Corporate L&D’s Share of Learning Declining: Should We Be Concerned?

There is concern in the industry that a decline in formal learning is leading to a smaller share of the “learning market” for corporate L&D departments. The analogy is a marketing department’s concern over a declining share of the consumer’s wallet as other products or services displace their own. In our profession the worry is driven by a move toward employee-directed learning where employees are bypassing formal corporate training programs in favor of online learning opportunities offered by outside organizations as well as self-directed learning on the internet and informal learning through their own networks. Several studies in the past two years have confirmed the shift and it is certainly a growing topic for discussion in the profession.

So, should we be concerned about this shift? In general, I don’t think so. First, for the sake of those new to our profession, let’s be clear that it was never the goal of any corporate L&D department to control 100% of the learning for the organization’s employees. Nor was it ever a reality. There has always been informal learning going on outside the reach of a training department. Although not a fan of the 70:20:10 principle it certainly reminds us that formal training plays an important but usually limited role. With regard to control, most organizations have always offered discretionary or elective learning opportunities, including tuition assistance, where employees were free to choose their own learning.

Now, back to the question. I think the answer really depends on the mission of the learning department. If the mission is narrowly defined to focus on providing consistent, uniform basic skills to employees, and if those employees are now getting inconsistent and perhaps incorrect information on their own which detracts from their performance, then, yes, we should be concerned. Think of basic skills training in industries like manufacturing, banking, or food services where the goal is for employees to perform tasks in certain defined ways. Similarly, if your focus is primarily on compliance, you don’t want employees getting a lot of incorrect information on the internet. In these cases the amount of formal training provided has probably not decreased but the informal has increased so the share of formal has declined. More to the point, you may have to work harder or redesign your formal learning to take into account what employees are picking up through their own channels.

If the mission is to provide learning to improve performance through additional training beyond the basics, then I think there is less reason for concern. Think of formal learning to improve the performance of marketing employees or most leadership development programs. As employees learn more about marketing or leadership on their own, the share of the knowledge they have gained on these topics from your formal training will decrease but this is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, if they are actively looking to learn from outside resources that shows a high level of engagement. Like in the cases above, you may need to take these new sources of learning into account when you design your programs. You could incorporate the good sources that are consistent with your approach and refer to the issues or problems with the approaches not consistent with your formal teaching. In either case, the employees are probably going to learn more and be better prepared for the challenges they face on the job.

Last, consider a mission which is primarily to increase employee engagement. Here there is little reason for concern if employees are migrating to more learning opportunities outside your formal learning framework. Yes, your share of their total learning is decreasing but the good news is that they (hopefully) are finding what they want. In fact, in this case you would want to do all you can to help them find and access great learning – whatever the source. The easier you can make it for them, the more engaged they will be. Mission accomplished.

I think this shift towards deceased share of learning for corporate L&D departments is indeed a permanent shift and the trend is likely to accelerate as more outside resources become available and as organizations make it easier for employees to access them. Some caution is required depending on the department’s mission and type of offerings, and the shift is likely to force changes in how formal learning is designed, which is fine. I think the future remains bright.

Is Learning a “Real” Profession?

One of the hallmarks of a profession is a standard language—an agreed-upon framework for measures and common processes. Think of accounting. The profession has a common language and agreed-upon measures, statements and processes. For example, accountants have four basics types or categories to organize their hundreds of measures. You may recognize these as revenue (income), expense (cost), assets and liabilities. Most accounting measures can be grouped into one of these categories. Accountants place these measures into three standard statements each with a different purpose. The three are income statement (profit & loss or P&L for short), balance sheet and cash flow statement. The three taken together provide a holistic view of an organization’s financial position and can be used to manage the organization throughout the year. Last, their profession has a host of practices taught at university like how to define and use the measures, how to create and use the statements, how to use measures to analyze issues and solve problems (i.e., ratio analysis, the DuPont model and the audit process).

What does learning have that is comparable? Unfortunately, very little. Ed Trolley and David van Adelsberg suggested two categories of measures (effectiveness and efficiency) in their ground breaking 1999 book Running Training like a Business, but the profession did not fully embraced them. We started with their work in 2010 and broke out outcome measures from effectiveness measures for Talent Development Reporting principles (TDRp) to highlight their importance. While more are adopting the three TDRp categories, you can pick up any professional publication and find the terms used inconsistently. This does not happen in accounting. Accountants have standard names and definitions for all their measures while learning professionals do not. People define and calculate the same measures differently. There is no single source of truth, no profession-wide measures library like there is in accounting.

Unlike accounting and prior to TDRp, we have had no standard reports whatsoever. Consequently, there has been no agreement on what measures go into what reports, or how many to include, or what to do with the measures and reports once they’re created. Yes, we have a number of dashboards that typically show actual results for measures like number of participants, hours, courses developed and delivered, and utilization rates, but these really don’t rise to the level of standard reports and there is no agreement in any case on what should be included or how it should be displayed.

Last, we have few standard processes. We have some for instructional design and performance consulting like ADDIE, SAM, SCORM and API, but not much agreement as a profession on most other processes. For example, although it’s recommended by all authors and leading practitioners, we don’t always start with the end in mind, we don’t always meet proactively with our CEOs to discover the coming year’s goals, we don’t always meet proactively with the goal owners to reach upfront agreement on the impact of learning and mutual roles and responsibilities, we don’t always align our learning to the organizations’ most important goals, we don’t always create SMART goals for our most important measures, and we don’t always create reports with plan and year-to-date results to let us manage our programs to deliver the agreed-upon goals. Compare these with the audit process where all accountants know how to do an audit and where there are standard expectations for how an audit is to be conducted.

So, if we want to be a true profession, we need standards just like the accountants have. TDRp is designed to help us get there but we are just at the beginning of this long, but very important, journey. To succeed we all need to work together. Please start using the three categories of measures in your workplace. For your key programs and measures, please start using formats like those in the three TDRp reports. Let us know where you believe we need to change, refine or improve this framework. Tell us if you think there is another category which should become part of the standard or if we need a different type of report. Recently, several have asked for some example dashboards that would be consistent with the TDRp framework so we will work on this. Bottom line, learning is still a very immature field so this is a work in progress. No one has all the answers, but it is time for us to grow up and take the next important step to become a true profession.

Where Does Reporting Fall on the L&D Maturity Spectrum?

Maturity models show a journey from just beginning to collect data all the way through the use of advanced and sophisticated practices and processes. The models can be very useful in conveying the journey that must be followed from immature to mature and in helping organizations assess both where they are today and where they may wish to go in the future.

Unfortunately, since most practitioners don’t really understand what is required to run learning like a business, most of these models show reporting as the second or third step on what is often a fix or six-rung maturity ladder. Properly understood, reporting should be the next to highest rung.  Let’s see why.

