LMS Report

W W W. E L E A R N I N G G U I L D .
C O M
August 2005
The Learning Management

System (LMS) Research
Report 2005
A N A LY S I S A N D C O M M E N TA R Y B Y J O E P U L I C H I N O
he Learning Management System (LMS) Research Report 2005 is the Guild’s sec-
T ond report on this topic. We published our first report, The LMS Research Report,
in December 2004, and based it on a survey conducted in July 2004. We based
this report on a survey conducted in June 2005.
Aside from e-Learning content itself, there is perhaps no other single component of
© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com
the e-Learning solution as important or pervasive as the LMS. In its earliest days, the
principal function of an LMS was to enable the automation of training administration,
and it had little to do with the actual delivery of e-Learning. But much has changed over
the years, and now the LMS carries not only the burden of training administration, but
is also the engine that drives blended learning through its management and delivery of
both online content and classroom-based events. 2004 - 2005 Year-Over-Year Comparison
Increasingly, LMSs connect enterprise learning with
Since we conducted two very similar surveys in a
other business processes and the systems that sup-
twelve months time frame, one of the focal areas of
port them. Trends indicate that more is on the way,
this report will be not only to comment on and analyze
including further integration with virtual classrooms,
the results of the recent 2005 survey, but to compare
synchronous e-Learning, and the type of content
these results with those of the 2004 survey. By exam-
assembly and publishing provided by the Learning
ining the differences in results between the two, we
Content Management Systems (LCMS) which will allow
hoped to find potential trends in the usage and imple-
for truly personalized learning-on-demand. We designed
mentation of the LMS within our respondents’ organiza-
this report, therefore, to provide a snapshot of the
tions, and, in general, within the e-Learning Guild com-
e-Learning Guild’s current practice in these and other
munity itself. Overall, we discovered that not much has
areas of interest to the community.
changed in the past year, yet a few interesting and sig-
RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems
Continued from page 1

Page Guide to the Report
nificant variances appeared that may indicate some important
3 Demographics new directions worth noting and following up on in future
(Qs 1 to 5) research. We present these variances and their potential implica-
tions for both LMS users and vendors in this report.
6 LMS Implementation and Usage Comparison of Higher Education versus Corporations

(Qs 6 to 11) As part of our analysis of the 2005 results, we also decided to
examine the similarities and differences in LMS usage and prac-
13 LMS Satisfaction tice between institutions of higher education, such as colleges
(Q 12) and universities, and mid-sized to large corporations, those with
more than 2,500 employees which are not e-Learning product or
14 LMS Vendors service providers. This examination yielded some interesting and
(Q 13) provocative results which may, more than anything else, demon-
strate that within the LMS market, there are two very different
classes of users whose level of adoption, experience, and satis-
16 LMS Rationale
faction are significantly different. As a result the challenges they
(Q 14)
face are also different, as are the features and functionality that
they value most in their LMS platforms. No wonder we also find
18 LMS Challenges these markets being serviced by two distinct sets of LMS ven-
(Q 15) dors. We present these findings, and our analysis and commen-
tary, in this report.
19 LMS Features The Guild thanks Research Committee members Ms. Angela
(Q 16) van Barneveld of Cognos, Ms. Celisa Steele of Isoph, Ms. Dawn
Adams of Microsoft, Mr. Eric Rosen of QMIND, Mr. Jerry Day of
20 Learner Population and Cost Day for Learning, Ms. Karen Allnut of Steelman Services, Dr.
(Qs 17 - 18) Maggie Martinez of The Training Place, Ms. Sheila Jagannathan
of the World Bank, and Dr. Silvia Folts of Distance Instruction for
their contributions to the development of the survey and the com-
20 To Learn More about this Subject
mentary and analysis contained in this report.
21 About the Guild, About the Research

Committee, About the Author
R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005
2

Demographics
We asked our respondents to identify themselves and their organizations by five attributes: their role in their organization, the size of
their organization, the type of their organization, their organization’s primary business focus, and the department they work for. This sec-
tion presents the demographic data of our survey sample.
This survey, like all other Guild surveys, was open to Guild Members and Associates as well as to occasional web-site visitors.
Respondents complete these surveys by accessing the survey link on the homepage of the Guild website. Naturally, Guild Members and
Associates are more likely than non-members to participate, because each of the more than 18,000 Members and Associates receive an
email notifying them of the survey and inviting them to participate. For this reason, we can classify this survey as a random sample
because all members have an opportunity to participate, and their participation is random. We have a 95% level of confidence that these
results have an accuracy of +/- 4.3%.
As part of our presentation in this report, we are comparing the results from this year’s LMS survey with the 2004 LMS survey, and the
aggregate demographics from several of the Guild’s 2004 surveys.
At 41% the combined group of respondents in “Management”

Q1. What is your role in the organization? (32%) and “Executive” (9%) roles comprise the largest segment of
the survey sample, which matches the frequency average of 41% for
32% Management
this group in Guild surveys taken in 2004.
28% Instructional Designer Instructional designers (28%) were the second largest segment of
10% Course Developer the survey sample. This frequency is somewhat higher than the 22%
9% Executive (“C” Level and VPs) average of Guild surveys taken in 2004. Offsetting this increase is
8% Instructor, Teacher, or Professor an equally marginal decrease in the “Course developer” and “Other”
categories. Of the 13% who selected “Other” for this survey, several
13% Other
wrote in job roles such as “Consultant,” “LMS Administrator,” or
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% some type of e-Learning role. A few indicated that their role had mul-
tiple facets.
In the 2004 LMS survey, we offered respondents different job
2004 Survey
role selections. We did not distinguish between instructional design-
What is your role in your organization? ers, course developers, and instructors, for example, and did not
4% “C” Level provide an “Other” option. We offered four types of management
15% VP or Director roles and many more management types responded to the 2004
34% Manager survey — 61% identified themselves as either “C Level,” “VP or
Supervisor
Director,” “Manager,” or “Supervisor.” It is not clear that this differ-
8%
ence in the job role attribute has any significance when comparing
39% Individual Contributor
the results from 2004 and 2005.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3

