training needs on a company, department, team and/or individual basis. Use the Planning and Assessment Tool - Part A, to develop an understanding of the organization’s training needs and how they impact the company’s business goals. It is critical that training efforts be linked to identified business goals to maintain senior management’ support for employee training and development programs. An easy way to accomplish this linkage to business goals is to give the “Part A Planner” to key leaders in the organization and ask them what goals and objectives they must accomplish this year. Ask them to list the goals and objectives, and link them to how training

9 The Workforce & Economic Development Network of Pennsylvania, 4807 Jonestown Road, Suite 246, Harrisburg, PA 171091744,Tel: 1-877-WEDNETP, Website: www.wednetpa.com

Page 52

Benchmarking Report could assist accomplishing their goals. Provide each leader with a blank form and an example to assist them in completing. Be willing to meet with them to complete if requested.

Business Goal Planner Part A – (Example) Link Business Goals to Training Needs Directions: Identify critical business goals where training is needed or could assist in accomplishing the goal.

List needs as measurable outcomes, if possible, and with the desired training needed (if known).

Company: ______________________________ Dept: _______________________________________

Business Need or Goal

Proposed Training

How can training help my company accomplish this goal?

Lean Manufacturing Improve machine availability and operator productivity by 5%. Achieve productivity cost savings of $15,000 by Dec. 2002.

Jim Jones – VP of Manufacturing, 2002 Strategic Operational Goal Customer Service Training Decrease Call Time by 25 seconds per agent. Increase Product Knowledge of Agents to improve their order close rate by 5% to obtain an additional $80,000 in new cross-sold products over the year.

Linda Smith – Call Center Director, 2002 Operational Goal Job Cross-Training for Key Operator Positions Improve machine availability and ability to respond to changing customer demands. Provide one-day turnaround on all orders based on more skilled operators available to respond to any order type.

Joe Adams – Press Room Manager, 2002 Manufacturing Operational Goal

What training is needed to accomplish this goal?

Train all machine operators in Lean Manufacturing techniques, especially set-up time reduction. Reduce set-up time between production runs by 20%.

Uncertain at this time. Will explore possible ways to fulfill training need with WEDnetPA Partner and Human Resource Manager.

On-the-job rotation of all machine operators with competency testing integrated into new Pay for Skills Program This program should increase employee retention rates by 25% and increase on time product delivery rate by 10% to 97% of all orders.

Use the Planning and Benchmarking Checklist – Part B to identify potential business areas that could benefit from training and to benchmark the organization’s capabilities against some common human resource and training ‘best practices’ used by other organizations. The checklist is an excellent way to evaluate the state of the workforce development efforts and get ideas for improvement that can be introduced to the organization.

Training Needs Checklist Part B Page 53

Benchmarking Report Company: _______________________________

Dept: _________________

Training Topic Needs Assessment

Training Topic Areas

(3, 6, or 12 months)

Need Now

Future Need

Not Needed

Applied Math & Measurement (Blue Print Reading) Business Operation Communication, Employee Empowerment, Teamwork Computer Skills English Literacy/GED/ESL Health & Safety Quality Assurance or ISO Certification Needs Product and Process Control Supervision & Leadership Other:

Job Apprentice Programs (Internal employee development Programs)

Job Skills Shortage Area

(Where will you need skilled workers in the future) Computer Networking, Programming

Need Now

(3, 6 or 12 months)

Future Need

Not Needed

Customer Service/Call-Order Processing Center

Page 54

Benchmarking Report Industry Specific Program (Plastics, Printing, etc.)

List:

Machining and Metal Working Safety & Regulatory Compliance Supervision Welding Other:

Human Resource "Best Practice" Programs

Best Practice

(3, 6 or 12 months)

Currently Using

Being Considered

Not Using

A Method to Boost Productivity Per Employee (Lean Enterprise, Set-up time reduction, etc.)

Cross Training & Job Rotation Empowerment or Teaming Programs Skill Pathways as an Employee Retention Tool Pay for Skills as an Employee Retention Tool Tuition Re-Imbursement Programs Formal Employee Recognition and Rewards Program as an Employee "Retention" Tool Partner with local high schools and colleges for Job Shadowing, Internships, & Co-Ops Multi-company new employee hiring pools

(3, 6 or 12 months) Supply Chain "Best Practice" Programs

Best Practice

Currently Using Being Considered

Not Using Page 55

Benchmarking Report "Strategic Relationships" with key training and education suppliers Participation in Industry Consortia/Cooperatives Multi-employee Discounts Federal, State or Local Grant and Loan Programs ISO Certifications (Key Supplier Requirement) Other:

Establish a Formalized Training Plan This step is critical as it is used to obtain organizational commitment for the proposed training solutions.

A formalized plan is the stake in the ground that clearly states: • • • •

The need and benefits of the training The proposed training that will address the need and accomplish the benefits desired The resources of time, money and people needed to connect the training The time frame for completing the training

Armed with this information, one can demonstrate to the organization the benefit of the training to obtain organizational commitment and resources needed to accomplish the plan goals. Present the plans to senior management to obtain recognition and support for the plans in the organization.

Research has shown that the lack of a detailed concise training plan is the single most common reason why training programs fail or are canceled. Below is a Sample Training Plan to use as a guide in developing company or department-wide plans. Use the specific goals identified in Step 1 and the general needs identified in the Planning and Benchmarking Checklist to fill in the training plan details.