First, we need to define terms which is where the problem begins. For most, reporting represents the creation of monthly dashboards or scorecards which show only actual results. And typically the measures are low level efficiency and effectiveness measures like number of courses, hours and participants, and level 1. You have all seen these. They may show monthly or quarterly data and may contain bar charts or line graphs. Dashboards may show a speedometer. If this is how we define reporting, then I agree it belongs on the second rung since it is merely capturing the most elementary data from the first rung and using it only to discern how the measure is trending. Authors of these maturity models often go to great lengths to contrast this low level “reporting” with higher level predictive analytics which these days is almost the highest rung. So, the model encourages you to move beyond elementary reporting (which is good!) to higher level measures (like levels 3-5, which is also very good!) to big data and predictive analytics (which may or may not be so good), all the while never mentioning the use of reports for management of the department of program.

If we instead define reporting in line with Talent Development Reporting principles (TDRp), the whole model changes. In TDRp executive reports are never simply a compilation of actual results (history). A report must include the plan (target or goal) for that measure, year-to-date (YTD) results, a comparison of YTD results to plan, and ideally a forecast of how the year is likely to end if no special (unplanned) action is taken. The sole purpose of the report is to answer the two basic questions every manager should ask for every important measure: (1) Are we on plan year to date? and (2) Are we going to end the year on plan? Trend for the year and comparison to previous years are interesting but largely irrelevant after the plan has been set for the year. Trend and history would have been used to set an achievable, reasonable plan, but after the plan is set, all that matters is whether you can achieve it. So, these reports are absolutely indispensable to managing key programs and the department as a whole. A good manager simply cannot manage without them.

In this light, good reporting should be near the top of the maturity model since it supports the active, disciplined management of the function which, in my opinion, is the top rung. I believe that this active management supported by good reporting will deliver FAR greater results and impact than big data and predictive analytics. In fact, it is not even close. Predictive analytics is typically used to discover relationships among measures which is great but usually impacts a small number of measures or projects. In contrast, the active management of all your key programs, by definition, will affect everything important you do for the year. In other words, if a CLO is trying to decide between investing in predictive analytics and disciplined management of the department using good reporting, my strong advice is to get your disciplined management in place first.  This will provide far more bang for the buck and has the potential to advance your career in management (versus in analytics).

Please take a second look the next time you see a maturity model to understand how the authors have defined the components. I bet they will have a “dumbed” down definition for reporting and consequently have allocated it to a low rung. If you are constructing your own maturity model or journey chart, I challenge you to aspire to great management of the entire department as your highest rung.

Starting With the End in Mind

The end of the year is always a good time for reflection and it seems particularly appropriate to reflect on starting with the end in mind. The concept sounds so simple but most struggle with it in practice. Basically, starting with the end in mind means establishing a plan or goal at the start of the year or project and then working backwards from the goal to determine all the events that must happen to achieve the goal. All of this would be done before the year or project gets underway, including the creation of appropriate measures. This approach is advocated by all the leaders in our field including Jack and Patti Phillips, Jim and Wendy Kirkpatrick, Roy Pollak et. al. in The Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning, and many others.

So, what does starting with the end in mind look like in practice? Let’s consider first the type of learning that can contribute to your organization’s goals. Examples include sales training, cost reduction, quality improvement and efforts to improve employee engagement and leadership. Most learning professionals do set a plan at the start of the year (or course) for number of participants (a level 0 or efficiency measure). Is that what we mean by starting with the end in mind? Definitely not. Some set a target for participant reaction (a level 1 effectiveness measure) like 80% will be satisfied or highly satisfied with the learning. Is that the end? No. How about a certain pass rate or average score on testing (level 2 effectiveness measure)? Still no. A few set a goal for how much of the learning is actually applied on the job (level 3 effectiveness measure). This is much better than number of participants and levels 1-2, but it is still not the appropriate end. It doesn’t answer the questions of why the learning is being conducted in the first place.

Only impact (an outcome measure which doubles as a level 4 effectiveness measure) addresses the end, the reason for the training. Therefore, impact must be the starting point when the training is aligned to your company goals. For example, if the goal is to increase sales or employee engagement, what impact do you believe training can have on achieving the goal? A lot, a little? The greater the planned impact, the more effort and time you and the goal owner will have to dedicate to the training. And the more important it will be to set targets for all the critical steps required for success. This is where you need to decide how many employees must take the training, how satisfied you want them to be with the learning, what their minimum passing test scores must be if appropriate, and what percent must successfully apply the learning to achieve the planned impact (end). So, number of participants and levels 1-3 are all important, but they are not the end. The end is planned impact. Start with planned impact and then work backwards to determine levels 0-3 as well as roles and responsibilities for the goal owner and the learning department. (Note: Although the Kirkpatricks don’t focus on it, I know they would agree that the investment in learning must make sense financially. Jack Phillips introduced the level 5 measure of ROI to address this issue. So, we can modify our “end” to be impact that makes sense financially. In other words don’t invest in learning if it is going to cost more than the impact is worth.)

Let’s conclude our thoughts on starting with the end in mind by considering initiatives within the department to improve efficiency and effectiveness measures. Most learning departments focus on improving a couple of these measures each year. Examples might include reaching a higher percentage of employees, increasing the utilization of online courses, or improving enterprise scores for levels 1-3. In this case the end is indeed the number of participants or a higher application rate. Starting with this end in mind, the next question is what must we do to achieve this goal? Work backwards from your planned level of improvement to identify all the steps required along with appropriate resources (staff and budget), measures, and roles and responsibilities. You will need enough specificity to know each month whether you are on target to meet the planned improvement.

As this year come to an end, reflect for a minute on what percentage of your programs or initiatives were truly designed with the end in mind. If the percentage is small, you might resolve to improve in 2017.

CTR Is excited to Announce the Release of a Significantly Updated TDRp Measures Libary

CTR is excited to announce the release of a significantly updated version of the TDRp Measures Library. This update focuses on Learning and Development Measures and has expanded from 111 measures to 183 Learning related measures.  The additions include measures related to informal and social learning as well as more detailed breakdown of the cost measures.  This version of the library also includes measures defined by the CEB Corporate Leadership Council as well as updated references to the HCMI Human Capital Metrics Handbook and updated references to ATD, Kirkpatrick and Philips defined measures

If you are a CTR member, you have access to the updated version at no additional charge. https://www.centerfortalentreporting.org/download/talent-acquisition/ .

If you are not a member, join CTR for $299/year

Corporate Learning Week Conference, Dave Vance to Speak: CTR Exclusive Discout

2016 CLW Logo

 

 

 

 

Corporate Learning Week
November 7-10, 2016
Renaissance Downtown, Dallas, Texas
www.clnweek.com

Join us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/7052790

Theme: Disrupting Ourselves: L&D Innovation at the Speed of Change

Corporate Learning Week 2016 will focus on powerful new tools and capabilities to help you transform your learning organization to align with your organization’s core needs and core values, to strike the balance between best practices and next practices that will engage today’s dynamic workforce.