Demographics
Given the margin of error for this survey (+/- 4.3%), the results
Q2. How many employees are in your year-over-year are quite similar. Generally, the survey sample is
organization? spread fairly evenly across the six segments in the company size
19% Under 100 category. It is interesting to note that the average for the Under 100
13% 101 to 500 employees category in the eight 2004 Guild surveys in which we
asked for this attribute was 24%. Thus, in both the 2004 and the
20% 501 to 2,500
2005 LMS surveys, we recorded a decrease of 7% - 8% in this seg-
21% 2,501 to 10,000
ment. We speculate that this decrease is due to the fact that organi-
16% 10,001 to 50,000 zations with less than 100 employees are less likely to be interest-
11% 50,001 or more ed in the LMS topic and therefore did not respond to these surveys.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2004 Survey
What is the size of your organization
(number of employees)?
18% Under 100
12% 101 to 500
19% 501 to 2,500
18% 2,501 to 10,000
19% 10,001 to 50,000
14% 50,001 or more
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
For the organization attribute type, we also see a similar set of

Q3. What type of organization do you work results year-over-year. Within the margin of error, there are no signifi-
for? cant variances. For example, corporate organizations make up 65%
43% Corporation — Not a learning or e-Learning provider of the sample compared to 64% in 2004, and colleges and universi-
22% Corporation — Learning or e-Learning provider ties make up 15% compared to 14% in 2004.
15% College or University
9% Non-profit Organization
8% Government or Military
2% Individual Consultant
1% K - 12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2004 Survey
What type of organization do you work for?
45% Corporation — Not learning or e-Learning business
19% Corporation — Learning or e-Learning business
14% College or University
7% Non-profit Organization
6% Government
9% Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
4

Demographics
Q4. What is your organization’s primary 2004 Survey

business focus? Which of the following best describes your
organization’s primary business focus?
17% Commercial Training or Education Services
14% Other 54% Vertical Industries
12% Financial Services 16% Commercial Training & Education
10% Technology (Hardware or Software) 8% Government & Military
10% Government or Military 5% Non-Profit
8% Healthcare 4% Professional Business Services & Consulting
5% Manufacturing 13% Other
5% Professional Business Services or Consulting 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3% Non-profit
3% Utilities Vertical Industries
2% Retail or Wholesale
21% Financial Services
2% Telecommunications
20% Technology
2% Transportation or Airlines
16% Manufacturing
2% Pharmaceuticals or Biosciences
12% Healthcare
1% Hospitality, Travel, or Food Service
7% Telecommunications
1% Petroleum or Natural Resources
6% Retail/Wholesale
1% Aerospace
5% Transportation/Airlines
1% Publishing, Advertising, Media, or PR
3% Pharmaceuticals/Biosciences
1% Real Estate
3% Utilities
0% Arts and Entertainment
2% Hospitality/Travel/Food Service
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2% Aerospace
2% Publishing/Advertising/Media/PR
For the attribute relating to the respondents’ organizations’ 1% Petroleum & Natural Resources
business focus, we also see a similar set of results year-over-year.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Within the margin of error, there are no significant variances. For
example, commercial training and education services has a fre-
quency of 17% compared to 16% in 2004 and vertical industries,
broken out individually in 2005, have a frequency of 56% com-
pared to 54% in 2004.
Q5. What department do you work for? 2004 Survey

What department do you work for? R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005
54% Training or Education
56% Training
13% Information Technology
12% Human Resources
10% Human Resources
10% Information Technology
9% Other
5% Sales-related Programs
6% Sales or Marketing
6% Research & Development
5% Research and Development
11% Other
3% Engineering or Product Development
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% Customer Service
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other than the 2005 flip-flop of “Human Resources” (10%) into the third position behind “Information Technology” (13%), the
results for the respondents’ department are also consistent with the 2004 results.
5

LMS Implementation and Usage
In May 2002, when the Guild first surveyed its members on the topic of enterprise e-Learning, 50% of the respondents reported that
their organizations were using an LMS.
In 2004, consistent with other industry research, the Guild reported levels of adoption at 76% across the entire survey sample. That
would indicate an increase in the adoption rate of 52% from 2002 to 2004, only slightly on the higher side of estimates that the LMS
market has been growing in the 10% to 20% range over the past three years. (Note: a 20% growth increase in each of two consecutive
years after 2002 would bring the adoption rate from 50% to 72%).
This year’s survey results show only a slight variance when compared to the results of the Guild’s 2004 survey, indicating relative sta-
bility in the market over the past twelve months. Perhaps the adoption rate is slowing down, as over the twelve months since our 2004
survey we find that LMS adoption levels remain flat at 76%.
However, we should point out that 18% of respondents whose

