Elearning! Magazine: Building Smarter Companies via Learning & Workplace Technologies.
Issue link: https://gelmezine.epubxp.com/i/48384
up from 2% in 2009. SaaS- based TMSs account for 11% of respondents, and enterprise TMS account for 6% of responses. >> Course tracking, testing and authoring are main- stays of LMSs. However, future buyers seek more capabilities — including rapid development and col- laboration — as well as tal- ent features like perform- ance management (46%, up from 29% in 2009), skills- gap analysis (46%, up from 22%) and integrated enter- prise features (40%). >> Software-as-a-service (SaaS) products have improved in brand awareness rankings at the expense of some enter- prise brands. >> No brand achieved more than 33% awareness (unprompted) across this audience, despite active purchase plans — an indica- tion that buyers still see the LMS/TMS market as highly fragmented. >> 90% of respondents were able to name an LMS or TMS brand unprompted. However, 48% of the named TMS brands were LMS-related vendors, an indication that LMS com- panies are actively devel- oping or partnering to offer talent functions. >> Talent suites are imple- mented by 17% of respon- dents, up from 2% in 2009. Yet, 42% of respondents use their LMS to deliver many "talent" functions. GRADE CARDS All LMS and TMS owners graded their current systems from 2.6 to 3.0, up from 2009's average of 2.3 to 2.6. Improvements in scores are reported for all categories, with an overall grade of 2.9. "Reliability" rates the highest in satisfaction at 3.0. Lowest rating of 2.6 was reported for "new features and capabili- ties," a key driver for future purchasing. FUTURE USERS/BUYERS Forty-two percent of respon- dents do not own a current LMS or TMS. Of those, 22% do not track learning or talent assets, 30% use an in-house custom tracking solution (up from 17% in 2009); 12% use a database application, and 26% use a spreadsheet. Of the 40% of all respon- dents who plan to add, change or replace a LMS or TMS, 78% plan to purchase a learning or talent system within the next 24 months; 57% will buy within next 12 months and 16% after 24 months. Important factors in specify- ing an LMS/TMS vendor remain the same as 2009, except "SCORM compliance" moves up one spot. "Quality" leads as the top buying factor in a purchase — and has con- sistently since 2002. "Price" remains second, and "customer service" ranks fourth. Course tracking, testing and authoring are the mainstay fea- tures of current LMSs. However, future buyers are seeking more capabilities, including rapid development (44%), collabora- tive authoring (36%), on- demand access (43%), social tools (31%), surveys (54%), and virtual classrooms (49%). Talent system buyers are also demanding more features in their future systems. Performance management (46%), skill-gap analysis (46%), and an integrated enterprise solution (40%) are highly sought. BRAND AWARENESS Top LMS brands currently 19% 13% Enterprise Learning Annual Investment 3% 3% 4% 28% 17% 13% Over $50 million $25 million -$50 million $5 million-$24.9 million $1 million -$4.9 million $500,000 -$999,99 $250,000 -$499,99 $100,000-$249,99 Under $100,00 New LMS Investment 6% 5% 31% 8% 12% 11% 13% 14% Over $5 million $1 million-$5 million $500,000 -$999,999 $250,000 -$499,999 $100,000-$249,999 $50,000 -$99,999 $25,000-$49,999 Under $25,000 Table 1: Rating the Solutions Excellent Good Fair Poor Very 2010 2009 Poor Grade Grade Card Card Reliability Overall value Scalability 36% 36% 40% Support of platform 36% Cost to operate Feature set Ease of use Quality of service Flexibility Timely updates New features/ capabilities 33% 29% 32% 34% 30% 31% 28% 37% 19% 6% 2% 3.0 2.8 29% 26% 6% 4% 2.9 n/r 26% 24% 5% 4% 2.9 2.6 28% 27% 6% 4% 2.9 2.5 27% 28% 8% 4% 2.8 2.6 38% 23% 6% 3% 2.8 2.5 33% 23% 6% 5% 2.8 2.5 29% 25% 6% 6% 2.8 2.5 28% 26% 11% 5% 2.7 2.4 31% 25% 6% 7% 2.7 2.4 28% 28% 7% 8% 2.6 2.4 Note: Grading system of Excellent (5) to Very Poor (1). Percentages are for respondents selecting the given grade. Table 2: Most Important Factors in Specifying LMS/TMS Vendors 2010 Quality Price SCORM compliance Customer service Interoperability Reputation of vendor/product Open architecture compliance Award-winning product 74% 66% 59% 57% 52% 26% 22% 10% 2009 83% 71% 58% 63% 52% 37% 21% 10% Annual 25 Government Elearning!