ILT development times 2007 vs 2010

Bryan Chapman, Chapman Alliance, provides another great research service for the workforce learning professional in reporting development times across ILT and elearning for 2010. Contrasting this with the 2007 report [note you’ll need to scroll down for the 2007 data],  I would have thought that we’d see the average flat versus more improve numbers.

In 2007 “average” ILT ratio was 34:1 (low range 10:1 to 72:1) versus in 2010 of 43:1 (low 22:1 to high 82:1). Note that these are development hours needed for one hour of delivery.

So what’s up here?

  • Are the training issues tackled in the classroom more complex leading to higher development ratios? 
  • Or staff has been cut and drawn too thin leading to the higher ratio? 
  • Or something else?

BTW – The 2010 survey had nearly 2 x participants than the past survey.

Lessons: Internal groups should be aware of these studies and certainly have some measures in place that track effort and “explain” variances from this data.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Learning and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to ILT development times 2007 vs 2010

  1. Great questions. There is actually a very simple answer.

    In the 2007 study, we asked respondents for a pure average across all ILT development projects.

    Some feedback from the first study was “how do you account for projects with different levels of complexity?”

    So, for the 2010 study, we asked for development times.

    Low Range (Rapid Development, Simple Content, Possible repurposing from existing source material, minimal print-based learning support materials)

    Mid Range (Standard ILT Development – new project)

    High Range (Complex Projects, Often very Custom, Extended time spent on formatting during production)

    In short, the 34:1 ratio from 2007 covered all of these rolled into one average.

    The 2010 study split these into 3

    22:1 – Low Range
    43:1 – Mid Average
    82:1 – High End

    The 2007 34:1 could still be close to being valid across the board. Other ILT development studies I’ve seen (i.e. training magazine, etc.) have been in the apx. 40:1 ratio going back at least a decade.

    I think it is useful to know that difference characteristics can make development for the project move — and to know the range of average movement helps as well.

    Again, thanks for the posting and great questions.

  2. dbolen says:

    Thanks Bryan for the clarification. It will be interesting to see how these numbers trend with the reduction on internal staff.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s