Q6. Does your organization use an LMS? organizations are using an LMS today have been doing so for less
(Select only one) than one year (see the analysis of Question 7 on page 8). Hypothe-
54% Yes, we are satisfied with what we have tically, this could mean that some of the respondents from the
2004 survey whose organizations did not have an LMS, but were
22% Yes, we are looking for a new or additional LMS
shopping (15%), have indeed gone out and acquired one in the last
13% No, but currently in the RFP process to acquire an LMS
twelve months. Naturally, these respondents, or those in the same
11% No, we do not need one category who responded to the 2005 survey, would have selected
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% “Yes” in the 2005 survey and should have driven those numbers
up. However, it seems that an almost equal number of new respon-
dents who answered “No” in 2005 replaced them. It may very well
2004 Survey be, therefore, that while LMS adoption continues to grow and more
Does your organization use an LMS? organizations are using an LMS, we are simply looking at these
53% Yes, we are satisfied with what we have categories within a larger total population and so the relative per-
centages remain the same. Just as the Guild membership itself
23% Yes, we are looking for a new or additional LMS
has grown in the past year, so has the number of LMS users,
15% No, but currently in the RFP process to acquire one
although the “haves” and “have nots” remain in the same relative
9% No, we do not need one proportion year-over-year. We will watch these levels of adoption
closely in future surveys to see how these trends bear out.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
6

Since we have such consistent results over a twelve month period with a reasonably similar sample, we decided to drill down and ask
the questions: When it comes to LMS adoption, does the size of the organization matter? Is there a relationship between the size of the
organization and the level of LMS adoption? We ran statistical Chi-square tests on the data and found that there was indeed a relation-
ship.
In the charts, we see the 2005 results as segmented by size. Each chart offers some further indicators about LMS adoption. Note
the following trends:
• Organizations under 2,500 employees in size are six to ten times more likely not to need an LMS.
• The highest levels of adoption are among organizations of between 10,001 to 50,000 employees (89%) and 50,001 or more employ-
ees (82%), yet note the significant variation between these two segments when it comes to the difference between “Yes, and we are
satisfied” and “Yes, we are looking.” The 50,001 or more employees segment is much less satisfied with what they have (46% to
63%) and much more likely to be looking for another LMS (36% to 26%).
• Among those organizations that do not have an LMS, those with between 2,501 and 10,000 employees are most likely to be shop-
ping for their first LMS. This same group has a slightly higher level of adoption (79%) than the average, and is less likely to be shop-
ping if they already have one.
Yes, and Yes, and No, and No, and

Q6 segmented by we are we are we are we do not
size attribute (Q2) satisfied looking looking need one
Under 100 49% 17% 13% 21%

101 to 500 49% 19% 12% 20%
501 to 2,500 49% 22% 13% 16%
2,501 to 10,000 62% 17% 18% 3%
10,001 to 50,000 63% 26% 10% 1%
50,001 or more 46% 36% 13% 5%
Total Sample 54% 22% 13% 11%
We also decided to look at levels of adoption based

on the type of organization. In particular, we wanted to
Q6 segmented by Yes, and Yes, and No, and No, and see if there were differences between “higher educa-
organization type we are we are we are we do not
satisfied looking looking need one tion” (colleges and universities), and corporations with
(Q3)
2,501 employees or more which are not e-Learning ven-
Higher Education 60% 30% 6% 4% dors.
Corporations over 2,501 56% 26% 15% 3% Comparisons between these two segments and the
employees (not e-Learning total sample show that levels of adoption by “higher
vendors
education” are somewhat higher (90%) than the total
Total Sample 54% 22% 13% 11% sample (76%) or the selected corporate segment (82%).
Therefore, colleges and universities appear to be more

likely to be using an LMS than their corporate counter-
parts. Note also that respondents from both groups are
much less likely to report that their organizations do not
need an LMS than the total sample.
Throughout this report we will be making other com-
parisons between the higher education segment and the
corporate segment of organizations which employ more
than 2,501 employees and are not e-Learning product
or service providers.
7

The 2004 LMS survey was the first in which we asked respon-
Q7. How long has your organization been dents how long their organization has been using an LMS. We
using an LMS? hoped to gain some perspective on growth rates over the past five
18% Less than 1 year
years. Within the margin of error for this survey, we see that the
rate of adoption has been relatively even over this time period with
13% 1 year to 2 years
the exception of a noticeable decline in the time periods of one to
17% 2 years to 3 years two years ago and four to five years ago.
20% 3 years to 4 years However, when we segmented the sample by the higher educa-
12% 4 years to 5 years tion and the corporate group as defined above, we found that high-
20% More than 5 years er education has generally been using LMS platforms for a much
longer period of time — 44% for more than five years compared to
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
12% for the corporations. However, note than the rate of adoption
has decreased for higher education — 9% have had their LMS for
less than two years, while 33% of corporations have had
Q7. Length of Corporations their LMS for less than two years.
Service Comparison (2,501 plus We can therefore generalize that colleges and universi-
employees ties were the earlier adopters of LMS technology, and
between Higher excluding
Higher
Education and Total Education e-Learning that while more of them are using an LMS, the corpora-
Corporations Sample Only vendors tions in this size group are rapidly catching up.
Less than 1 year 18% 8% 18%
1 year to 2 years 13% 1% 15%
2 years to 3 years 17% 10% 19%
More than 5 years 20% 44% 12%
8