Share the draft plans with the key leaders worked with in step one to finalize plans prior to presenting them for approval by senior management.

Training Plan Training Plan for ___________________

Proposed Training What Training Is Needed?

Business Need Solved How will the training help my company?

Dept.______________

Priority Link to Business Strategic Plan

Time Line Date Needed

Date: _____________

Resource Planning In-house, Sole Source, University Partner

Budget & Notes

Page 56

Benchmarking Report Decrease Call Time by A Mar25 seconds per agent.

Sales and June Increase Product Marketing 2003.

Knowledge of Agents Goal Finish by For existing Call to improve their order busy Center Customer close rate by 5% or season $80,000 over summer Service Reps. the year.

Introduction to Hire 20 new A A Part of Work machine Part of Strategic Strategic Plan to Environment operators and Plan to Improve Improve and Machine have Capacity Capacity Cross Training productive as Cross training current for all new hires. operators within 120 days.

PC Training in Upgrade A July 2002 to MS Outlook/ company to MIS Goal Jan 2003 Office Suite Outlook /MS Classroom Office training for all Suite new Benefit – Stay users. current/ software easier to use and maintain Lean Improve A Sept-Dec Manufacturing Machine Part of 2002 2003 Train Machine Availability & Strategic Operators in Productivity by Plan to Lean 5%.

Improve Manufacturing Benefit – more Capacity Techniques – machine Set Up Time capacity Reduction Job CrossCross training of B July Training for Key Machine HR Goal as October 2002 Operator Operators. part of Positions Improve Employee On-the-job machine Retention rotation of all availability and Strategic machine response time Planning operators with to Goal competency change orders. testing Increase onintegrated into time new Pay for delivery rate by Skills Program to 10% Customer Service Training

Local WEDnetPA Partner

$7,000 90 employee hours in training.

In-house – Train the Trainer – Curriculum Development Assistance from WEDnetPA Partner

$9,000 Grant from WEDnetPA GFT Program.

Proposals from Community College & State System School.

90 upgrade users & 20 new users.

$25,000 plus 50% match from CJT Funds.

WEDnetPA program - 20 people for training, 10 for implementation

$5,000. $20,000 cost savings expected first year in added machine availability

In-House Program with Assistance from HR Consultant to create Pay for Skills Prog. & cross training documentation

150 hours of training time, $6,000 for consultant $8,000 in Pay for Skills Wage Increases.

100 trainer hours, 25 Hours from WEDnetPA

Page 57

Benchmarking Report increase retention rates

to 97% of all orders.

http://www.w ednetpa.com/ downloads/W orkforceTrainingPlanning-andAssessmentTool.pdf

Page 58

Benchmarking Report Appendix A – Other DOTs Executive Summary: From the research of other DOTs, the lessons learned include the following: •

The common thread among DOTs, whether they have a corporate university or not, is flexibility in responding to the internal and external environment. This flexibility is built in to learning delivery methodologies, scheduling to address organizational busy seasons, and learning offerings.

•

There is a variety of LMS platforms used. The key is using the LMS that best fits the organization’s needs.

•

Learning is integrated into Individual Development Plan discussions, and performance management growth.

•

Needs analysis is foundational in the development of learning offerings. Establishing what the learning success looks like, drives the learning objectives and content, design, and delivery method.

•

Taking advantage of collaboration with other DOTs expands the number and types of learning offerings available to the individual DOTs to increase employee performance competency.

•

Marketing of the CU’s or organizational learning’s value to the organization is critical for managers and employees to invest in being a part of the learning rather than see it as taking them away from their “real” work.

•

Training tools are important so managers and employees can track employees’ progress in their value to the organization.

WYOMING DOT Jim Boyd, Training Services Manager, Wyoming DOT, (307) 777-4791, James.boyd@wyo.gov Wyoming DOT could be an excellent collaborator with UDOTu. WYDOT-University was put into place by Jim’s predecessor, David Talley. The "University" title is more of a title than it is an actual corporate university. David got WYDOT employees to take a more deliberate interest in their own personal and professional development.

The State of Wyoming has an HR/training department, similar to Utah’s, which assists with trainings for core competencies in the state. The Wyoming DOT also has an internal training department. Supervisors throughout the DOT use the training system to help with goal setting as well as to incorporate the information gained into their performance management. WYDOT also use a system called the “Individual Development Plan” to assist in this process of employee growth. Classes through WYDOT-University are open to all employees at WYDOT. Different programs budget training accordingly and then send employees to classes they feel would best

Page 59

Benchmarking Report benefit them. Instructors for the WYDOT-University classes are either Internal Training Services staff or outside consultants. Currently, all classes at WYDOT-U are taught face to face.

The Wyoming DOT does not currently have its own ‘learning model’ that drives the university function but they are working to develop one. The State of Wyoming has developed seven Behavioral Competencies for all state employees. These competencies are: Communication, Customer Service, Team Player, Personal Effectiveness, Judgment and Decision Making; and two leadership competencies which are Leadership, and Developing Others. WYDOT-U offers courses based on these competencies. Additionally, courses are created based on different needs analyses that have been conducted, target ranges to be achieved, and core competencies of the job.

Results Assessment WYDOT-U currently conducts a couple of different evaluations after a course is completed.

There is an immediate evaluation, most often in an electronic form, which evaluates the course.

