CorpU 10th Annual Excellence in Learning & Innovation Benchmarking Study: Learning Governance & Structure
CorpU 12 Dimensions of Learning Excellence and Innovation Framework
Corporate University Xchange, a private membership of senior learning and talent executives, was founded in 1997. Members pay an annual fee in exchange for access to cutting-edge research, practitioner-tested tools, and facilitated peer-to-peer networking. Their “12 Dimensions of Learning Excellence and Innovation Framework” draws upon more than ten years of data from more than 800 companies, as well as over 12 years of research into what actually drives learning excellence. The Corporate University Xchange has identified some of the most important characteristics of these successful learning organizations and these 12 operational skill sets collectively enable learning functions to align, organize, measure, and execute. Each year, The Corporate University Xchange issues its benchmarking report and this year’s, the 10th Annual Learning Excellence and Innovation Benchmarking Study, provides not only timely updates to the robust database but also highlights key past actions of top performing companies and also articulates future trends. This year’s study has interesting findings that serve as guideposts for its member companies. More than 150 companies responded to over 100 questions; the study, in partnership with Harvard Business School Publishing, was conducted from November 2009 and February 2010.
In these three posts, I will be highlighting the key findings in these areas: Learning Structure and Governance; Leadership Development and Technology Architecture. To learn more about membership or the report, visit them at http://www.corpu.com
Highlights re: Learning Governance and Structure
One of the key areas addressed in this benchmarking study was that of structure. Three basic structures for corporate learning organizations (centralized, decentralized and federated) all have advantages and disadvantages and no one size fits all nor are most organizations a “pure” example of any one of the three. Regardless of the organization’s structure, there were several key practices that expert companies (those companies which were the top 20% highest scoring companies in the survey). These companies are far more likely to:
- have a core team composed of groups of specialists (72%) vs. a core team made up of generalists (20%);
- use a shared services team to manage the logistics of the learning function (50%) vs. 35% of all respondents (‘expert” companies and all others in the survey);
- assign learning professionals to the business units (50%) vs. 28% of all respondents; and
- set up Centers of Excellence to do research and development to determine best practices for a range of learning activities and create quality standards that are used across the enterprise (40%) vs. 18% of all respondents.
As learning organizations develop and mature, they move through various stages:
- Beginner: currently in the process of reconfiguring the learning and talent function and establishing a new focus for it;
- Early Stage: have established structures and common practices and standards and are positioned to deliver solid solutions moving forward;
- Valued Partner: have established a record of success for delivering solid solutions and have earned credibility with most business units as a valued partner; and
- Strategic Function: now viewed as a strategic enabling function which delivers quantifiable business benefits with expanding budgets and solutions
These “Strategic Function” organizations are more likely to use specialists (50% vs. 18% of “Beginners”) and less likely to have a core team of generalists (only 28% vs. 40% of “Valued Partners” with the use of shared services teams were prevalent at all levels except “Beginners.”
In terms of governance, organizations with oversight (much like a Board of Directors for a corporation) provided insights into “best practices.” These included the need for a charter which clearly defines roles, responsibilities, criteria for selection, terms of service and the like. 95% of the “Strategic Function” organizations had a governing board comprised of senior executives. Their common approach was to have the learning organization craft a plan based on its own needs analysis and then present it to the governing board for feedback and approval. A key finding from the survey indicated that governance structures have been strengthened during the past 12-18 months by establishing advisory groups as well comprised of function and/or technical professionals. In many cases, these advisory councils (whatever they may be called) were especially useful when associate with learning organizations organized around “colleges’ of a corporate university structure; often with a senior executive serving as the “dean.”
Of note, 55% of the “Strategic Function” learning organizations have established formal review processes to monitor program performance and quality vs. 42% of “Valued Partners” and even fewer organizations earlier in their development. 50% of these “Strategic Function” learning organizations have established enterprise-wide standards for design and delivery.
Key take-aways re: establishing learning governance:
- Structure should match the complexity of the business and the structure of the company;
- A governing boards of senior executives emphasizes the importance of learning and talent initiatives; and
- Technology, partnerships and enterprise-wide standards require tight management and governance.
Clearly, those organizations whose alignment with business goals and with clear expectations and standards stand to best serve the needs of the companies they serve.