New for 2016, we have confirmed 2 exciting site tours:

– Brinker International (Chili’s & Maggiano’s)

– American Airlines Training Center

Corporate Learning Week 2016 is designed for L&D leaders who are:

– Taking charge of the end-to-end talent operations

– Innovating their learning ecosystems to keep pace with the speed of change

– Rethinking learning measurement across the board

– Looking for ways to accelerate leadership development

 

Have some fun while you’re away from the office and build stronger relationships within your team by taking part in our featured team building activities:

– Keynote Meet n Greet

– Team Scavenger Hunt

– Dallas Foodie Crawl

– Dedicated Team Bonding

 

Featured Speakers:

Diane August, Chief Learning Architect, Nationwide
Brad Samargya, Chief Learning Officer, Ericsson
Lisa Cannata, Chief Learning Officer, Orlando Health
Jon Kaplan, CLO & VP of L&D, Discover Financial
Karen Hebert-Maccaro, Chief Learning Officer, AthenaHealth
Katica Roy, Global VP, Learning Analytics, SAP
Tom Spahr, Vice President of L&D, The Home Depot
Marc Ramos, Head of Education for Google Fiber, Google
Matt Smith, Vice President, Talent & Learning, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts
Mary Andrade, Head of Learning Design & Delivery Center of Excellence, McKinsey
Corey Rewis, SVP of Learning & Leadership Development, Bank of America
Nathan Knight, Director of L&D, Sony
Casper Moerck, Head of Learning Technology – Americas, Siemens
Kate Day, VP Workforce Transformation, MetLife
Mong Sai, Director, Learning and Organizational Development, Newegg
Sarah Mineau, AVP Learning & Development, State Farm Insurance
Sheryl Black, Head of Training Operations, American Airlines
Stacy Henry, VP L&D Americas, Bridgestone
Namrata Yadav, Senior Vice President, Head of Diversity & Inclusion Learning, Bank of America
James Woolsey, President, DAU
Sanford Gold, Sr. Director, Global Leadership & Development, ADP
Donna Simonetta, Senior Director, Commercial Services Learning, Hilton Hotels
Melissa Carlson, Director, Leadership Development, Quintiles
Paul Rumsey, Chief Learning Officer, Parkland Health & Hospital System
Priscilla Gill, SPHR, PCC, Leadership and Organization Development, Mayo Clinic
Shveta Miglani, Learning and Development Director, SanDisk
Chenier Mershon, Vice President Operations and Training, La Quinta Inns & Suites
Al Cornish, Chief Learning Officer – Norton University, Norton Healthcare
Angel Green, Director of Talent & Learning, Coca-Cola Beverages Florida
Jeremy Hunter, Creator of The Executive Mind @ Drucker Graduate School of Management
Josh Davis, Director of Research, NeuroLeadership Institute
James Mitchell, CLO & Head of Global Talent Development, Rackspace
Dom Perry, VP of L&D, Brinker (Chili’s & Maggiano’s)
Leah Minthorn, Director of Operations Learning – North America, Iron Mountain
Emmanuel Dalavai, Global Program Manager, Training & Leadership Development, Aviall, A Boeing Company
David Vance, President, Center for Talent Reporting
Sarah Otley, Next Generation Learning Lab Director, Capgemini University, Capgemini

Discounts 

CTR EXCLUSIVE: Save 20% off  2016CLW_CTR. Register now!

Management: The Missing Link in L&D Today by Dave Vance

Despite great progress in so many areas of L&D, there is one area which has not seen much progress. This is the business-like management of the L&D department and L&D programs. Yes, department heads work to implement new LMS’s on time, and program managers and directors work to roll out new programs on time but there is still an opportunity to dramatically improve our management. Let’s look at programs first and then the department as a whole.

At the program level a really good manager would work with the goal owner or sponsor to reach upfront agreement on measures of success for the program like the planned impact on the goal. A really good manager would also work with the goal owner and stakeholders to identify plans or targets for all the key efficiency and effectiveness measures that must be achieved to have the desired impact on the goal. Examples of efficiency measures include number of participants to be put through the program, completions dates for the development or purchase of the content and completion dates for the delivery, and costs. Examples of effectiveness measures include levels 1 (participant reaction, 2 (knowledge check if appropriate), and 3 (application of learned behaviors or knowledge). A really good program manager would also work with the goal owner upfront to identify and reach agreement on roles and responsibilities for both parties, including a robust reinforcement plan to ensure the goal owner’s employees actually apply what they have learned. Today, many program managers do set plans for the number of participants and completion dates. Few, however, set plans for any effectiveness measures and few work with the goal owner to reach agreement on roles and responsibilities, including a good reinforcement plan. Virtually none use monthly reports which show the plan and year-to-date results for each measure and thus are not actively managing their program for success in the same way as their colleagues in sales or manufacturing.

At the department level, a really good department head or Chief Learning Officer would work with the senior leaders in the department to agree on a handful of key efficiency and effectiveness measures to improve for the coming year. Then the team would agree on a plan or target for each as well as an implementation plan for each, including the name of the person responsible (or at least the lead person) and the key action items. Examples of efficiency measures to manage at the department level include number of employees reached by L&D, percentage of courses completed and delivered on time, mix of learning modalities (like reducing the percentage of instructor-led in favor of online, virtual, and performance support), utilization rate (of e-learning suites, instructors or classrooms), and cost. Examples of effectiveness measures to be managed at the department level include level 1 participant and sponsor reaction, level 2 tests, and level 3 applications rates. Both the efficiency and effectiveness measures would be managed at an aggregated level with efficiency measures summed up across the enterprise and effectiveness measures averaged across the enterprise. A really good CLO would use monthly reports to compare year-to-date progress with plan to see where the department is on plan and where it is falling short of plan. A really good department head would use these reports in regularly scheduled monthly meetings to actively manage the department to ensure successful accomplishment of the plans set by the senior department leadership team. Today, very few department heads manage in this disciplined fashion with plans for their key measures, monthly reports which compare progress against plan, and monthly meetings dedicated to just the management of the department where the reports are used to identify where management action must be taken to get back on plan.