Roughly three months after the completion of the training, there is another survey administered to both the attendee and his or her supervisor. Questions asked here include: How effective was the training? What is being implemented? What are the long-term results of sending someone to this training? Is the information is “sticking”? WYDOT-U does not have a current means for evaluating their ROI but hope to develop one later.

Structure and Infrastructure The DOT has approximately five Districts with 2,000 full-time employees. There are three employees in the training department, two trainers and one employee working on the development of online learning. The trainers obtain certifications to teach courses like Myers Briggs, 7 Habits, etc. or build courses themselves. The training department plans the calendar about 18 months out, planning for the next fiscal year. WYDOT-U utilizes a training database to track attendance for each of the classes. They send out a yearly schedule in advance, then again announce the classes about a month prior to their start date. Employees register by calling or sending an email to reserve a spot in the upcoming class. After the course is finished, they mark down attendance in the database. Not all courses within the DOT are coordinated and run through WYDOT-U. They have a decentralized training program. Many departments send their employees to outside learning opportunities. Additionally, technical training is also done outside of Training Services, though they do try to track it in the same database for their own courses.

Their budget is roughly $80,000 for consultants and material fees for the university program.

Wyoming is also a part of the TLN, Transportation Learning Network with North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana. The TLN conducts technical, DOT specific training via teleconference.

These states collaborate together to extend the network of training options to the other states via this technology. http://www.translearning.org/about/

NORTH DAKOTA DOT Judy L. Froseth, SPHR, HRD Assistant Director/Training Director (701) 328-2453 jfroseth@nd.gov Page 60

Benchmarking Report NDDOT does not have a Corporate University. Here are Ms. Froseth’s responses to our questions.

•

What does your org chart look like? (see image below) I’ve attached the organization chart for Human Resources; workforce development/training is part of that division. You will notice that we contract with ND State University (UGPTI) for engineering and technical training management.

Some training is coordinated by other areas of NDDOT; it is de-centralized.

•

How do you use transcripts to track the classes people attend? We use a PeopleSoft product, Enterprise Learning Management (ELM) system, which tracks all workforce development. This module ties into other PeopleSoft modules, including Talent Management, which is used for performance reviews and professional growth.

•

How do you assess learning of the course concepts in your classes? Learning objectives are established for each course. However, our evaluation tools are not as strong as we would like.

•

How do you create your catalogue(s)? Who “owns” it/them? We have a Strategic Training Plan and training liaisons for each division and district in NDDOT. We do a “needs assessment” by meeting annually with the training liaisons. Then the courses are offered and marketed through a weekly Training Newsletter. Additionally, we are developing a training matrix for each classified position.

This will serve as a recommendation of required and optional training for each job classification.

•

Are all classes in your DOT coordinated, and run, through your university/training department?

No, several other areas of NDDOT coordinate specific training; we are de-centralized.

•

How do you involved external stakeholders/partners? They are allowed to attend training sessions, generally for a fee. We target marketing the courses to those who may need the content for working on our contracted projects.

•

How big is your DOT? (FTEs, and use of consultants/contractors) We are a small DOT with an approved budget for 1079.5 FTE employee positions. We do bid a substantial number of construction projects.

•

Number of ‘trainers’? How are trainers trained? Because we are so small, we use external sources to deliver our training. We do not have internal “trainers”.

Page 61

Benchmarking Report

OKLAHOMA DOT Ann Simon, HR Management Specialist, HR Programs Manager II (405) 521-4141, asimon@odot.org Steve Sawyer, Qcqa Manager, HR Programs Manager II, (405) 632-8022, ssawyer@odot.org Oklahoma DOT is similar to other states that do not have a Corporate University. ODOT partners with the Oklahoma Human Resources Development Services (HRDS) for a large portion of their trainings.

HRDS conducts “soft skills” trainings such as Change Management, Violence in the Workplace, Public Speaking, Sexual Harassment and Discrimination, Coaching and Mentoring, and an entire array of other training topics. They conduct these, and more, trainings for all state agencies. Each October, ODOT has a “Road to Excellence Conference”. This is a two-day training that supervisors and managers attend. They are able to pick from different seminar-styled leadership classes to create their two-day training. ODOT Page 62

Benchmarking Report also does internally, often at the request of the different departments, more DOT specific trainings such as Work Zones, Traffic safety, etc. http://www.ok.gov/opm/About_OPM/Human_Resource_Development_Services_Division.html The Highway Construction Materials Technician is a state board certification similar to that of engineers, etc. As far as they are aware, Oklahoma is the only state with a State Board governing, and requiring, certification for Highway Construction Materials Technicians.

LMS ODOT tracks the classes that employees take in an ELM, PeopleSoft. They keep a transcript of all classes taken by each employee. They let employees know in the newsletter in February and September what the classes are. They don’t have trainers, but work with FHWA and partner with a local university.

Regarding the HCMT Certification and the Training Center, they track the certification in an Access database that they created and customized for their exact needs. They are able to track enrollments, invoicing, certification expiration dates (for reminder emails to be auto-generated), and classes until completion, etc. Different groups within the DOT can use the Training Center to hold various classes for their individual units. They are usually two-day courses and they either use someone from within that specific department or contract with an outside vendor to conduct the training. In addition to the certification, they have individuals take courses that train for Highway Construction Inspections.