In this year-over-year comparison we found that most organiza-

Q8. How many different LMSs are now being tions do not have multiple LMS implementations (65% in 2005 and
used in your organization? 63% in 2004), yet about 20% do have two. Since these results
have not changed significantly over the past year, we can speculate
65% 1
that those who had an LMS in 2004, and yet were looking for
19% 2
another (23% — see Question 6), were more likely to be displacing
7% 3 rather than supplementing their current LMS.
2% 4
1% 5
1% 6
1% More
4% I do not know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2004 Survey
How many different LMSs are now being
used by your organization?
63% 1
21% 2
7% 3
4% 4
0% 5
1% 6
2% More
2% I do not know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
9

In the year-over-year comparison of the ways that organizations

Q9. How did your organization acquire its are acquiring their LMS, we found some interesting, and potentially
LMS(s)? (Select all that apply) significant, trends.
First, fewer organizations are buying and customizing their sys-
46% Bought and customized
tems (52% in 2004 versus 46% in 2005).
29% Bought and used as is
Second, slightly fewer are building their own LMS internally (28%
25% Built internally in 2004 versus 25% in 2005), however, this variance is within the
19% Hosted on an ASP basis survey’s margin of error.
5% I do not know Third, slightly more are using a hosted LMS on an ASP basis
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(16% in 2004 versus 19% in 2005), however, this variance is also
within the survey’s margin of error.
Anecdotal evidence in the industry suggests that building your
2004 Survey own LMS is waning, while using a hosted LMS, especially among
How did your organization acquire its LMS? smaller organizations, is on the rise. We will have to watch these
numbers in future surveys to see if the trends as reported by
52% Bought and customized these findings are truly significant.
27% Bought and used as is Given the variance in the levels of adoption and length of service
28% Built internally between higher education and corporations as defined above, we
decided to compare their acquisition practices as well. In this
16% Hosted on an ASP basis
instance we found that colleges and universities were more than
3% I do not know
twice as likely to build their own (25% versus 12%), half as likely to
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% have a hosted LMS (10% versus 21%), and when they bought an
LMS were much more likely to use it as is rather than customize it
(42% versus 25%).
Corporations
(2,501 plus
employees
Higher excluding
Q9. LMS Total Education e-Learning
Acquisition Sample Only vendors
Less than 1 year 46% 51% 59%

1 year to 2 years 29% 42% 25%
10

In the year-over-year comparison of LMS configuration types, we

Q10. Which of the following best describes did not find any significant variations, and so we may be witnessing
your LMS(s) configuration? (Select all that the establishment of a trend for LMS configurations. For this ques-
apply if your organization has more than one tion we asked respondents to select all choices that applied. Very
LMS) few chose more than one option, and so we have only a slightly
42% LMS only amplified 100% chart. When we combine the choice of “LMS with
some LCMS functionality” and “LMS and LCMS” for the 2005
31% LMS with some LCMS functionality
results we find that 53% of organizations have an LMS configuration
22% LMS and LCMS
that includes LCMS functionality. Only 2% have LCMS only function-
6% LMS that is part of a larger ERP System ality and just over 40% have LMS only. So, we have a fairly steady
5% I do not know 55% - 45% balance between LMS with LCMS functionality and LMS
2% LCMS only without LCMS functionality. As the increase in e-Learning content
development and deployment increases, it will be interesting to see
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
if the proportion of LMS configurations with LCMS capabilities grows
commensurately.
2004 Survey
Which of the following best describes your
LMS configuration?
44% LMS only
33% LMS with some LCMS functionality
23% LMS and LCMS
10% LMS that is part of a larger ERP System
2% LCMS only
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
11

What is perhaps most interesting about the year-over-year com-

Q11. With which of the following applica-
parison of LMS integration with various other applications and sys-
tions or systems is your LMS integrated?
tems, aside from the precipitous drop of HR (Human Resource) sys-
(Select all that apply)
tems integration (42% in 2004 versus 31% in 2005), is the general
33% Employee portal decline in most areas of integration. The presence of the “I do not
31% HR (Human Resources)
know” category in the 2005 results skew the data somewhat, but
not enough to account for this type of across-the-board decline. It
31% LCMS (Learning Content Management System)
seems unlikely that there is actually less integration going on in the
17% Customer portal respondents’ organizations, especially given the importance and
13% KM (Knowledge Management) focus on integrated systems in today’s market, but it may be that
13% Other our 2005 respondents are simply more aware and more honest
10% Performance support about the levels of integration, and there is simply less of it in prac-
9% I do not know
tice than last year’s respondents reported. Given that the order of
frequencies for each choice is more or less in line, we can assume
9% CRM (Customer Relationship Management)
that we have a reliable year-over-year comparison. We may be better
7% e-Commerce positioned in future surveys to determine where the benchmarks for
5% Financial and accounting integration actually are.
5% ERP (Enterprise Requirements Planning)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2004 Survey
Which of the following applications or
systems is your LMS integrated with?
42% HR (Human Resources)
36% LCMS (Learning Content Management System)
34% Employee portal
17% Other
16% Customer portal
15% Knowledge Management
13% Performance support
11% e-Commerce
8% Financial and Accounting
8% ERP (Enterprise Requirements Planning)
7% CRM (Customer Relationship Management)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
12

