-Learning Story- Creating an Enterprise Learning Organization (a.k.a. Aligning the Planets)

1. -Learning Story- Creating an Enterprise Learning Organization (a.k.a. Aligning the Planets)

2. Project Objective • Objective: • Structure and leverage all learning resources to support all LoBs in ‘non-business specific learning’ with the goal of: • Eliminating duplication of programs, while establishing customization processes (including facilitator) • Standardizing process methodology (ADDIE: Assess, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) and technology platforms • Design the ideal learning organization for a $10B company on a blank piece of paper (assume no existing structure or training content)

3. Non-Business Specific Learning Defined Definition: Any non-technical topic that is relevant to more than one line of business based on similar learning objectives, where up to 20% customization will satisfy differing LoB needs

4. Enterprise Wide 2 Year Learning Strategy COE will own ongoing maintenance of orientation, on-boarding, compliance and other Enterprise HR training Make vs. buy recommendations are based on audience level, audience size (for larger population is it typically less expensive to make), quantity of starter materials, specificity of content to company

5. Current State Learning Resources • Dedicated Learning FTEs in HR: 5 • Additional FTEs: 5.5 • Single HR resources spending 50 – 75% of time on learning: 2.0 FTEs • Additional HR Coordinator/Generalist FTEs *: 3.5 • Total FTEs: 10.5 • Company is significantly under resourced in Learning for a $10B company, therefore comparison of future state headcount to current state is somewhat misleading • Median L&D staff from top industry study: 6.2 staff per 1,000 learners in 2009 • Company learner populations: • exempt associates = 5838 • nonexempt associates = 9496 • career level manager and above = 1971 * Note: This represents HR Coordinators and Generalists that are currently performing learning work that would be performed in future state by the centralized learning team or Learning Manager (it does not include delivery of training which would continue to be decentralized if customized)

6. Future State Org Design Option 1 – Org Chart Learning COE Leader Learning Manager (3 LoB’s) Program Mgr (higher level) Lead Instructional Designer LMS Administrator Program Coordinator (supporting COE) Learning Manager (3 LoB’s) Program Mgr (lower level) Instructional Designer Instructional Designer Program Coordinator (supporting LMs) Learning Manager (3 LoB’s + Can) E-Learning Specialist • Notes: • This design is based on a heavy ‘make’ vs. ‘buy’ model (need to validate philosophy with HRLT) • The recommendation is for the Learning Mgr role to be decentralized year 1 (or until business is ready for centralization) with strong dotted line to Learning COE Leader and providing direct support to all assigned LoBs (with emphasis on big 4); If currently responsible for business specific learning, spend year 1 transitioning responsibilities outside of HR • Trainers are program dependent and could be Learning Mgr, Program Mgr, Instructional Designer, business person, outsourced trainer. We are not currently recommending a full time trainer on staff for year 1. • # of Program Coordinators will need to be re-evaluated and be scaled as content is ready for rollout

7. Alternatives to Scale Back Option 1 Resources In priority order: • From four to three Instructional Designers • From two to one Program Coordinator (year one) • From four to two Instructional Designers (heavier ‘buy’ model) Last resort… • From three to two Learning Managers with alternate grouping of businesses

8. Future State Org Design Option 1 – Details

9. Future State Org Design Option 2 – Org Chart Learning COE Leader External Consultant * Program Manager (3 LoB’s) Lead Instructional Designer * Available at a fee where COE can’t accommodate need (not planned in the strategy, not able to be prioritized in the 20% flex, nothing exists already, beyond a quick project by Lead ISD) LMS Administrator Instructional Designer Program Coordinator (supporting COE) Program Manager (3 LoB’s) Instructional Designer Program Coordinator (supporting PMs) Program Manager (3 LoB’s + Can) E-Learning Specialist • Notes: • Program Managers hold dual responsibilities: ownership of multiple content areas across the enterprise (Leadership Development, Financial Acumen) AND account mgmt. for grouping of businesses (acct mgmt responsibilities include general needs assessment and prioritization, as well as being the single point of contact for mgmt and HR questions re: COE programs); from 1st model, responsibilities of Program Manager and select responsibilities of LM are combined into this Program Mgr role in model 2 • Needs assessment for a particular program is owned by that Program Manager who seeks input on needs for that program from HR generalist point of contact (one per grouping of business); Programs are then developed and delivered in standardized fashion with learners from multiple LoBs in a single offering; Model therefore does not account for customization of content • Trainers are program dependent and could be Program Mgr, Instructional Designer, business person, outsourced trainer. We are not currently recommending a full time trainer on staff for year 1. • # of Program Coordinators will not increase as dramatically going forward due to shared offerings