In conclusion, there is a great opportunity to improve our management which in turn would enable us to deliver even greater results. This requires getting upfront agreement on the key measures, on the plan for each one, and the actions items required to achieve each plan. For the outcome measures it also requires reaching agreement with the goal owner on mutual roles and responsibilities. Once the year is underway, good management also requires using reports in a regular meeting to identify problem areas and take corrective actions. Our colleagues in other departments have been doing this for a long time and with good reason. Let’s get onboard and manage L&D like we mean

The Promising State of Human Capital Anayltics (Webinar by ROI Co-Sponsored by CTR)

Talk with any human capital executive about the field of human capital analytics and they will generally agree: the best is yet to come. That doesn’t mean that many companies aren’t already performing incredible feats with people data—a few are profiled in this report—the statement is a testament to the opportunity that most can see in this burgeoning field. And it’s a testament to the constant new and innovative ways professionals are using people-related data to impact their organizations. This study surveyed analytics professionals in organizations of all sizes worldwide, and asked very pointed questions on how those organizations are using human capital analytics today, if at all. The results were more affirming than they were surprising:

  • Budgets for human capital analytics are increasing along with executive commitment.
  • Relatively few companies are using predictive analytics now, but expect to in the future.
  • Most are using analytics to support strategic planning and organizational effectiveness.

Successful companies tend to be those that purposefully use data to anticipate and prepare rather than to react to daily problems.

It’s clear in both the data from the survey and follow-up interviews that were conducted, that the future focus of
professionals in the human capital analytics field will increasingly be on using analytics to guide strategic decisions and affect
organizational performance. To sum up the state of human capital analytics in one word: Promising.

Objectives

This webinar introduces the new research study that demonstrates the progress that
continues to be made with human capital analytics. Participants will learn:

  • Four key findings on the state of
    human capital analytics
  • How high-performance
    organizations are building
    leading human capital analytics
    teams
  • What Google, HSBC, LinkedIn
    and Intel are doing to drive
    business performance through
    analytics
  • What you can do to move your
    analytics practice forward

We want to thank Patti Phillips, and Amy Armitage for the opportunity to co-sponsor this webinar. The recording and PPT have been made available to anyone who missed the webinar.

PPT  

The Promising State of HCA

3.60 MB 18 downloads

Recording https://roievents.webex.com/roievents/lsr.php?RCID=30bd391d319d4709b4203d48f6b7e4c9

Webinar: Innovation in L&D: Building a Modern Learning Culture

Tuesday, July 19 @ 11:00–12:00 p.m. CST

caveo-learning-logo-640x122px

 

 

Join Caveo Learning CEO Jeff Carpenter and a panel of forward-thinking learning leaders from Microsoft, McDonald’s, and Ford as they explore innovation in L&D.

More and more, stakeholders throughout the business are bypassing the learning function to create learning outside the learning & development organization. To win back the hearts of these stakeholders (and win a bigger share of the organizational budget), learning leaders must deliver solutions that are exciting, cutting-edge, efficient—in a word, innovative.

innovation-in-l-and-d-building-a-modern-learning-culture-1000x500px

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By pushing beyond their comfort zone to embrace new ideas, concepts, and technologies, L&D organizations ensure their continued relevance and enhanced ability to deliver tangible business results.

In this webinar, you’ll learn how to:

  • Foster a culture of innovation and creativity in your learning organization
  • Reexamine and reconfigure outdated training through a lens of strategic innovation
  • Develop innovative training and eLearning programs within the confines of business processes and templates

Register today!

Webinar Presenters

Rich Burton, Group Project Manager at Microsoft

Jeff Carpenter, CEO of Caveo Learning (CTR Advisory Council Member)

Gale Halsey, Chief Learning Officer of Ford Motor Company

Rob Lauber, Chief Learning Officer of McDonald’s Corporation


Who Should Attend

Chief Learning Officers (CLOs), VPs of Training, Training Directors and Managers, Human Resources VPs and Directors, CEOs, and COOs.

Testimonials

  • “You personally meet and interact with the innovative thinkers who are shaping the future of L & D as well as other like-minded forward looking L & D leaders. This is the conference to attend if you are looking to take the next steps to becoming a more effective business partner! Don McGray”
  • Talent Analytics, especially when it comes to Learning and Development is getting increased focus. It’s as if the business schools have added it to their curriculum the way the C-Suite is starting to expect meaningful reporting and evidence of contribution. The wave has been building for a while now and we need to get on quick so we can ride it successfully. There is no better way to do this that to learn from the industry experts, the ‘inventors’ of the methodology and those that have seen success. The CTR conference will expose you to lessons, some hard lessons and others inspiring messages of success, either way, valuable insight to enhance what you do when you get back to your organization.
  • “The opportunity to gain knowledge, reaffirm efforts that we do have in place, as well as brainstorm solutions with others who share similar struggles and/or concerns was invaluable. I found it to be a highly useful, practical experience, bookended by industry leaders motivating us to keep thinking strategically and progressively.
  • Paul Scott, M.A.
  • Manager, Learning and Development
  • UT Southwestern Medical Center”
  • I was blown away by the quality of the speakers. I also walked away with very valuable tools and resources that I put into use immediately.
  • CTR Week was the single most impactful, relevant, useful, and exciting conference I’ve attended in 25 years! For 2 years, based only on reading the website, and attending 2 webinars, I’ve been gushing about CTR to clients in 15 Asia Pacific countries and 3 North American nations. I attended the 5-day CTR week to “seek first to understand” human capital measurement in my new role as VP of software training company. As a result of the conference, my new personal business goal is TDRp certification by December 2016. My new corporate goal is TDRp accreditation for my company by June 2017. These will be ranked priorities! We hope to build TDRp-accredited software to help our clients measure the impact of our services. We are so “all-in” on this that I have begun using the concepts with my family of 4 kids. We already set goals. Now, thanks to CTR, we will prioritize them, and track our progress using cool new tools – fun, not work – trust me! Thank you Dave & Andy Vance, Peggy Parskey, Kevin Jones, Cushing Anderson, Jeff Higgins, Jean Martin, Gene Pease, Laurie Bassi, Alwyn Klein, Carrie Beckstrom, Jac Fitz-enz, Patti Phillips, and Ed Trolley for enriching my life both at work and at home! – Sincerely, Mike Reid, Vice President, DevelopIntelligence
  • As a student, the CTR Conference is beneficial for an upcoming young professional. It is a great way to network and learn from mature practitioners and scholars in the field. The vast amount of knowledge that I gained from the conference is unforgettable. I look forward to applying what I learned in my new organization.
  • The CTR conference provided an opportunity to not only hear What by How and Why on the concept of HR Analytics and Measurement. The speakers were incredibly thought provoking, and even if you are familiar with the concept, the ideas discussed in the sessions will give you ideas on how to improve your processes.
  • Every Talent Management professional can benefit from the CTR conference. You will not only learn how to run your department like a business, but you will learn how to use data to improve your effectiveness.
  • The CTR Conference offered dynamic and thought provoking information on using analytics and building measurement programs for L&D that expands business function. The better we can do in the L&D community to merge our function to the business goals the more we will become valued business partner, this conference provides the tools to carry this out.

Home

What were the most beneficial aspects of the CTR Conference?

