Note: Although small companies have the smallest annual budgets, there are so many of them (101,258) that they account for one-third of the total budget for training expenditures.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\tAverage training expenditures for large companies increased from $17.7 million in 2019 to $22 million in 2020. The number for midsize companies dipped nearly $900,000 to $808,355 in 2020. Small companies increased from $367,490 to $506,819.<\/p>\n
\n\tSome 22 percent of organizations said they increased staff from the year before, while 55 percent said the level remained the same. Some 23 percent said it was lower, up from 14 percent in 2019. Large manufacturers and midsize services organizations had the largest personnel costs. This year, midsize companies spent only one-fifth as much as large companies, while small companies spent about one-quarter as much as midsize ones. The average payroll figure for large companies was $4.9 million; for midsize organizations, it was $987,713; for small companies, it was $246,125.<\/p>\n
\n\tFor those who reported an increase in their training staff, the average increase was 10 people, double the 2019 figure. For those who reported a decrease in their staff, the average decrease was 11 people—down from 16 last year.<\/p>\n
\n\tOther training expenditures increased this year to $29.4 billion from $23.8 billion in 2019. Such expenditures can include travel, training facilities, in-house training development, and equipment. On average, organizations spent 16 percent of their budget or $708,255 (up from $445,434 last year) on learning tools and technologies. Large retailers\/wholesalers had the largest budgets for learning tools ($5 million). Midsize manufacturers had the largest tool budget in their size range ($1.1 million). Midsize retailers spent the smallest percentage of their training budgets on tools and technologies (1 percent).<\/p>\n
\n\tLooking ahead, the most frequently anticipated purchases are learning management systems and online learning tools and systems (41 and 40 percent, respectively, vs. 31 percent and 44 percent, respectively last year); authoring tools\/systems at 37 percent vs. 34 percent last year; and content development (34 percent in 2019 and 2020). This is followed by audio and Web conferencing products and systems (31 percent in vs. 21 percent in 2019); classroom tools and systems (26 percent vs. 25 percent last year); and mobile learning, certification, and courseware design (all at 23 percent vs. 23, 26, and 18 percent, respectively, in 2019). Several items received 10 percent or less of hits, including audience response systems, customer relationship management, training management administration, translation and localization, and Web 2.0.<\/p>\n
\n\tOverall, on average, companies spent $1,111 per learner this year compared with $1,286 per learner in 2019. Education organizations spent the most per learner this year ($1,875), followed by services organizations ($1,295). Midsize companies spent less ($581) than large ($924) and small ($1,678) companies.<\/p>\n
\n\tWhile spending less per learner, companies provided more hours of training than last year. On average, employees received 55.4 hours of training per year, compared to 42.1 hours last year. Large companies provided the most hours of training this year (102.6). Large retailers\/wholesalers had the highest average number of hours overall (220).<\/p>\n
\n\tCompanies continued to devote the bulk of their training expenditures to training non-exempt employees (45 percent in 2020 vs. 39 percent in 2019).<\/p>\n
\n\tTRAINING BUDGET<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\tThis year, likely resulting from the pandemic, the number of companies reporting their budgets decreased more than doubled to 28 percent. Some 23 percent of respondents said their training budget increased, while 49 percent said it remained the same. Last year, 42 percent said their budget went up; 46 percent said it remained the same; and 12 percent said it went down. Services companies and associations showed a greater tendency for gains; retailers\/wholesalers saw more decreases. Increases were not evenly distributed across organization sizes. Large companies showed the greatest number of decreased budgets (42 percent vs. 15 percent for midsize companies and 31 percent for small ones).<\/p>\n
\n\tMost of the budget increases were modest—less than 16 percent. Some 36 percent saw increases in the 1 to 5 percent range, while 29 percent of organizations reported increases in the 6 to 15 percent range and 24 percent in the 25-plus percent range. Most respondents who reported an increase in their training budgets attributed it to the following reasons:<\/p>\n
\n- \n\t\tIncreased scope of training programs (64 percent vs. 67 percent last year)<\/li>\n
- \n\t\tAdded training staff (47 percent vs. 53 percent last year)<\/li>\n