Lessons Learned Regarding creating the State Board and the certification process, or the training programs in general, they recommend that a corporate university be as flexible as possible. They wish they could change from a State Board to an Advisory Board as it’s difficult to request legislative approval for every change they would like to make. They like to keep the focus on Just-In-Time training as much as possible and try to not overload employees on too many “additional” classes. They find the Certification process to be extra difficult during the summer months because they do not hold classes during their busy season.

There are often new people hired for new projects but it is difficult to get the new people the certification. A bit of a catch 22. http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/index.asp?level=1&ftdb=STOKST69#CiteID447841 http://oktechcert.org/TCCC.htm

SOUTH DAKOTA DOT Todd Hanson, Director of Training for South Dakota DOT (605) 773-5442, todd.hanson@state.sd.us

Page 63

Benchmarking Report South Dakota does not have a ‘Corporate University’ but partners with the State Bureau of HR to do many of their trainings. They additionally do much of their training within the DOT and all classes are job-specific training and done by one individual, the Director of training. An additional resource they utilize for online training is the T3 – Transportation Curriculum Coordination Council (www.tccc.gov).

This site has numerous courses available free of cost to anyone interested. It seems that Todd Hanson has worked closely with the committees that create and maintain this site so he could possibly share additional insight into the program/system if needed.

Page 64

Benchmarking Report Appendix B – Other Corporate University ‘Experts’ Executive Summary: From the research of other corporate universities, the lessons learned include the following: •

The CU’s strategic goals are directly aligned with the organization’s goals and direction.

•

The CU is comprehensive to foster learning at all organizational levels.

•

The CU is an internal organizational management consultant to all business units to best understand organizational needs at the root.

•

Design cross-silo collaboration to maximize learning that fosters system thinking.

•

Fund the CU adequately for what it is expected to do.

•

Top management must actively support the CU.

•

Involve employees and managers in doing the needs assessment.

•

Managers are actively involved before and after the employees’ learning to ensure relevant learning, and active application of the knowledge and skills obtained.

•

Constantly market how the CU brings value so it is an integral part of employees’ day, all the time.

•

Proactively develop partnerships with academia, vendors, and industry experts to build and deliver learning.

•

Managers need to “pull” information from the CU to support employees’ performance development. Employees “push” their growth by using the CU to learn how to increase their competency in alignment with the organization’s needs.

•

To remain relevant in the organization, be flexible in adapting the corporate university to respond to its internal and external environment.

•

Use an LMS that manages all aspects of the CU’s value to the organization.

•

The CU knows the answers to the following questions: o

What is the learning strategy?

o

What modalities will be used?

o

Is there competency to use all modalities?

CITY OF TUCSON Frank Flocco, Lead Human Resources Analyst for CityLearn, Human Resources, City of Tucson (520) 837.4158, Frank.Flocco@Tucsonaz.gov

Page 65

Benchmarking Report “Our flagship program here at the City of Tucson is called "Supervisory Core Series" and we run it as a cross-departmental cohort of 30 employees, two to three times per fiscal year. It is designed specifically to break down silos across and within departments and it currently runs over a nine-week period as follows: - 1-day kick-off event - Full 5-day week of courses - 6 Wednesdays - 4-day week of courses + 1-day Capstone Project Presentations and Graduation Courses are delivered by City executive leadership (Directors, Deputy Directors, Administrators, Police and Fire Chiefs, Police Captains, etc.), and the topics range from regulatory compliance and City-specific functions to personal accountability and leadership development. We also include book discussions. Most recently, we read “Drive”, by Daniel Pink.

We've aligned this program with the one-week Eller Leadership for Public Sector Professionals http://executive.eller.arizona.edu/publicleadership/ at the University of Arizona. Our middle managers attend the Eller series.

We have branded our LMS as CityLearn. Prior to 2012, it was branded as City of Tucson Employee University (COTEU). We use it mainly to track courses that employees have taken in a classroom setting, but we also deliver several CBT courses through it. Most of the CBT's are related to mandatory training for Safety and Risk Management.”

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS Mike Livingston, Director, Operations, Motorola Solutions Learning (847) 576-5857, Mike.Livingston@motorolasolutions.com Mr. Livingston has been with Motorola for over 20 years in their training division. He is one of only three individuals still working at Motorola who saw the beginning and the end of their Corporate University. Motorola had a Corporate University but no longer does. It was one of the top three CUs in the country (Motorola, Caterpillar, and Hamburger U) at one point in time.

This was a ‘brick and mortar’ training center.

Due to several different factors, Motorola University was dissolved and absorbed into the different business units. Factors that led to the decentralization of the CU were: the cost structure, economies of scale, and the changing format of training and educational learning. The organization was very people-heavy with 153,000 employees in 1998, and 900 people working within the Corporate U. As the company scaled down, the CU scaled too. It was reduced to 600650 employees. Within a couple of years it was decided that it was too expensive and was then decentralized to the various business units. Today there are about 20,000 employees at Motorola; they are a shrinking business. Today there are about 160 employees globally who fall Page 66

Benchmarking Report under the training umbrella. They support four main groups: customers, partners, suppliers, and employees.

LMS As all technology is changing rapidly, Learning Management Systems (LMS) continually evolving.

In 2011/2012, Motorola had a panel of 11 people reviewing various LMSs to discover what Motorola’s new system should be. They utilized Gartner Magic Quadrant methodologies and after all of the demos, interviews, etc., all 11 people unanimously agreed upon Meridian. (As a side note: Meridian is often used by the Federal government and has a great interface with government systems.) Since that time, other products have surpassed Meridian in being the top LMS. It is still a great system, but this further illustrates the constant change that is happening; most change is driven by technology.