What topics or speakers should we consider for the 2017 CTR Conference?

What topics or speakers should we consider for the 2017 CTR Conference?

  • Repeat speakers
  • Everyone who presented this year was great! Dave is awesome and super-engaging.
  • More from Laurie Bassi and Jeff Higgins. Financial Accumen session was great, I would recommend that and from Laurie, more case studies.
  • New speakers
  • Perhaps consider inviting someone from the Univ. of North Texas or other area college (if in Dallas) who has an academic tilt to the topic.
  • “I would be interested in hearing from Josh Bersin and any other leader who helped put CTR on the map.
  • Case studies from industry leaders in talent management, measurement, and talent analytics (Disney, Southwest, TMobile, Amazon, Google, and Starbucks) with a mixture of organizations represented (retail, automotive, manufacturing, public sector, etc.).
  • Get an MTM client who is using the executive reporting module and putting action to the talk in a sustainable way.
  • ADP – Susan Hanold, PhD – She has spoken at ATD several times and is interested in sharing trends and best practices from client trends
  • YES!!! – Jorge Leuro and Todd Kruger, competency experts with Halliburton, they have published numerous SPE papers on this subject and are industry known leaders in competency measurement.
  • CTR Members beyond the Board of Directors or Advisers.
  • Make sure there are non-L&D breakouts at each time frame.
  • Go after current cutting edge organizations that are redefining the training and learning experience. I mentioned Amazon, Khan, Udemy, how about the military, how about SAP discussing gamification, how about colleges with distance learning platforms, or even GA Tech to discuss their MOOC format of their fully accredited MS in CS degree.  How about Tim Ferris where he teaches you how to be world class in the least amount of time and the implications his approach could have on training programs.  Have someone from PeopleDev at Google talk about their informal learning program, and not here’s why it’s hard for companies. I guess I’m saying let’s not talk that there is a problem, let’s find more of those who have figured it out so that can give the attendees more options in our minds for how to rise to the challenge.
  • Invite Alexis Fink, director of Intel’s Talent Intelligence and Analytics group
  • leadership development impact
  • Speakers
  • Esko Kilpi – foundations for Post-Industrial Work – http://www.kilpi.fi/
  • Workforce optimization technology solutions e.g. measuring the impact of augmented reality used to “”upskill”” workers
  • Folks from: http://conferences.oreilly.com/nextcon/economy-us-2015/public/content/speakers
  • Tamar Elkeles – whose book The Chief Learning Officer has inspired me for 4 years”
  • More practitioners from businesses and less from consulting agencies.
  • Success stories or change management
  • From a success standpoint, who has implemented TDRp in their company. Not only success stories, but approaches that have not worked. Or obstacles that stopped the process.”
  • The TDRp needs more success stories – showing the value in all areas of optimization of your deliverables – not JUST alignment which seems to be the heavy focus. TDRp allows one to increase efficiency and effectiveness and we need to see how that assists people running talent development teams
  • More speakers with stories of how they implemented TDRp or human capital analytics in the work place.
  • Present some case studies — perhaps from Carrie Beckstrom — along with a demonstration of real-live tools and techniques to help practitioners succeed in their effort.
  • Other topics
  • I would like to see them talk about security and sensitive information protection.
  • More about human capital analytics in general (along with the basics of TDRp)
  • HR Analytics as a whole
  • An ROI workshop.
  • More complete, comprehensive coverage of the topic of change management. “Just use your company’s existing change management approach” is a cop-out and doesn’t cut it. The questions from the audience during the conference indicated that attendees wanted more specifics on this subject.
  • If there has been any movement (actual implementation) on any of the 4 disruptive ideas, then I would like to see a speaker discuss what has happened. Regardless, I’d still like to hear an update from Laurie Bassie on how the SEC may require human capital reporting.
  • I think information on Gamification would be interesting.

 

Home

What were the most beneficial aspects of the CTR Conference?

Testimonials.

What were the most beneficial aspects of the CTR Conference?

  • Conference focus
  • That it was entirely devoted to measurement and evaluation.
  • Measurement conversations
  • Networking
  • Networking with like-minded professionals in the same field.
  • Sessions and networking events
  • The most beneficial aspect was the ability to network with like-minded professionals.
  • The classes and networking opportunities were great.
  • Access to experts, practitioners and materials
  • The real examples, learning from experts, access to the slides.
  • Getting an electronic copy of the slides as well as hard copies of the slides for note taking is above the norm
  • The materials that were provided in the ROI workshop were great…straightforward, easy to understand and implement, etc. Then, those concepts were reinforced all along the way of the conference. I left with a great deal of confidence knowing not only WHAT to implement, but HOW.
  • Caliber/expertise of the speakers
  • Credibility of the speakers in having been a CLO/Practitioner and actually walking the talk. Getting practitioners on stage and taking the journey with lessons learned. Loved format-break out session Quality of speakers
  • Experts sharing implementation experiences
  • The wealth of knowledge, practical tips and opportunities to learn from industry leaders as well as share experiences and struggles with like-minded and like-positioned professionals.
  • The knowledge and perspectives shared by thought leaders.
  • The caliber of the attendees and speakers.
  • The speakers and breakout group leaders were amazing. They were knowledgeable and engaging. Fantastic, especially for a subject many don’t find that interesting! 🙂
  • Hearing from the experts in the field – 5 Disruptive Ideas and HOW to move forward (like the ROI session and Laurie Bassi’s session). The conference was very thought provoking. Even though I already went through the TRRp workshop, it added additional insight.
  • Session topics/content
  • Sessions overall
  • The sessions I attended were well put together and informative, appreciated presenters willingness to answer questions
  • several of the break-out sessions and the information covered
  • Variety of breakout sessions
  • Breakout sessions
  • It was really simple. The presentations were not overly complex and easy to follow.
  • “I attended CTR Week. All 4 events dovetailed nicely together.
  • Industry discussions by people who have ‘been there, done that’. Financial practices was specifically applied to L&D.
  • I got something out of every session!! I really appreciated having the expert panels, learning tips for implementation, etc.
  • Specific sessions or content
  • TDRp workshop. Networking with like-minded folks. The order of events was perfect! I attended the whole week. Hearing about the “Wall street” view from Laurie (ISO committee) and her Human Capital conference (this week). Hearing Kevin Jones awesome survey, learning his PWC history and passion, understanding the history of accounting, and mostly, getting Kevin’s viewpoint on the technology players in the industry. I’ve never been so fired up about the ro
  • Gene Pease breakout on analytics.
  • The session with Patti Phillips, the sessions with a panel.
  • The Measurement, Evaluation, and Analytics breakout by Patti Phillips.
  • The panels where they talked about the journey to implement training measurement and the changes they were able to make because of it. Also how to tie TDRP, Kirkpatrick, and Phillips together.
  • Access to models and examples of how others have achieved success
  • new content about measuring the impact of TD
  • Understanding the Tdrp tools and how its being applied or deployed in other organizations. Listening to common concerns along with possible recommendations for how to deploy in my organization.
  • “Specific insight from sessions.
  • Using the Kirkpatrick model to guide consulting process.
  • ROI is NOT a unicorn!
  • Valuation is driven by human capital. Human capital appreciates.  Orgs become more valuable as their people learn.
  • CFO allocates budget based on most reasonable biz case. If OD doesn’t present a solid business case, the organization under-invests in training. Sales targets are missed.  Valuation declines.