- \n\t\tPurchased new technologies\/ equipment (47 percent vs. 46 percent last year)<\/li>\n
- \n\t\tIncreased number of learners served (42 percent vs. 43 percent last year)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n\tThis year, half of the respondents reported budget decreases of more than 16 percent. Some 36 percent reported budget decreases between 6 and 15 percent and 14 percent cited 1 to 5 percent decreases. Some 67 percent cited budget cuts due to COVID-19 for the decrease. Some 24 percent noted reduced training staff for the decrease (vs. 33 percent last year). And 22 percent (vs. none last year) chose budget adjusted to reflect lower costs. This was followed by:<\/p>\n
\n- \n\t\tAttended fewer outside learning events (at 16 percent vs. 15 percent last year)<\/li>\n
- \n\t\tOther reasons such as learning management system implementation, merger\/acquisition, and bankruptcy (13 percent vs. 30 percent in 2019.<\/li>\n
- \n\t\tDecreased number of learners served, decreased scope of training, and decreased outside trainer\/consultant investment (all at 11 percent vs. 11, 15, and 7 percent, respectively, last year)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n\tLike the last eight years, the highest percentage of organizations (17 percent) said management\/supervisory training will receive more funding than the year before, but all the other categories followed closely behind, including: customer service training and onboarding (15 percent); and executive development, IT\/systems training, mandatory or compliance training, and profession\/ industry-specific training (13 percent). On average, organizations plan to allocate the most funding to customer service training at $1.4 million; profession\/industry-specific training at $890,335; IT\/systems training at $743,083; and mandatory compliance training at $675,985.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe highest priorities for training in terms of allocating resources in 2020 are: increasing the effectiveness of training programs (30 percent vs. 37 percent last year), reducing costs\/improving efficiency (19 percent vs. 14 percent in 2019), increasing learner usage of training programs (17 percent this year vs. 12 percent last year), and measuring the impact of training programs (12 percent vs. 18 percent last year). Learning infrastructure and obtaining revenue through external training remain low priorities at 5 and 2 percent, respectively.<\/p>\n
\n\tTRAINING DELIVERY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\tThis year’s survey included three new questions to help understand the effects of COVID-19 on training delivery. In terms of how much organizational training has been put on hold during the pandemic, the breakdown of responses was fairly equal for each set of percentages. The highest percentage of responses (20 percent) was at 26 to 50 percent of training being put on hold, followed closely by 11 to 25 percent of training (19 percent) and 1 to 10 percent of training (18 percent). Some 16 percent of respondents indicated more than 75 percent of training was put on hold, while another 14 percent said none was.<\/p>\n
\n\tIn terms of the biggest training challenges during the pandemic, the top choice was technology\/ramping up remote training at 28 percent, followed by getting people engaged in remote training (19 percent) and converting content to digital format (18 percent). Organizations did not seem as concerned about assessments\/evaluation (4 percent) or data security (3 percent).<\/p>\n
\n\tSome 15 percent of respondents chose “Other,” with answers such as:<\/p>\n
\n- \n\t\tAgile development<\/li>\n
- \n\t\tCompeting priorities—training does not float to the top when we are talking life and death; our priority is keeping people safe.<\/li>\n
- \n\t\tExecutive support and engagement<\/li>\n
- \n\t\tFacility space to accommodate social distancing mandates<\/li>\n
- \n\t\tHealth and safety issues<\/li>\n
- \n\t\tInability to have physical contact<\/li>\n
- \n\t\t Launching new initiatives<\/li>\n
- \n\t\tReduced hours and workforce<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n\tLooking ahead at organizations’ plans regarding training delivery post-pandemic, the majority (54 percent) indicated they plan to return to some classroom training while maintaining some of the remote learning instituted during the crisis. Some 12 percent said they plan to return to classroom training as usual, while 11 percent said they would maintain the remote learning instituted during the pandemic and create new classroom training. Another 14 percent indicated they would stay the current course and maintain the remote learning instituted during the pandemic.<\/p>\n
\n\tFor the 9 percent who chose “Other,” answers included:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/trainingmag.com\/sites\/default\/files\/styles\/large\/public\/field\/image\/TRN-2020-industry-report.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n