LMS Satisfaction
We did not measure levels of satisfaction in the 2004 so we

Q12. In general, how satisfied is your organi- have no point of comparison with last year. Nonetheless, it would
zation with the implementation and usage of appear that contrary to some conventional wisdom in the industry
its LMS(s)? most organizations (71%) are at least mostly satisfied with the
implementation and usage of their LMS.
15% Completely satisfied
When segmenting these results between the higher education
56% Mostly satisfied
and corporate groups, we found significant variance in the levels of
13% Mostly dissatisfied satisfaction. Colleges and universities are generally a more satisfied
2% Completely dissatisfied group (80%) than corporate users (61%). In fact, corporations are
8% Level of satisfaction varies because we have multiple LMSs more than three times more likely to be dissatisfied at some level
6% I do not know (20% versus 6%). This result may be because colleges and universi-
ties, as previously noted, have been using LMS technology longer.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
However, as reported later in this report, there are a number of
other factors that can explain this variance in satisfaction levels.
Essentially, it turns out and perhaps not surprisingly, that
Q12. Satisfaction Corporations these two LMS user groups are using different kinds of
Comparison (2,501 plus LMS applications and in most cases for quite different
between Higher employees
Higher excluding reasons.
Education and Total e-Learning
Education
Corporate Groups Sample Only vendors
Completely satisfied 15% 11% 7%

Mostly satisfied 56% 69% 54%
Mostly dissatisfied 13% 6% 18%
Completely dissatisfied 2% 0% 2%
Varies due to multiple LMSs 8% 11% 10%
I do not know 6% 3% 9%
13

LMS Vendors
In this year’s survey we again asked the respondents what LMS their organizations are using. As in the 2004 survey, we offered
respondents a long list of LMS vendors to choose from as well as an “Other” selection. We compiled the 2004 list of twenty vendors by
referring to lists contained in a variety of e-Learning research sources. Even so, 51% of respondents selected “Other” and we added ten of
these write-in choices to our 2005 list due to their frequency relative to the original twenty.
In 2004 28% of those who selected “Other” reported that their LMS had been built internally and so we included a built internally selec-
tion in the 2005 survey. As shown in the charts, this action had the effect of reducing the “Other” frequency in this year’s survey to 33%.
Still, we have a plethora of LMS vendors out there as one-third of our respondents’ organizations report that they are using an LMS provid-
ed by someone other than the 2005 “top thirty.” The results from both years indicate that we still have an industry that has only begun to
consolidate. No single vendor has more than a 10% frequency among the total population of our respondents’ organizations.
Q13. Which of the following LMS(s) is your 2004 Survey

organization using? (Select all that apply if Which of the following LMSs is your
your organization is using more than one organization using?
LMS)
51% Other
33% Other 10% SumTotal
13% Built internally 8% Blackboard
9% Blackboard 7% WebCT
9% WebCT 7% Saba
5% Moodle 5% IBM Lotus
5% Plateau 5% Plateau
5% Saba 5% Oracle iLearning
5% SumTotal Systems (Click2Learn) 5% Peoplesoft
4% Docent 4% Pathlore
3% Pathlore 4% Thinq
2% GeoLearning
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2% WBT Systems TopClass
2% Learn.com
2% DK Systems
2% SAP
1% Knowledge Planet
1% GeoMetrix
1% Intellinex
1% TEDS
1% VuePoint
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
14

LMS Vendors
Comparing the differences between higher education and corpo- When we turned to the corporate market as defined above, we
rate organizations with more than 501 employees which are not found a much different picture. In this case no fewer than 67 ven-
e-Learning product or service providers reveals a striking difference dors were listed (including most of the original 30) and no one
in vendor market share in these two segments. In higher education vendor had more than a 9% frequency. Due to this large number of
two vendors, WebCT (44%) and Blackboard (35%) actually dominate vendors and the margin of error in this sample, the frequency per-
the LMS competitive landscape. Following at a considerable dis- centages in this case are not reliable indicators of true market
tance are “built internally” (18%) and the surprising Moodle, an share. Many vendors, both well known and not so well known, had
open source course management system. When we culled through frequencies of between 1% and 3% and many of these could easi-
the full list of “Other” selections, we found that our respondents in ly have found themselves listed in the top fourteen named in the
the higher education segment are using a total of 29 vendors. chart with a only a minor shift in responses. (It is interesting to
note, however, that WebCT and Blackboard were below the 1%
Q13a. Higher Education Only threshold in this segment. So, while they dominate in higher edu-
cation, they are barely present in the corporate market.)
44% WebCT However, consolidation due to merger and acquisition has
35% Blackboard begun to happen among some of the “bigger” players in the corpo-
18% Built Internally rate market and we have accounted for that in the consolidation
15% Moodle chart (Q13c). The 2004 merger of Click2Learn (6%) and Docent
(8%) to produce SumTotal Systems first of all establishes a vendor
3% ANGEL
with a leading frequency of 14%. Then, considering SumTotal’s
3% Desire2Learn
very recent acquisition of Pathlore (5%), we find the SumTotal fre-
3% eCollege quency increasing to 19%. In the meantime, Saba (9%) has seen
3% IBM Lotus its frequency increase to 13% due to its recent acquisition of
3% Peoplesoft THINQ (3%). So, perhaps two consolidated leaders are emerging in
3% Sakai the corporate market. One note of caution, however, before we
draw that conclusion. Unlike WebCT and Blackboard whose growth
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
and customer development has been largely organic, growth by
acquisition is no guarantor that the customers acquired will stay
Q13b. Corporations (more than 501 with the new organization. A Docent customer, for example, may in
employees excluding e-Learning vendors) the end switch to a brand other than the new SumTotal. So, only
time will tell if these vendors will be truly able to consolidate what
11% Built Internally they have acquired.
9% Saba
8% Docent Q13c. Corporations (more than 501
7% Plateau employees excluding e-Learning vendors)
6% SumTotal Systems (Click2Learn)
Note: Results reflect recent industry consolidation
5% Pathlore 19% SumTotal Systems (Click2Learn, Docent, and Pathlore)