 

Home

What topics or speakers should we consider for the 2017 CTR Conference?

Testimonials

 

CTR Conference A Great Success

IMG_20160225_105847194

Our 2016 CTR Conference held in Dallas last month was a great success! We had 134 participants, almost double the number at our last conference and far more than we had hoped for.  If you were not there, you really missed a great gathering. Everyone there was interested in measurement, reporting and management so there was a tremendous amount of focused energy, sharing and interaction. Cushing Anderson from IDC and Ed Trolley from NIIT provided the keynotes to start off each day, and they were not shy about sharing their thoughts! We had a great panel on Disruptive Ideas and a very nice tribute to Jac Fitz-enz, the father of human capital analytics. There were 16 breakout sessions hosted by industry thought leaders over the two days and our participants often struggled to decide which session to attend. Unlike many conferences, most of our speakers came for more than just their session and even asked questions of their colleagues during other sessions which livened things up considerably. Finally, we followed the 1.5-day conference with two half-day workshops: CLO for a Day and Strategic Alignment. Attendees really had fun with CLO for a Day which is the only computer-based simulation for our profession.  We are starting to plan next year’s conference so watch for the Save the Date message coming soon.

Conference survey results  

What were the most beneficial aspects of the CTR Conference?

What topics or speakers should we consider for the 2017 CTR Conference?

Testimonials.

We Don’t Exist to Increase Employee Engagement: By Dave Vance

We Don’t Exist to Increase Employee Engagement

By Dave Vance

 

A surprising number of L&D professionals seem to believe that our primary mission, our main purpose, is to increase employee engagement. They are wrong and their mistaken belief will lead them to misallocate resources, choose inappropriate learning, and deliver suboptimal outcomes.

It is always good to start at the beginning, and the beginning for any department is to know why it exists. What is its mission or purpose? Ideally, learning leaders have thought carefully about this and have created a written mission statement or at the very least can articulate the mission informally. In most organizations, the learning department has the capability and potential to do much more than provide or facilitate learning to increase employee engagement. L&D has the potential to help the organization achieve many, if not all, of its goals. This means helping to achieve business goals like increasing revenue by 10%, reducing costs by 5%, improving patient satisfaction by 3 points, or reducing injuries by 20%. This also means helping to achieve HR goals like improving the leadership score on the annual survey by 5 points, meeting all compliance-related goals, and yes, increasing employee engagement. It  means providing the basic skills needed by employees new to a position and the more advanced skills needed by experienced employees especially in knowledge-based companies like those in consulting and accounting. Last, learning can help address many needs and challenges that fall below these high-level goals but which nonetheless must be addressed for the organization’s overall success.

So, learning has a very broad reach and can help an organization achieve many of its goals and address numerous challenges. A good mission statement should reflect this broad reach. For example, “Help our organization achieve its goals” or “Help our organization be successful”. If L&D’s mission is simply to increase employee engagement, then whose mission is it in your organization to help achieve all the other goals and meet the numerous needs and challenges that can be addressed though learning? It is true that your sales department could do its own learning, quality its own, manufacturing its own, customer care its own, and so forth. Basically, any department that needs learning does its own. That leaves L&D to address just HR goals and maybe just employee engagement if a separate department takes care of leadership development. This is a very sad state for L&D and for your organization as a whole. Think about what this state implies. Most often, other departments do not have learning professionals so the quality of the needs analysis and the learning is low. Someone is assigned to take care of the training needs on a part-time basis and they may not be happy about it. And training people in these departments are all isolated from one another with no opportunity to pool resources, share knowledge, and specialize.

For most organizations, the learning department can have a much more powerful impact if it has a broad mission which includes helping the organization achieve its business goals and if it is organized to support more than a single department. Let’s nor limit ourselves to simply addressing HR goals like increasing employee engagement. Instead, let’s address business and HR goals as well as the basic and advanced skills our employees need for success. What is your mission?

Get To Know Your Board Member (Cushing Anderson)

Cushing Anderson is program vice president for IDC’s Project-Based Services research. In this role, Cushing is responsible for managing the research agenda, field research, and custom research projects for IDC’s Business Consulting, Human Resources and Learning research programs. Cushing has been actively investigating the link between strategic business planning and training in the extended enterprise, the value of certifications and the impact of training on IT team performance. He has also extensively researched the value of partner certification programs to software companies. He also conducts regular research on the views and experiences of enterprises’ with global consulting firms. Cushing speaks on a variety of topics and has received a number of industry accolades. He is on the editorial advisory board and authors a regular column for CLO magazine and is on the board a Center for Talent Reporting board member. Cushing holds a bachelor’s degree in Government from Connecticut College and earned his M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction from Boston College’s Graduate School of Education.

Join Cushing and CTR as he keynotes our Conference February 24th 2016.

Get To Know Your Board Member (Jean Martin)

Jean Martin

Jean Martin - Headshot 2014 (2)

(Executive Director, Talent Solutions Architect, CEB)

 

As executive director of CEB and CEB’s Talent Solutions Architect, Jean leads CEB’s insight and product development in talent management. Her areas of expertise span the HR spectrum and range from the future of the HR function to leadership to labor market trends. Specifically, Jean spends time working on issues relating to CEO and leadership succession, employee engagement, how companies can attract and keep the best employees, and how companies can seek out top talent globally and build out their global leadership bench.

Jean is often asked to share her knowledge in larger forums and has spoken at venues such as the Gathering of Leaders, the Economist Talent Summit, the Singapore Human Capital Summit, Wharton Women in Business Conference and the European Union. Jean also regularly presents to executive teams including Bombardier, Intel, Cisco, BBVA and Eskrom among others. In addition, her work has appeared in publications such as the Associated Press, Harvard Business Review, the Economist, Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Businessweek, Forbes, and Human Resources Executive Magazine.

Prior to CEB, Jean served as a special assistant to President Clinton’s Domestic Policy Council. Additionally, Jean was a Presidential Management Fellow serving as a Special Assistant to the Senior Vice President for small business/community development banking at Bank of America. Also during her time as a PMF she was project manager for public-private partnerships in disadvantaged communities at the U.S. Department for Housing and Urban Development and for microfinance and microenterprise development at the U.S. Agency for International Development in Tanzania. Prior to that she worked a management consultant with the Institute for Human Services Management.