The face of e-learning is also changing. Some tools that are recommended and found to be effective to use for this are Articulate (https://www.articulate.com/) and Adobe Captivate (http://www.adobe.com/products/captivate.html). Finding software programs that work with your LMS is critical.

If UDOTu wants a computer system that can both manage and track human capital and courses/content, they should look into a “Talent Management Suite”, not just an LMS; something that links the human capital to the course content. This would be a huge project and would likely require at least one full-time person to manage the process. Some systems that were mentioned were Cornerstone OnDemand, SAP, Workday, Taleo, and Moodle. Moodle is an open-source LMS used globally and often by educational institutions.

Recommendations Define answers to the following questions: What is the strategy of learning? What modality will you use? Do you incorporate ALL modalities? Remember that all learners are not the same and therefore you should have a variety in your formatting options. Additionally, consider The White Paper that discusses the 70/20/10 breakdown of learning. 70% of what we learn is experiential.

Ask whether or not there are these types of “learning/training” opportunities available within the organization. Is there a job-share program, etc. The 20% in the breakdown is relational learning. What mentors/coaches are there who assist with the learning process? Are these mentors/coaches in place or do they need to be developed? The 10% of the breakdown refers to formal learning which is often foundational for the success of a task or job. Don’t discount that it is just 10% of the learning process as it is critical to successful employee development.

This type of learning is necessary to get people where to the desired goal. http://www.hrzone.com/files/siftmedia-hrzone/Cross%20Knowledge%20WP.PDF

Page 67

Benchmarking Report They recommended using meta-tags into the training process and what is developed for elearning. Use nugget (segmented/blocked) modules to allow people to assemble their own training courses that could meet different criteria for learning/lesson development. [Interesting article from 1998 (during the height of their CU: http://meetingsnet.com/corporatemeetings/motorola-university-changing-company)] Software and companies mentioned above: •

https://www.articulate.com/

•

http://www.adobe.com/products/captivate.html

•

http://www.cornerstoneondemand.com

•

www.sap.com

•

www.workday.com

• http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/taleo/overview/index.html? ssSourceSiteId=ocomlad •

https://moodle.org/

•

Gartner report for Magic Quadrant for Talent Management Suites o

https://www.gartner.com/doc/2371715

SPRINT UNIVERSITY Angela Webster, Learning Strategist, Lead Team, Sprint University, Angela.Webster@sprint.com (913) 315.8073 Sprint Corporation, commonly referred to as Sprint, is a United States telecommunications holding company that provides wireless services and is also a major global Internet carrier. It's the third largest U.S. wireless network operator as of 2013, and served 54.6 million customers at the end of the first quarter of 2014. Sprint has revenues of approximately $35 billion, and has approximately 38,000 employees.

What is the structure of your CU? SU develops its strategic plan based on the organizations and the business units’ strategic direction and goals. All offerings are directly tied to the larger organizational goals. Sprint University is housed within Sprint’s Human Resources Department. The reporting structure is CU has a corporate Vice President, who reports to the Senior Vice President of HR, who reports directly to Sprint’s CEO. Additionally, there is a representative of SU housed in each Business Unit (BU).

The philosophy is that the more embedded SU is in all parts of the organization, the better it will be at understanding the unique challenges and needs of each entity, and the better it will be at responding to all of these needs to create the most relevant learning experiences and modalities to ensure learning Page 68

Benchmarking Report application in alignment with Sprint’s strategic direction and goals. Top corporate leadership is involved with SU: The CEO receives a quarterly update. SU is part of all BU plans. Top leadership teaches leadership classes.

Sprint CEO Senior VP of HR VP of Spring University SU Course Development

SU Learning Delivery

SU Learning Delivery Support

SU Operations and Technology

Talent Management Teams outside of SU that work directly to support Top Management’s development.

It took “quite some time” for SU to evolve from a training organization to an on-going learning organization that is focused on how its offerings impact on the organization’s mission.

Is your staff full-time, and if so, how are they remunerated? There are 303 full-time employees in SU: 30% are in Development; 40% are in Delivery; 20% are in Support, and 10% are Operations/Technology.

There are also learning communities (Master Mind), with heads of particular business areas tapped to lead these Master Minds as ad hoc leaders for brief periods of time. All SU employees are paid from this budget for their respective SU responsibilities. Their duties are not tangential to other duties.

Is your CU primarily focused on training or is there a philosophy or organizational culture of learning in which training is one aspect? SU has a specific philosophy that the university exists to foster learning for all employees. Training is seen as one aspect of this learning environment. Performance Support Tools (PSTs) are resources available to employees as step-by-step instructions/refreshers of procedures.

The intent of PSTs is that employees have immediately available to them the information they need to do their jobs. These PSTs are online, and easily available to the employees. Other learning modalities include: posting cases electronically for review by employees experiencing similar situations, learning scenarios that employees can examine to expand their contextual learning of how to perform to the desired standards with customers – whether sales, customer service call center, and internal customer service. There is coaching, mentoring for managers to teach them how to better coach their direct reports. SU has 1300 SharePoint sites to allow employees to access learning materials from any of their electronic devices, at any time.

Approximately 60% to 70% of SU’s offerings are focused on their front-line workers. This is because of the high turnover in the customer service and sales areas.