4% IBM Lotus 12% Saba/Thinq
4% Knowledge Planet 11% Built Internally R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005
4% Peoplesoft 7% Plateau
3% Thinq 4% IBM Lotus
3% GeoLearning 4% Knowledge Planet
3% OutStart Evolution 4% Peoplesoft
3% SAP 3% GeoLearning
3% TEDS 3% OutStart Evolution
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 3% SAP
3% TEDS
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
15

LMS Rationale
In 2005 we found that implementation of e-Learning again remains the primary reason for our respondents’ organizations to use a
LMS and that aligning learning and employee competencies with strategic business initiatives remains the second mostly frequently cited
rationale for using an LMS. Note the significant increase (from 33% in 2004 to 41% in 2005) in the percentage of respondents who
cited this rationale for using a LMS. This result comports with e-Learning industry trends noted in other Guild research reports that sug-
gest that more organizations are demanding linkage between training and business objectives.
Ensuring employee compliance with mandated training programs has also significantly increased in frequency (up from 27% in 2004 to
31% in 2005). Likewise complying with regulatory agency requirements jumped from 13% to 17%. It would appear that new regulations
in the financial services industry, such as Sarbanes-Oxley and anti-
Q14. Why did your organization implement money-laundering provisions, are driving the need for organizations
an LMS(s)? (Select all that apply) to certify that employees are in compliance with training mandates
in these areas. OSHA regulations in the manufacturing industry might
73% Implement e-Learning also be contributing to this increase. Accordingly some LMS plat-
41% Align learning with strategic business initiatives forms include modules that track this level of compliance, including
31% Ensure employee compliance with mandated training programs secure audit trails for review and certification by regulatory agencies.
23% Measure and report on training offerings and delivery On the other hand, managing instructor-led training (ILT) logistics
decreased significantly (down from 29% in 2004 to 13% in 2005).
19% Improve efficiency by consolidating multiple existing systems
Whether this is the result of a general decline in the amount of tradi-
17% Comply with regulatory agencies
tional classroom training is uncertain, but such a dramatic shift in
13% Manage ILT logistics such a key area is worth noting and watching in the future.
12% Measure and report on satisfaction with training Although declining only slightly year-over-year, three categories of
12% Measure and report on business results of training measuring and reporting remain relatively lower on the list despite
10% Measure and report on the true costs of training what seems to be a trend in the industry towards more measure-
ment of e-Learning. This would seem to fly in the face of the per-
8% Other
centage increase in aligning learning with business initiatives as
8% Transform customer-based training into a business
noted above. If it is not measured, how would an organization know
7% Deployed along with an ERP, CRM, and/or HR system that the desired alignment was happening?
5% I do not know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Rank 2005 Rationale categories 2004 Rationale categories

1 73% Implement e-Learning 75% Implement e-Learning
2 41% Align learning with strategic business initiatives 33% Align learning with strategic business initiatives
3 31% Ensure employee compliance with mandated training programs 31% Measure and report on training offerings and delivery
4 23% Measure and report on training offerings and delivery 29% Manage ILT logistics
5 19% Improve efficiency by consolidating multiple existing systems 27% Ensure employee compliance with mandated training programs
6 17% Comply with regulatory agencies 25% Improve efficiency by consolidating multiple existing systems
7 13% Manage ILT logistics 18% Measure and report on business results of training
8 12% Measure and report on satisfaction with training 18% Measure and report on the true costs of training
9 12% Measure and report on business results of training 16% Measure and report on satisfaction with training
10 10% Measure and report on the true costs of training 13% Comply with regulatory agencies
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
16

LMS Rationale
In an effort to explain differences noted previously in the levels of LMS adoption and satisfaction between higher education and mid-
to larger-sized corporations, we found that there were corresponding differences in the rationale for using an LMS between these two
segments of the survey sample.
Although both groups cite implementing e-Learning as the primary reason for using an LMS, there are major and quite logical differ-
ences when it comes to aligning employee learning with business initiatives. Only 19% of colleges and universities cite alignment as a
rationale as compared to 51% of corporations. The difference in the area of compliance is even more striking — only 4% of colleges and
universities are concerned with ensuring their employees’ compliance with mandated training as compared to 54% of the corporations.
For corporations, measuring and reporting on training offerings and delivery (42% versus 11%) and improving operational effective-
ness by consolidating multiple systems (31% versus 14%) are also significantly more important as reasons for using compared to higher
education.
Corporations
(2,501 plus
employees
Higher excluding
Total Education e-Learning
Q14. LMS Rationale Sample Only vendors
Implement e-Learning 73% 79% 72%

Align learning and 41% 19% 51%
employee competencies
with strategic business
initiatives
Ensure employees 35% 4% 54%
compliance with
mandated training
programs
Measure and report on 23% 11% 42%
training offerings and
delivery
Improve efficiency and 19% 14% 31%
operational effectiveness
by consolidating multiple
existing systems
17

