Centralize or not centralize? This is the question of tech skill development. In the early days of the pandemic, an astonishing 79 percent were researching or planning a corporate training university. The Training Industry conducted a research study that revealed this surprising statistic. The reasons behind the trend will become more apparent.
Decentralized training methods make it impossible for executives to align their learning programs with business objectives. You’re losing out on ROI if you still use a decentralized approach. Learn more by reading the findings of our research.
Data from the early pandemic of the corporate university
In response to a question about their current training approach, 56 percent of respondents indicated that it was decentralized or partly decentralized. Fewer than 10% responded to “Corporate University” than the 79.9% figure.
There are many different types of centralized models, but these two are the most common:
A corporate university is A learning entity within an organization. It is a tool allowing individual and group learning to support organizational goals.
A center of excellence is a team, shared facility, or entity that provides leadership, best practices in a particular area, research, support, training, and research.
Often, a corporate university is under the umbrella of L&D. However; this may not always be the case. A center of excellence is usually located in a technical area such as R&D, IT, or IT.
What advantages do these models have over decentralized or federated models that can’t be achieved quickly? Last year, Training Industry, acquired by Pluralsight and DevelopIntelligence, hosted a webinar to discuss the survey results and answer this question.
Participants of the webinar shared their pain points
THE DRAWBACKS TO DECENTRALIZED TRAINING
There is a lack of standardization across groups
Different training formats and approaches
Uneven training quality
Double effort
Contracting inefficiently (four different versions of the same course offered by four providers).
One attendee reported, “We usually don’t know what other training teams are doing.” Due to this lack of knowledge, we do the same work on some projects.
One person said, “When video replaced ILT because of COVID, the transition was like a Wild West, with no standards.”
THE DRAWBACKS TO FEDERATED TRAINING
Inconsistent standards
There are many different levels of learning solutions.
There is a lack of clarity about who leads the generic skills training
Training messages that contradict or differ
Duplication of solutions
Tracking the different training initiatives with a central LMS can be difficult
Participants said it was difficult to keep up with all the departments who might be launching new products or processes. Some could benefit from our assistance in design and delivery so that they don’t “go rogue” and do something that isn’t the most effective.
The federated model faced an additional challenge when the pandemic struck. “We have several internal departments/practices that typically lead their own training. “However, when moving virtual, each of them struggled to virtuallyize their content,” explained an attendee. They came to our HR department for help. The result has been a work overload and a backlog.
The challenges faced by those who use or are considering a corporate-university model were also discussed. One participant wrote: “Technology training is changing so quickly that it’s nearly impossible to keep up.” Shelf life is limited. You need to consider the time needed to create content and the lifespan of that content. This leads to the question “Who is updating the curriculum?” Often, departments within an organization disagree on who should be responsible for the learning programs designed for software developers and IT specialists.
The best location to house technical training was a subject of mixed opinion among stakeholders
Should it be housed in a department specializing in adult education and instructional design or in another? It is better to place it in a department that specializes in adult learning and instructional design, and rely on these experts to develop and teach curriculum. These questions will influence the type of training model that companies choose.
Most of the 280 respondents to our survey favored housing technical training outside L&D.
In a written discussion, webinar participants expressed opposing views on this topic. One attendee said, “IT departments and specialists are not necessarily the best educators.” One attendee countered: “I believe you need some understanding of the topic to own and deliver training, which might not be available in traditional L&D.”
Thirdly, “We’re IT Training and nestled under IT.” We find that when we meet with other L&D teams, our work does not fit into the traditional L&D models in our organization. “I think it’s a good idea to separate us.”
A fourth person wrote: “I think that those who conduct the training should know how to deliver material in a manner that facilitates learning.” Another person said that “Learner Engagement is Key”.
Most agreed that it is important to combine subject matter expertise and adult learning best practices. They had different views about the best ways to achieve that.
This debate highlighted the difficulty in centralizing technical education
It is difficult to keep up with the rapidly changing technological landscape. Someone may have to update the curriculum every time there is a software upgrade, for instance.
Those who use the technology on a daily basis are probably the best-equipped to maintain training. Many believe that technical teams should be responsible for updating the training. It is difficult to justify a centralized model.
The pendulum has swung and continues to swing towards centralized delivery models
A vexing problem offsets concerns about curriculum updates. Each hour that an internal SME is occupied with training design and delivery takes an hour from their day-today tasks. This is a cost that a growing number of companies consider unacceptable. Their technical experts need to be focused on the most important technical tasks.
CUs and CoEs, regardless of who owns or operates them, are characterized by a constant focus on efficiency and best practices. To create effective, accurate technical training, corporate universities and centers for excellence rely heavily on the input of SMEs. These SMEs may be internal or external, or a combination of both. It can be challenging to coordinate schedules with a CU, CoE, and subject matter experts, but both models want to involve SMEs in order to keep training relevant and fresh.