Page 69

Benchmarking Report What is the SU infrastructure, including LMS format, funding strategies, etc. SU uses SABA for its LMS It provides tracking of class objectives, recommended audience for the particular learning modality, tracks transcripts, and allows participants to register for the course. Participants can use I-learn to search and enroll for classes, examine the course content and delivery method. The SAVA is a “pull/push” system. Supervisors can pull data to assess where employees are in their knowledge, skills and abilities and facilitate the employees’ enrollment/involvement in those learning methods that will increase their increased value to the organization. The employees can push their own development by using the SABA resources to build their own careers at Sprint. Ms. Webster indicated that while these features are available, neither the supervisors, nor the employees take full advantage of the opportunities affords.

Funding for Sprint University comes directly from the Human Resources annual operating budget. SU claims 50% of the HR budget. The SU budget is substantial enough that there is no tuition charged to employees for the classes they attend that directly relate to the organization’s mission. The three criteria for these free classes are: 1. they are contributing to the learning experience in the portfolio of the particular or potential job description; 2. they are in SU’s suite of learning offerings; and, 3. they are classes offered by Sprint’s vendors.

With whom do you partner? SU has partners with professional vendors and associations, who offer classes in SU. Through SU’s Total Rewards program, employees can apply for tuition reimbursement for traditional academic degrees, or because of the arrangement with some universities, SU classes are eligible for academic credit toward a specific academic degree.

How do you conduct needs and results assessments for your SU content? Each Business Unit has an SU consultant as a part of that BU. They function as an internal organizational development consultant to the BU, which enables them to understand the trends, demands, performance gaps, etc., and to collaborate with the BU leadership to design and deliver learning modalities best suited to address the issues. The results of the learning is designed into the initial architecture of the learning modality. In order to measure its success, that desired outcome must be articulated up front so that the learning modality, content, experience, etc. are specifically designed into what employees will learn. These Measures of Success, and the Key Performance Indicators are then used to assess baseline performance with performance after the learning intervention.

How are supervisors involved in creating an environment conducive for employees to apply what they have learned through SU? Managers are coached on how to reinforce application of what was learned.

Managers understand their role in ensuring concept application. SU supports the managers in this role.

The Sprint Performance Management System focuses on employee growth and potential, and how to tap into the SU resources to gain that growth. Supervisors do access employee transcripts as a resource in working with the employee on his or her development plan.

SALT LAKE COUNTY EMPLOYEES’ UNIVERSITY Page 70

Benchmarking Report Julio Garcia, Associate Director, Salt Lake County Human Resources jgarcia@slco.gov (385)468.0577, www.university.slco.org

Salt Lake County was founded in 1850. Salt Lake County government currently has approximately 7,000 merit and temporary employees. It serves approximately 1 million citizens in 16 cities and 6 townships.

What is the structure of your CU? Salt Lake County’s Employees’ University is comprised of 2.10 people.

The Associate Director of Salt Lake County’s Human Resources used to be the full-time director of SLCo EU, but now has taken on the HR Associate Director’s position, which gives him less than a tenth of his time for the EU. The primary driver for EU is a full-time Education Program Manager, who drives the development of the trainings offered by EU. In the early days of the EU, this person was the central driver of the EU’s success. The second full-time person is an Education Program Coordinator, who schedules the classes, does the administrative work to oversee the LMS, and does material production, as needed. She is also responsible to manage the Tuition Reimbursement Program for the County, which is a big part of her job.

Organizational Structure: Salt Lake County Mayor Deputy Mayor Director, Administrative Services Director, Human Services Associate Director, Human Services Education Program Manager Education Program Coordinator

Board of Directors and Schools of Learning.

Representation: 4 Departments in Mayor’s portfolio, Council member, other elected officials. Board provides direction/support for the EU. Schools of Learning (Safety/Security, Financial, Leadership/Performance) provide direct support/guidance Page 71

Benchmarking Report (employees/SMEs).

Funding: Original funding was a percentage of training funds from all County agencies in the Mayor’s portfolio. The EU is not set up as an Enterprise Fund, so agencies are not charged for the training through the EU. The exception is to charge for computer classes, and to do journal vouchers when the EU sponsors conferences. The current annual operating budget is $70K. Is your CU primarily focused on training or is there a philosophy or organizational culture of learning in which training is one aspect? Because this is a combination of both an elected mayor and an elected council, there is often a lack of integration of philosophy about the role of the EU. Each elected official sees the value of the EU on a continuum from the EU being a foundational element for increasing the competencies of the County’s employees, to the EU being a tangential element to key services the County is to provide to its citizens.

“The idea of the EU was that we would coordinate most learning activities, meaning those that were relevant to more than one agency versus industry-specific training, such as purchasing classes or HVAC repairs, etc. That hasn’t worked so well, mostly due to a lack of staff to support the effort. We originally started with six schools of learning and were not able to adequately support that many, so reduced it to three. Not sure there is enough support to adequately staff those, the EU Board, and to also run the certification programs, conferences, etc. It means that Departments/Agencies coordinate some training on their own.” (Sharon Hatz, former Education Programs Manager) What is the EU infrastructure, including LMS format, funding strategies, etc. The EU uses a Training Registry that is often used in hospitals. They are moving to People Soft in conjunction with the Human Resource Information System (HRIS). This new format will have LMS components that will integrate employee development, job descriptions, identification of needed knowledge, skills and abilities, and training to obtain the KSA’s. Also included will be employee KSA profiles, the ability to track transcripts, and access to register for classes.