Jean received a Masters of Public Policy with a concentration in Economics and Finance at Harvard University and a Bachelor of Arts with highest distinction from the University of Virginia.  She also has served on several non-profit and public boards, such as City Year, Turnaround for Children and the San Francisco Presidio Planning Commission.  She lives in Washington, DC with her husband and three children.

      Strategic Alignment Workshop

  Aligning Your Programs to Organizational Goals for Maximum Impact

       Friday February 26

       8:00 am – 12:00 pm

                Dallas

 

Many practitioners struggle with the issue of alignment. They know it is important, especially to their senior leaders, but they have not found a practical way to get it done successfully. Consequently, it becomes difficult to secure funding for good programs.

Join us for the Strategic Alignment Workshop to explore what senior leaders really want to see and to learn how to achieve and demonstrate strategic alignment. We will begin with a review of the literature on alignment and suggest a working definition. Then we will discuss the theory of alignment and how to have good business discussions with senior leaders. Next we will share a six-step process to achieve and show alignment. Last, we address real-world alignment issues. Extensive use will be made of case studies to allow you to immediately apply what you have learned at each step. Alternatively, you can bring your own organization’s goals and programs to use in the workshop.

This workshop is designed to improve your business acumen, make you a better and more strategic business partner, and increase the impact of your programs. You will learn how to

  • Align programs and initiatives to organizational goals
  • Discuss alignment and expected impact with senior leaders
  • Show alignment and expected impact in reports
  • Manage the alignment process

Special attention will be paid to the following issues:

  • What CEOs and senior leaders really want to see from L&D
  • Speaking the language of business to communicate effectively with senior leaders
  • Planning and communicating the expected impact of a learning program
  • Business-centric versus L&D-centric reporting
  • Nature of planning, estimating and forecasting

At the conclusion of the workshop you will have completed strategic alignment for the case study (or your own organization) and you will know how to approach strategic alignment in the following situations:

  • One program in support of one goal
  • Multiple programs in support of one goal
  • Programs in support of multiple goals
  • Supporting a non-priority goal
  • There is no goal
  • You don’t know the company’s goals
  • Suites of e-learning courses
  • Enterprise alignment at the department level

The workshop will be highly interactive and applied, employing multiple case studies. The central case study (six-pages) will be distributed to all registered participants by February 10th and participants will be expected to have read it prior to the workshop.

Agenda

  • 00 – 8.15 Introduction, State of the Profession, Literature Review
  • 15 – 8.30     Definition of Alignment, Alignment Myths, Working with Senior Leaders
  • 30 – 10.00     Six Steps to Successful Alignment
  • 00 – 10.15 Break
  • 15 – 11.00    Six Steps continued
  • 00 – 11.45 Alignment in Practice: Seven Scenarios
  • 45 – 12.00 Wrap Up and Lessons Learned

Dave Vance and Peggy Parskey will facilitate the workshop.

Note: The content of the workshop is consistent with Talent Development Reporting principles (TDRp) but does not presume any knowledge of TDRp. We will highlight the touchpoints and commonalities. The workshop will provide a great foundation for TDRp but may also be used by those not implementing TDRp.

 

Your investment:  Early Bird Members $249/ Nonmembers $349 before December 31

Members $299/ Nonmembers $399 after December 31

Save $100 when you register for both CLO for a Day & Strategic Alignment Workshop

 

 

Your facilitators

David Vance is Executive Director of the Center for Talent Reporting and co-author of the Talent Development Reporting Principles (TDRp) whitepapers. He is the former President of Caterpillar University, which he founded in 2001, and author of The Business of Learning: How to Manage Corporate Training to Improve Your Bottom Line. Dave was named 2006 Chief Learning Officer (CLO) of the Year by Chief Learning Officer magazine. Caterpillar was ranked #1 in the 2005 ATD BEST awards and named Corporate University of the Year in 2004. Prior to leading Cat U, Dave was Chief Economist and Head of the Business Intelligence Group at Caterpillar. He teaches in the human capital development Ph.D. programs at Bellevue University and the University of Southern Mississippi, and he is also the Lead Independent Director for State Farm Mutual Funds. Dave served on the national ATD Board of Directors from 2005-2007 and was president of the Northern Rockies Chapter from 2008-2012. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from MIT, a Masters from Indiana University in Business Administration, and a Masters and Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame in Economics.

Peggy Parskey is Assistant Director of the Center for Talent Reporting and co-author of the Talent Development Reporting Principles (TDRp) whitepapers. She has over 25 years of experience driving strategic change to improve organizational and individual performance. Peggy is also a part-time staff member with Metrics that Matter (MTM) at the Corporate Executive Board (CEB). Prior to working with the Center for Talent Reporting and MTM, Peggy was employed at Hewlett-Packard Company.  Between 2001 and 2005, Peggy was responsible for enterprise wide evaluation for the Learning & Development function at Hewlett-Packard Company. She worked closely with the businesses and key stakeholders to grow HP’s organizational maturity in training measurement and evaluation. Peggy and her team authored a paper for the Journal of Performance Improvement in 2004 entitled: “Looking in the Mirror, Performance Improvement for Performance Improvers.” She has published several articles on measurement, most recently as a co-author of a chapter in “Big Learning Data” by Elliott Masie (2014) and as the author of a chapter in “The Field Guide to the 6Ds” by Roy Pollock, Andrew Jefferson and Calhoun Wick (2014). Peggy was President of the Los Angeles Chapter of ASTD in 2008 and served as its Treasurer in 2010. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from Simmons College and two Masters Degrees from the University of Chicago in Statistics and Business Administration.

http://www.centerfortalentreporting.org/4161/

CLO for the Day: The Learning Manager Simulation

    Thursday February 25

      1:00 pm – 5:00 pm

              Dallas

 

Put yourself in the role of a Chief Learning Officer (CLO) for a day where you will have to decide

  • Which corporate goals to support
  • Which learning programs to include in your business plan
  • What type of learning to recommend (classroom, e-learning, simulation, job aides, or a blend)
  • How long each initiative should be
  • How many participants should take each course
  • Whether to reinforce the learning

Just as in the real world, you will have a limited budget and staff which means that you will not be able to do everything you want. Trade-offs will have to be made. What will you sacrifice? How much can you accomplish with the resources you have? Participants will work in teams of two to see who can deliver the greatest impact, effectiveness and efficiency.

