Well if you did, you may have noticed some interesting findings. I found some data to be interesting, and some just not very helpful in how I would manage a training organization. But that's the challenge with designing research. Sometimes the data is good for discussions around the coffee pot, but not relative enough to change how and what we do.
I'm not bashing the report - the work is very important and I support the effort immensely. It's important research the industry is hungry for. And we need to support ASTD to make it more relevant and useful to 
how we manage the learning function. And if you are a training supplier, this data could be helpful in understanding trends for new technologies and services.
Here are a few of my observations about the report. I hope you'll tell me yours.
1. Data from the report is all 2007 data. But the report wasn't published until November of 08. Seems to me the data is old. Especially considering the economy has changed considerably from '07 to '08. My advice - be careful about interpreting the data as current. It's not. And a message to ASTD; how can we help you make it more timely?
2. The report provides a lot of data. Wow! But the data is unclear and hard to understand. For example, the study reports on the average learning hours used per workforce learning professional (WLP) staff member. It tells me it went up in benchmarked companies, down in BEST companies, and up in overall companies. And provides no real inference about why. So what can I do with that? And what trend should the industry be moving in? I've worked as a training professional for more than 25 years and I still don't know what all of that means.
3. The report states there was an increase in 'direct learning expenditures per employee' of 6% from 2007. This is consistent with data we found for last year in the growth of the industry. So what do respondents predict for this year? Thought that would be good to know.
4. ASTD states there was a 'noteworthy' set of findings related to advancements in operational efficiencies for the learning function in 2007. Data shows that the average number of hours of formal learning content used per employee increased from 35.1 in 2006 to 37.4 in 2007. Organizations also experienced an increase in the volume of learning content consumed per employee, rising from 40.7 hours used on average to 43.0 hours. Each employee used an average of 44.7 learning hours in 2007. Although it is not overtly stated, it appears this is presented as an improvement.
I believe that being more efficient means doing more in less time. In our industry, we should be focused on helping employees learn what they need in less time. This important misrepresentation of what's best for the business is a fundamental problem we have in our industry. It also appears that ASTD is communicating that our industry (and/or profession) is improving if employees complete more training. Not correct. Our challenge is to help the business be more profitable. We will be much more respected as training professionals if we focus on doing the right amount of training in less time.
Thus, speed to efficiency is the better metric. Maybe the study should provide us this data. Please remember: DOING MORE TRAINING IS NOT ALWAYS GOOD FOR OUR CONSTITUENTS OR CLIENTS! Sorry but that is the reality.
5. The most disturbing data point of all. The study found that the average cost per learning hour consumed for Benchmark Forum organizations rose from $35 in 2006 to $47 per hour in 2008. This is a 34% gain. Other data shows that the cost per learning hour for all companies responding went up from $54 to $56. Not as big a percent gain, but never the less disturbing. BEST companies went down from $47 to $46 per hour. Considering our job is to drive costs down, this information is not trending in a way that we should be proud of. No doubt there are lots of factors to take into account. But if we are allowing this metric to grow faster than the inflation rate, then we are not doing our job. I think it's important that we hold ourselves accountable to this critically important metric.
6. Here is my favorite one. ASTD data shows that the average number of employees per WLP staff member went up from 216 to 227. This is positive. Unfortunately, BEST companies trended the opposite way. They went down from 179 to 165. The bottom line; we should be able to manage the training function with less people. The only acceptable trend here is that we are finding ways to manage the training function with less people as a percentage of the overall population we support.
In summary, I recommend you take a deep dive into the report. I applaud ASTD for this research. It's very important we support ASTD so we can continue to improve our industry - and our profession. But let's not fool ourselves. Corporate executives do not want us to build empires. They want us to reduce the cost of learning, improve the effectiveness of the training we produce and deliver, and only provide the training necessary to get the job done. Training is not an entitlement. It is a necessity of growing a business. So let's do our part in helping manage it that way.