10. Alternatives to Scale Back Option 1 Resources In priority order: • From four to three or two Instructional Designers • From two to one Program Coordinator (year one)

11. Future State Org Design Option 2 – Details

12. Questions to Consider when Determining Best Model and Staffing Levels for company Driving the right model: • Customization vs. efficiency? (Option 1 vs. Option 2) Driving Staffing Levels: • Make versus buy? (Drives # of instructional designers and vendor spend for ‘buy’ solutions) • How will learners be enrolled in courses? Purely by choice? By a nomination process for some courses (ie Leadership)? Mandatory attendance for select training topics? (Drives initial staffing levels)

13. Org Design Options – Evaluation of Alternatives It’s a Tie Game but both options are significantly improved from current state… the decision depends on which criteria are more important

14. APPENDIX

15. Job Profiles – Option 1 and 2 Job Title: Learning COE Leader (1) Reports to: TBD Roles: Strategist; Manager; Needs Analyst; Performance Consultant; Instructor

16. Job Profiles – Option 1 Job Title: Learning Account Manager (3) Reports to: HRLT Roles: Needs Analyst; Performance Consultant;Marketer; Instructor; Transfer Agent Notes: LMs are decentralized year one; move to centralized when businesses are ready; If currently responsible for business specific learning, spend year 1 transitioning responsibilities outside of HR

17. Job Profiles – Option 1 Job Title: Program Manager (2) Reports to: COE Leader Roles: Needs Analyst; Program Designer; Marketer; Instructor; Evaluator; Transfer Agent

18. Job Profiles – Option 2 Job Title: Program Manager (2) Reports to: COE Leader Roles: Needs Analyst; Program Designer; Marketer; Instructor; Evaluator; Transfer Agent

19. Job Profiles – Option 1 and 2 Job Title: Lead Instructional Designer (1) Reports to: COE Leader Roles: Manager, Program Designer, Desktop Publisher, Instructional Designer, Instructor

20. Job Profiles – Option 1 and 2 Job Title: Instructional Designer (2) Reports to: Lead Instructional Designer Roles: Program Designer, Desktop Publisher, Instructional Designer, Instructor

21. Job Profiles – Option 1 and 2 Job Title: E-Learning Specialist (1) Reports to: Lead Instructional Designer Roles: Program Designer, Desktop Publisher, Instructional Designer, Instructor, Media/e-Learning Specialist

22. Job Profiles – Option 1 and 2 Job Title: LMS Administrator (1) Reports to: COE Leader Roles: Program Administrator

23. Job Profiles – Option 1 and 2 Job Title: Program Coordinator supporting COE (1) Reports to: COE Leader Roles: Program Administrator

24. Job Profiles – Option 1 and 2 Job Title: Program Coordinator supporting Learning Account Managers (1) Reports to: COE Leader Roles: Program Administrator

25. Training Roles Below are some of the more common roles within a Training Department. Roles get bundled together to form jobs: • Desktop Publisher: puts the instructional concepts/materials into the correct media (Job Aid, slides, Participant Guide, etc) • Evaluator: designs and determines all levels of program evaluation • Instructional Designer: preparing instructional materials • Instructor: directing structured learning experiences • Manager: planning, organizing, staffing, controlling, linking to other areas • Marketer: selling training and services to target audiences • Media/e-learning specialist: using technology to produce learning content • Needs Analyst: defining gaps between ideal and actual performance and specifying causes • Performance Consultant: diagnosing business performance issues and from there identifying management, process and learning problems in order to diagnose whether training or process redesign, etc is the appropriate solution • Program Administrator: Ensuring facilities, equipment, materials, participants, and other learning components are present and that logistics run smoothly • Program Designer: Preparing learning objectives, defining content, selecting and sequencing activities for a specific program • Strategist: develops long range plans for what the training structure, organization, direction, policies, programs, services to accomplish the mission • Transfer Agent: Helps individuals apply learning after the learning experience

26. Pros and Cons of Centralized vs. Decentralized Learning Account Managers

27. Template’s Scoring Model Guidelines