The Learning Manager Simulation was developed in 2008 by David Vance and Tata Interactive Systems. It is the only computer-based simulation we know of for learning professionals and has been used by hundreds of participants over the past seven years to increase their understanding of how to create and execute a learning plan. The simulation will reinforce the following key concepts:

  • Strategic alignment of learning to organizational goals
  • Careful selection of learning initiatives, modalities, and durations
  • Importance of reinforcement
  • The issue of trade-offs and deciding what is truly important
  • The five Kirkpatrick/Phillips levels of evaluation
  • Total cost of learning, including opportunity costs

The simulation has been deployed in numerous companies and in the human capital Ph.D. programs at Bellevue University and the University of Southern Mississippi. There will be two rounds of simulation.

Agenda

  • 00 – 1.30 Introductions and Preparation for Round 1
  • 30 – 2.30 Round 1
  • 30 – 3.00 Debrief and Lessons Learned
  • 00 – 3.15 Break
  • 15 – 3.30 Preparation for Round 2
  • 30 – 4.30 Round 2
  • 30 – 5.00 Debrief and Wrap Up

CLO for a Day is facilitated by Dave Vance and Peggy Parskey. Participation is limited to the first twenty who register. All participants should bring a laptop with excel.

 

Your investment:  Early Bird Members $249/ Nonmembers $349 before December 31

Members $299/ Nonmembers $399 after December 31

 

      Save $100 when you register for both CLO for a Day & Strategic Alignment Workshop

 

 

Your facilitators

David Vance is Executive Director of the Center for Talent Reporting and co-author of the Talent Development Reporting Principles (TDRp) whitepapers. He is the former President of Caterpillar University, which he founded in 2001, and author of The Business of Learning: How to Manage Corporate Training to Improve Your Bottom Line. Dave was named 2006 Chief Learning Officer (CLO) of the Year by Chief Learning Officer magazine. Caterpillar was ranked #1 in the 2005 ATD BEST awards and named Corporate University of the Year in 2004. Prior to leading Cat U, Dave was Chief Economist and Head of the Business Intelligence Group at Caterpillar. He teaches in the human capital development Ph.D. programs at Bellevue University and the University of Southern Mississippi, and he is also the Lead Independent Director for State Farm Mutual Funds. Dave served on the national ATD Board of Directors from 2005-2007 and was president of the Northern Rockies Chapter from 2008-2012. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from MIT, a Masters from Indiana University in Business Administration, and a Masters and Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame in Economics.

 

Peggy Parskey is Assistant Director of the Center for Talent Reporting and co-author of the Talent Development Reporting Principles (TDRp) whitepapers. She has over 25 years of experience driving strategic change to improve organizational and individual performance. Peggy is also a part-time staff member with Metrics that Matter (MTM) at the Corporate Executive Board (CEB). Prior to working with the Center for Talent Reporting and MTM, Peggy was employed at Hewlett-Packard Company.  Between 2001 and 2005, Peggy was responsible for enterprise wide evaluation for the Learning & Development function at Hewlett-Packard Company. She worked closely with the businesses and key stakeholders to grow HP’s organizational maturity in training measurement and evaluation. Peggy and her team authored a paper for the Journal of Performance Improvement in 2004 entitled: “Looking in the Mirror, Performance Improvement for Performance Improvers.” She has published several articles on measurement, most recently as a co-author of a chapter in “Big Learning Data” by Elliott Masie (2014) and as the author of a chapter in “The Field Guide to the 6Ds” by Roy Pollock, Andrew Jefferson and Calhoun Wick (2014). Peggy was President of the Los Angeles Chapter of ASTD in 2008 and served as its Treasurer in 2010. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from Simmons College and two Masters Degrees from the University of Chicago in Statistics and Business Administration.

http://www.centerfortalentreporting.org/4159/

Get To Know Your Board Member (Kevin Oakes)

Kevin Oakes

Kevin Oakes

 

Kevin is the CEO and founder of the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp), the world’s largest vendor-free network of corporations focused on improving workforce productivity.

Prior to founding i4cp, Kevin was the founder of SumTotal Systems, the world’s largest learning management system company, when he merged Click2learn with Docent.  Prior to the formation of SumTotal, Kevin was the Chairman & CEO of Click2learn, and was also the founder of Oakes Interactive, an award-winning, technology-based training company.

Kevin’s most recent book, The Executive Guide to Integrated Talent Management, was published by ASTD in 2011.  Kevin was recently on the board of directors of KnowledgeAdvisors, a human capital metrics software provider which was sold to the Corporate Executive Board, and he was the Chairman of Jambok, a social learning platform which was purchased by SuccessFactors.  Kevin is currently on the board of Workforce Insight, a workforce optimization company, and on the board of advisors of Intrepid, a corporate training firm.  He was also the 2006 Chair of the national American Society of Training & Development (ASTD) board of directors, and is a frequent keynoter and author in the human capital field.

 

Get to Know Your Board Member (Claudia Rodriguez)

 

Claudia Rodriguez

Vice President, Devices Product Management

Motorola Solutions

Claudia

Claudia Rodriguez

Claudia is Vice President of Devices Product Management at Motorola Solutions Inc. She is responsible for optimizing product portfolio planning and investment decisions to deliver superior offerings to Motorola Solutions Inc.’s customers in each of its Devices technologies and business lines across the world.  Claudia joined Motorola in 2000 and has held a variety of leadership positions in product/business management, technical sales, business development, learning/training, operations and competitive intelligence, covering U.S. and international markets. She holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Florida International University.

Claudia also serves as the President of the Global Women’s Business Council at MSI, working to drive inclusion and diversity in the company while creating networking and engagement opportunities for employees.  She is also a board member of the Center of Talent Reporting, an industry-led initiative to bring standard principles and reporting to learning, and board member of BroadWand Wireless, a high tech start-up bringing affordable solutions to the mobile internet user.  She recently participated in the 2014-2015 Global Marathon as a Thought Leader and received Illinois Most Powerful & Influential Woman Award.

Andy Vance

Director of Operations

Center for Talent Reporting (2014 – present)

Responsible for CTR operations, including workshop and conference logistics, technical support for hardware and software, registrations, membership renewals, member support, administrative support, and liaison with CTRs’ website developer.

Tech Lead

Omni Tech Support (2012 – present)

Omni Tech’s goals are to assist customers with their technical questions and issues both software and hardware related. Provide direct support with customers by phone, video chat, and direct offsite pc control. Lead an Omni Tech team with more difficult issues and provide reports to customers and Omni Tech support managers. Advance knowledge of win 7, office 2013, bios support, networking, hardware troubleshooting, and connectivity issues.

Associate and Production Manager

Perkins Bakery & Restaurant (2009 – 2012)

As a manager at Perkins, worked daily with both customers and staff to provide the best work and dining experience possible. Oversaw day to day operations, worked on long term goals and projections, oversaw local marketing and strategy, handled food and equipment ordering, and set up and paid venders for services.

Education

University of Phoenix Online (2009 – present)

Bachelors in Green and Sustainable Resource Management with an Associates in Business Management (expected October 2014)