LMS Challenges
There were no significant differences found in the area of LMS challenges between the 2004 and 2005 surveys. Customization to
meet business requirements (46%), content integration (37%), and integration with other systems (36%) remain the three biggest chal-
lenges.
When comparing the results of the higher education and corporate groups, however, we found two significant differences. First of all,
customization is much less of an issue for the colleges and universities (26%) than for the corporations (59%). Secondly, staff training
seems to be much more troubling in higher education (46%) organizations than the corporate world (19%). We may speculate that higher
education has simpler and more common, clearly defined needs. This may account for the dominance of this market by two vendors. On
the other hand, corporations have varied needs and this may be what is causing the multiplicity of vendors in that market as many focus
on a specific niche need, perhaps based on size or vertical market.
Q15. What were the biggest challenges or

issues your organization faced in implement-
ing an LMS(s)? (Select all that apply)
46% Customization to meet business requirements
37% Content integration
36% Integration with other systems (HR, ERP, CRM, etc.)
28% Staff training
25% System administration
23% System performance
21% User acceptance
21% System support and maintenance
20% Vendor promises coming true
18% Standards (SCORM or AICC)
16% IT buy-in and support
12% Vendor support
9% Other
8% I do not know
5% Vendor selection
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Corporations
(2,501 plus
employees
Higher excluding
Total Education e-Learning
Q15. LMS Challenges Sample Only vendors
Customization for 46% 26% 59%

Requirements
Content Integration 37% 38% 34%
Systems Integration 36% 49% 45%
Staff Training 28% 46% 19%
System Administration 25% 28% 24%
18

LMS Features
The frequency list of the most valuable features did not change much year-over-year, but there a few exceptions worth noting. There
was a modest increase in virtual classroom integration (from 19% and the 14th position in 2004 to 22% and the 11th position in 2005).
This reflects the growing use of synchronous e-Learning as reported in other Guild research reports. In addition, content assembly (21%)
moved ahead of content authoring (20%) and content integration (20%). Although these three content features are in a statistical dead
heat this year, in 2004 content assembly was at 15% and well behind authoring and integration. This upward movement in importance
for content assembly may indicate an increase in the value placed on an LMS platform’s ability to assemble courseware through re-use
and re-purposing content from various sources, a feature usually associated with an LCMS.
Q16. Which of the following features of your 2004 Survey

LMS(s) provide the most value to your Which of the following features of your
organization? (Select all that apply) LMS(s) provide the most value to your
61% Tracking, reporting, or measurement
organization? (Select all that apply)
58% Content delivery 62% Tracking, reporting, or measurement
45% Assessment and testing 58% Content delivery
43% Training history 50% Assessment and testing
35% Catalogue and registration 46% Training history
33% Instructor-led training management 41% Catalogue and registration
31% Content management 34% Instructor-led training management
24% Competency and skills 31% Content management
24% Management 29% Competency and skills
22% Standards (SCORM or AICC) 25% Management
22% Virtual classroom integration 25% User and group management
21% Content assembly 24% Standards (SCORM / AICC)
20% Certification 22% Certification
20% Content authoring 20% Content authoring
20% Content integration 19% Virtual classroom integration
19% User and group management 19% Content integration
15% Analytics 18% Knowledge Management
15% Collaboration 16% Collaboration
15% Human Resources systems integration 16% Human Resources systems integration
14% Mobile learning 16% Regulatory compliance
14% Knowledge Management 15% Content assembly
13% Regulatory compliance 15% Analytics
8% Security 13% Mobile learning R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005
5% I do not know 8% Security
4% ERP and/or CRM systems integration 4% ERP and/or CRM systems integration
2% Other 3% Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% I do not know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
In the case of LMS features, we found significant variation

between the higher education and corporate segments of the
population. Higher education finds content delivery (76%) and
assessment and testing (56%) far more valuable than do corpora-
tions. Corporations in turn value tracking, measuring, and report-
ing (69%), training history (63%), and catalogue and registration
(44%) far more than do higher education organizations.
19

Learner Populations and Cost
We did not find a significant difference in the year-over-year results in terms of learner populations or overall cost of ownership. As
with the 2004 results, when the 2005 results are compared with the percentages in Question 2 (What is the size of your organization?),
we find that there is no significant variance between the number of employees in an organization and the number of learners registered
in the LMS. This would indicate that few, if any, employees are left behind and that most LMSs tend to be centralized systems serving
the entire enterprise. Given that higher education primarily serves a population of learners outside of its employee base, we would
expect a difference for that segment.
The range of data presented in regard to the question of how

Q17. How many learners are registered much money your organization has invested in its LMS over the
users in your organization’s LMS/LCMS(s)? past three to five years makes it difficult to come to any conclu-
sions that are statistically significant. When the data is broken
8% Under 100
down into any of the various attributes it is not clear that one can
11% 101 to 500 reliably generalize the sample. To gain any reliable and generaliz-
19% 501 to 2,500 able data in this area we need further research, to ask a different
25% 2,501 to 10,000 set of questions, and explore other lines of inquiry.
20% 10,001 to 50,000
9% 50,001 or more
8% I do not know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Q18. How much money has your organiza-

tion invested in its LMS(s) implementation
over the past 3 - 5 years?
0% $0
16% $1 to $50,000
12% $50,001 to $100,000
13% $100,001 to $250,000
11% $250,001 to $500,000
4% $500,001 to $1,000,000
10% Over $1,000,000
34% I do not know
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
To learn more about this subject:
To learn more about this subject, we encourage you to search the following pages on the Guild’s website using the keywords “LMS”
and “LCMS.”
The Resource Directory: http://www.eLearningGuild.com/resources/resources/index.cfm?actions=viewcats
The eLearning Developers’ Journal: http://www.eLearningGuild.com/articles/abstracts/index.cfm?action=view
This survey generated responses from over 515 Members and Associates; these results are statistically significant and can be generalized to the entire Guild membership.
20