With whom do you partner? The primary partner for the EU is the University of Utah that helps in course development, provides instructors and consulting on course content. Additional partners include Salt Lake Community College that has helped with the online training formatting. The State of Utah cosponsors learning events. The University of Phoenix offers tuition subsidies for degree-seeking County employees. The EU provides significant tuition reimbursement for employees working on degrees that are job-related.

How do you conduct needs and results assessments for the EU content? Needs assessment is done primarily through the Schools of Learning with employee involvement to identify trends and performance gaps. Results assessments are done only through levels 1 and 3 of Kirkpatrick’s training Page 72

Benchmarking Report assessment model. This includes a follow-up survey sent to university participants several months after the class to see if they are using the knowledge/skills obtained from the class. Also, of the two programs offered through the EU (Supervisory Certificate Program (SCP) and Management Certificate Program (MCP), those in the MCP are required to work on a work project that applies the skills they have learned.

How are supervisors involved in creating an environment conducive for employees to apply what they have learned through the EU? Supervisors are not seen as partners in the learning process either before, or after the training.

Recommendations/Lessons Learned? Adequately fund and staff the CU. In comparison with successful CU’s SLCo EU is woefully understaffed and funded. Branding of how the CU is a valuable resource to the organization’s mission and vision. Ensure that you have top-down leadership of the CU’s success.

Without the direct attention of the top leadership, the CU can become tangential to other organizational issues.

GENERAL ELECTRIC How GE Builds Global Leaders: A Conversation with Chief Learning Officer, Susan Peters, The Knowledge@Wharton Network, 5/12/12.

General Electric has the oldest corporate university in America at Crotonville, New York. They use an “umbrella” approach called GE Global Learning. There are three “buckets”: Leadership; Skills – which is driven by function (finance skills, marketing skills, etc.); and Business. The focus of all three buckets is to teach the knowledge that is specific and needed for a business. Their annual budget for learning is around $1 billion.

Leadership Bucket: “The mission or our leadership effort is to inspire, connect, and develop the leaders of today and tomorrow.” People come to the Crotonville campus for classes with the expectation that they will go back to their workplace to “inspire, connect, and develop the people who work for them, and who might be able to physically attend a course in New York.” The learning is done in a stair-step approach. First step is a suite of on-demand courses available 24/7 online using an enterprise-wide license with vendors. They use a lot of video, material with downloading capability, etc. People are encouraged to use these avenues for one-off, or on-demand, or lunch and learn programs. GE defines the leadership learning as foundational.

Essential Skills Bucket: There are 13 offerings of leadership skills that everyone should have. These include presentation skills, project management, understanding finance, etc... These courses are managed through the Crotonville staff, but are delivered at GE businesses around the world. Those teaching the classes must be certified in GE’s TTT- Train the Trainer.

Page 73

Benchmarking Report Cornerstone Business Bucket: People come to a GE facility around the world for week-long programs. The four key courses are: Foundations of Leadership, which is offered early in an employee’s career. Next is the Leadership Development Course. Third is a New Manager Development Course, and last is an Advanced Manager Course. The courses span the first 10 years of an employee’s career.

Executive-level Courses: These are all three weeks long and only offered at Crotonville. The courses are Management Development, Business Management, and Executive Development.

Teams: This course is offered to everyone at all organizational levels.

Learning Delivery Methodologies: Ms. Peters said, “I don’t suspect that we will ever go to a place where we have only technology-based learning or e-learning. We really believe that the “inspire, connect and develop” happens with real impact when people are physically together.” In the bimodal learning delivery model, GE is “really trying to leverage and embed technology into learning. They encourage people to download podcasts or other kinds of content that people can access and listen to in the car, etc. Some of that is educating people on what is available and how to do it and making learning a part of everybody’s day all the time.

TelePresence enables employees from around the world to speak to a class in real time. They also have virtual collaboration rooms which enable people to work with teams in Crotonville simultaneously. GE uses Kindles, and global newspapers available on portals around the place so that people can – with touch screens – open the China Daily Times as they are sitting in the lobby of the education building.

Learning isn’t just about leadership, but it’s about the use of new technology.

Learning Application: GE has certain courses that require a lot of pre- and post-work with the managers of the people who go to the classes in Crotonville. The managers set the stage as to what the employees should expect while attending the classes, and then after the classes. The managers expect the employees to know what they learned, and leverage it with their performance.

DISNEY INSTITUTE disneyinstitute.com 321.929.4600 ”Disney Institute focuses on five core areas that operate as a system to deliver sustained business results: 1. Leadership – leaders establish, operationalize, and sustain the values and vision by which their organizations thrive. 2. Culture – to create a workforce that consistently demonstrates desired Page 74

Benchmarking Report behaviors. 3. Service – exceptional service is achievable for every organization because exceptional service is “architected” from systems and processes that you control. 4. Brand – customer loyalty and profitability follow when an organization makes a meaningful and credible promise to a customer, and then delivers on that promise – over and over and over again. 5. Innovation – the key to business innovation is the ongoing interaction of inherent personal creativity with intentional organizational innovation processes.” http://disneyinstitute.com/about/our-core-competencies/ [The Disney Institute’s] comprehensive approach involves all levels of an organization to develop an aligned culture, which ensures maximum buy-in and positive change. Within your organization, our insights-based methodology helps your employees to think differently as we communicate fundamental business concepts and share real-world examples from within the diverse businesses of The Walt Disney Company.