About the author The Research Committee Members

Joe Pulichino, Director of Research, Ms. Dawn Adams, Content Manager, Microsoft Global e-Learning
The eLearning Guild Services
Ms. Karen Allnutt, Instructional Designer and Software Trainer,
Joe Pulichino began his career in educa- Steelman Services LLC
tion as an English instructor at Rutgers Dr. David J. Brand, Learning Design & Technology, 3M Corporation
University over 25 years ago. Since Ms. Paula Cancro, IT Training Specialist, IFMG, Inc.
then he has held a number of senior Mr. Jerry Day, President, Day for Learning
Ms. Barbara Fillicaro, Writer, Training Media Review
management positions in the technolo-
Ms. Silke Fleischer, Product Manger, Macromedia
gy sector where he was responsible for Dr. Silvia R. Folts, President, Distance Instruction
the development, delivery, and market- Mr. Joe Ganci, CEO, Dazzle Technologies, Corp.
ing of a wide range of corporate educa- Dr. Nancy Grey, Director, Pharmaceutical Regulatory Education, Pfizer
tion programs and services. Most recently he has served as Ms. Sheila Jagannathan, e-Learning Specialist, The World Bank
Institute
vice-president of education services at Sybase, vice-president
Dr. Warren Longmire, Manager, Learning Strategy, Convergys
of eLearning at Global Knowledge Network, and CEO of Edu-
Dr. Maggie Martinez, CEO, The Training Place
Point. He is an adjunct faculty member of the Pepperdine Mr. Frank Nyguen, Senior Learning Technologist, Intel
University Graduate School of Education and Psychology Mr. Eric Rosen, Online Learning Strategist, Stanford University
where he is completing his Ed.D. in Education Technology. Dr. Patti Shank, Managing Partner, LearningPeaks, LLC
The focus of his research is on informal and organizational Dr. Richard Smith, Instructional Designer, FC Business Systems
learning. Joe is principal of the Athena Learning Group, a vir- Ms. Celisa Steele, Chief Creative Officer, Isoph
tual network of consultants and academics working in the Mr. Ernie Thor, Senior Instructional Designer, Cingular Wireless
Ms. Angela van Barneveld, Sr. Learning Design Specialist,
fields of learning, Knowledge Management, performance Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
enhancement and Communities of Practice.
About the Guild

The eLearning Guild is a global Community of Practice for designers, developers, and managers of e-Learning.
Through this member-driven community, the Guild provides high-quality learning opportunities, networking services,
resources, and publications.
Guild members represent a diverse group of instructional designers, content developers, Web developers, project managers, contractors,
consultants, managers and directors of training and learning services — all of whom share a common interest in e-Learning design, develop-
ment, and management. Members work for organizations in the corporate, government, academic, and K-12 sectors. They also are employ-
ees of e-Learning product and service providers, consultants, students, and self-employed professionals.
The more than 18,000 members of this growing, worldwide community look to the Guild for timely, relevant, and objective information about
e-Learning to increase their knowledge, improve their professional skills, and expand their personal networks.
The eLearning Developers’ Journal is the premier weekly online publication of The eLearning Guild.
The Journal showcases practical strategies and techniques for designers, developers, and managers
of e-Learning.
The eLearning Guild organizes a variety of industry events focused on participant learning:
Online Events...
Thursdays
October 5 - 7, 2005 TBD TBD
Face-to-face
Events...
November 15 - 18, 2005 April 18 - 21, 2005 Date/Location TBD

21
San Francisco Boston

LMS Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LMS Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

W W W. E L E A R N I N G G U I L D .

The Learning Management

Continued from page 1

6 LMS Implementation and Usage Comparison of Higher Education versus Corporations

21 About the Guild, About the Research

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

At 41% the combined group of respondents in “Management”

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

For the organization attribute type, we also see a similar set of

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

Q4. What is your organization’s primary 2004 Survey

12% Financial Services 16% Commercial Training & Education

10% Technology (Hardware or Software) 8% Government & Military

10% Government or Military 5% Non-Profit

8% Healthcare 4% Professional Business Services & Consulting

5% Manufacturing 13% Other

Q5. What department do you work for? 2004 Survey

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

LMS Implementation and Usage

However, we should point out that 18% of respondents whose

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

LMS Implementation and Usage

Yes, and Yes, and No, and No, and

Under 100 49% 17% 13% 21%

We also decided to look at levels of adoption based

Therefore, colleges and universities appear to be more

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

LMS Implementation and Usage

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

LMS Implementation and Usage

In this year-over-year comparison we found that most organiza-

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

LMS Implementation and Usage

In the year-over-year comparison of the ways that organizations

Less than 1 year 46% 51% 59%

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

LMS Implementation and Usage

In the year-over-year comparison of LMS configuration types, we

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

LMS Implementation and Usage

What is perhaps most interesting about the year-over-year com-

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

We did not measure levels of satisfaction in the 2004 so we

Completely satisfied 15% 11% 7%

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

Q13. Which of the following LMS(s) is your 2004 Survey

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

5% Pathlore 19% SumTotal Systems (Click2Learn, Docent, and Pathlore)

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

Rank 2005 Rationale categories 2004 Rationale categories

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

Implement e-Learning 73% 79% 72%

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

Q15. What were the biggest challenges or

Q15. LMS Challenges Sample Only vendors

Customization for 46% 26% 59%

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

Q16. Which of the following features of your 2004 Survey

In the case of LMS features, we found significant variation

© 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. http://www.eLearningGuild.com

Learner Populations and Cost

The range of data presented in regard to the question of how

Q18. How much money has your organiza-