Understand & Prioritize Your Needs We go beyond the typical consulting assessment process to gain a deeper understanding of your organization so we can make a real impact. Our process includes visits to your location(s) to meet with leaders and staff, as well as observation and data collection to gain a complete understanding of your current state and desired future state. It's the combination of hard data and personal interviews that reveals the true approach needed to help you thrive.

Adapt & Apply Disney Best Practices We believe the bridge from insight to implementation is through Disney Best Practices. We show you what success looks like by benchmarking The Walt Disney Company. We involve cross-functional teams from within your organization to adapt and apply these best practices for your culture. We also help the teams through any obstacles, brainstorm new ideas, as well as coach them on how to achieve the specific deliverables. This process results in organizational buy-in as we begin to implement the desired changes.

Reorient & Upskill Your Team The key to ensuring that the desired future state is successfully implemented is an inspiring and motivational launch. This phase is focused on Disney Institute engaging your leaders, middle managers, and frontline staff to embrace change and transform the culture through the use of a framework that communicates desired skills and behaviors identified by your organization.

Operationalize & Sustain for Ongoing Success The goal is to sustain your transformation for the long-term, so it’s critical to take the desired skills and behaviors and make them part of your culture by operationalizing them day-in-and-day-out. Disney Institute supports your continuous improvement efforts by providing toolkits, conducting

Page 75

Benchmarking Report reassessments, and delivering skills-based training to ensure the momentum from the launch is sustained over time. http://disneyinstitute.com/approach/

TRAVELERS INSURANCE Richard Bores, former Vice President Business Insurance Learning and Development, Travelers Insurance Company, Rbores1@aol.com, 860.716.1077.

Lessons Learned: 1. Governance management. Don’t over-estimate top leadership’s readiness to support the learning organization and the corporate university (CU). It is important to do more individual preparation of top leaders before holding a strategy meeting to implement/redesign the CU. Top leadership must buy into, understand, sanction, and support the CU goals, measures of success, strategy, required resources, and assessment methodologies.

2. The head of the CU is a very senior job in the organization. The title of Vice President of Learning is recommended.

3. Determine specific use of funding to be directly tied to learning versus peripheral activities (travel, venue costs, etc.). a. Have comprehensive accounting of all monies spent for learning. Eliminate spending on actions not directly related to the learning strategy. b. Create policies for what is/isn’t in the learning strategy’s spending plan. Ensure agreement from all key leaders on the plan and its policies.

Recommended competencies for a CU leader should include: •

Be the thought leader across the organization.

•

Be competent to bring the organization along in their learning journey.

•

Should not be an engineer, or HR-based leader.

•

Have strong adult learning expertise to foster learning; not be an SME in engineering, HR or other fields in the organization. The leader should not be an “accidental” trainer.

•

Should have built out a corporate university elsewhere where he or she has done thoughtleader work with leadership throughout the organization.

•

Should have credibility and leadership success as a strategic leader in an organization.

•

Should understand a governance model to support deans in marketing the CU. Page 76

Benchmarking Report •

Coaching, train-the-trainer, and facilitation expertise.

Mission Alignment and the CU If the learning organization has to be marketed, something is missing in the learning strategy. Learning must be an integral part of the organizational strategy, with assessment of learning at all organizational levels. Learning must be aligned with organizational strategy, capabilities and vision.

1.

Align with leadership and mission strategy. Talk with leaders at the C-level to establish a deep learning strategy. The Business Units have a steering committee to prioritize their learning needs. The steering committee members at the C-level must be approved by the head of the organization to ensure that top leadership is committed to the learning alignment throughout the organization.

2. Establish a learning infrastructure. The structure must be learning-centric. a. Competency maps need to be created to ensure all organizational competencies are identified. b. Maximize an education highway plan to ensure all competencies are incorporated into the learning plan. c. Have a critical path from competency development to competency application and career development strategies. d. Both DHRM and IT are pivotal partners in supporting learning modalities, and career development.

3. Deployment methodologies. Identify and establish a learning and development capability model. Ensure that deployment methodologies are fluid, easily accessible by all staff, and utilize all aspects of a learning management system.

4. Staffing. Staffing ratio model recommended is 170FTEs to one CU staffer. Keep deployment in mind. Use adjunct faculty to expand the CU staff numbers. Dedicated staff at 7 to 10 members to do learning needs assessment, learning methodology design, development of curriculum/experience, delivery, and evaluation. a. Adjunct faculty come from internal subject-matter experts, and their involvement is seen as beneficial to their own primary responsibilities to expand their own competencies. The use of internal SMEs is seen as an investment in employee competency development that has downstream benefit. If using adjunct faculty, they must be rewarded/recognized for this additional work. It is recommended that there be some type of reward/recognition for these adjunct faculty to Page 77

Benchmarking Report acknowledge their contribution to the organization’s increased capacity to accomplish its mission. b. External sources such as colleges, universities, vendors, association experts, etc. i. Universities and colleges are used for generic types of training where competencies applied to job descriptions across the organization. ii. Vendors and association experts provide more area-specific learning based on their expertise as aligned with Business Unit needs. c. If Deans are volunteers in the CU, it is important to see the results of their actions in the CU’s success. It is also important to provide recognition/reward for this work that enhances the organization’s ability to accomplish its mission through greater competency capacity throughout the organization.

Page 78