You are on page 1of 21

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

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

This survey. Teacher. like all other Guild surveys. because each of the more than 18. Naturally.” or 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% some type of e-Learning role.4. http://www. we can classify this survey as a random sample because all members have an opportunity to participate. This sec- tion presents the demographic data of our survey sample.” “Manager.” 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. and did not 4% “C” Level provide an “Other” option. A few indicated that their role had mul- tiple facets.3%. which matches the frequency average of 41% for 32% Management this group in Guild surveys taken in 2004. and their participation is random. their organization’s primary business focus. All rights reserved. we offered respondents different job 2004 Survey role selections. We did not distinguish between instructional design- What is your role in your organization? ers. Guild Members and Associates are more likely than non-members to participate. As part of our presentation in this report. At 41% the combined group of respondents in “Management” Q1. was open to Guild Members and Associates as well as to occasional web-site visitors. several 13% Other wrote in job roles such as “Consultant. we are comparing the results from this year’s LMS survey with the 2004 LMS survey. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 3 © 2005 The eLearning Guild.” “LMS Administrator. 28% Instructional Designer Instructional designers (28%) were the second largest segment of 10% Course Developer the survey sample. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems Demographics We asked our respondents to identify themselves and their organizations by five attributes: their role in their organization.com . We have a 95% level of confidence that these results have an accuracy of +/. for example. Offsetting this increase is 8% Instructor. 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. or Professor an equally marginal decrease in the “Course developer” and “Other” categories.000 Members and Associates receive an email notifying them of the survey and inviting them to participate. For this reason. This frequency is somewhat higher than the 22% 9% Executive (“C” Level and VPs) average of Guild surveys taken in 2004. course developers. the size of their organization. What is your role in the organization? (32%) and “Executive” (9%) roles comprise the largest segment of the survey sample. and instructors.eLearningGuild.” or “Supervisor. Respondents complete these surveys by accessing the survey link on the homepage of the Guild website. and the department they work for.” “VP or Supervisor Director. the type of their organization. and the aggregate demographics from several of the Guild’s 2004 surveys. Of the 13% who selected “Other” for this survey. In the 2004 LMS survey.

000 19% 10. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems Demographics Given the margin of error for this survey (+/. the survey sample is organization? spread fairly evenly across the six segments in the company size 19% Under 100 category. 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 2005 LMS surveys.500 18% 2. How many employees are in your year-over-year are quite similar. http://www. What type of organization do you work results year-over-year.4. Thus.001 to 50. Generally.12 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 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 © 2005 The eLearning Guild.001 or more 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% For the organization attribute type. Within the margin of error.000 14% 50. For example. 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%.000 zations with less than 100 employees are less likely to be interest- 11% 50. we also see a similar set of Q3.com . we recorded a decrease of 7% . in both the 2004 and the 20% 501 to 2.501 to 10. We speculate that this decrease is due to the fact that organi- 16% 10.3%).001 to 50.eLearningGuild. corporate organizations make up 65% 43% Corporation — Not a learning or e-Learning provider of the sample compared to 64% in 2004. All rights reserved. and colleges and universi- 22% Corporation — Learning or e-Learning provider ties make up 15% compared to 14% in 2004. the results Q2. there are no signifi- for? cant variances.501 to 10.001 or more ed in the LMS topic and therefore did not respond to these surveys.8% in this seg- 21% 2.000 ment. 15% College or University 9% Non-profit Organization 8% Government or Military 2% Individual Consultant 1% K .

eLearningGuild. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Within the margin of error. Q5. http://www. the results for the respondents’ department are also consistent with the 2004 results. we also see a similar set of results year-over-year. For example. 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. 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%). there are no significant variances. 5 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. 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. broken out individually in 2005. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems Demographics Q4. or Food Service 7% Telecommunications 1% Petroleum or Natural Resources 6% Retail/Wholesale 1% Aerospace 5% Transportation/Airlines 1% Publishing.com . commercial training and education services has a fre- quency of 17% compared to 16% in 2004 and vertical industries. Media. have a frequency of 56% com- pared to 54% in 2004. Travel. Advertising.

com . we do not need one proportion year-over-year. we should point out that 18% of respondents whose Q6. (Note: a 20% growth increase in each of two consecutive years after 2002 would bring the adoption rate from 50% to 72%). we are satisfied with what we have categories within a larger total population and so the relative per- centages remain the same. we are looking for a new or additional LMS has grown in the past year. However. we are simply looking at these 53% Yes. when the Guild first surveyed its members on the topic of enterprise e-Learning. the Guild reported levels of adoption at 76% across the entire survey sample. indicating relative sta- bility in the market over the past twelve months. but currently in the RFP process to acquire an LMS twelve months. it seems that an almost equal number of new respon- dents who answered “No” in 2005 replaced them. All rights reserved. Perhaps the adoption rate is slowing down. In 2004. http://www. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems LMS Implementation and Usage In May 2002. so has the number of LMS users. We will watch these levels of adoption closely in future surveys to see how these trends bear out. this could mean that some of the respondents from the 2004 survey whose organizations did not have an LMS. these respondents. It may very well 2004 Survey be. 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. we do not need one category who responded to the 2005 survey. Just as the Guild membership itself 23% Yes. That would indicate an increase in the adoption rate of 52% from 2002 to 2004. 50% of the respondents reported that their organizations were using an LMS. Naturally. However. therefore. but were 22% Yes. have indeed gone out and acquired one in the last 13% No. that while LMS adoption continues to grow and more Does your organization use an LMS? organizations are using an LMS. 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). as over the twelve months since our 2004 survey we find that LMS adoption levels remain flat at 76%. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 6 © 2005 The eLearning Guild.eLearningGuild. 15% No. consistent with other industry research. we are satisfied with what we have tically. or those in the same 11% No. we are looking for a new or additional LMS shopping (15%). 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. This year’s survey results show only a slight variance when compared to the results of the Guild’s 2004 survey. but currently in the RFP process to acquire one although the “haves” and “have nots” remain in the same relative 9% No. Hypothe- 54% Yes.

501 and 10.001 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%). 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. and No. and No. • The highest levels of adoption are among organizations of between 10.001 to 50.000 employees are most likely to be shop- ping for their first LMS. In the charts. and is less likely to be shop- ping if they already have one. we see the 2005 results as segmented by size.” The 50.001 or more employ- ees (82%). colleges and universities appear to be more likely to be using an LMS than their corporate counter- parts. we decided to drill down and ask the questions: When it comes to LMS adoption. 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. and No.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. yet note the significant variation between these two segments when it comes to the difference between “Yes. • Among those organizations that do not have an LMS.com . and Yes. 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. Note the following trends: • Organizations under 2.501 employees or more which are not e-Learning ven- Higher Education 60% 30% 6% 4% dors. and Yes.000 employees (89%) and 50. we wanted to Q6 segmented by Yes. Corporations over 2. 7 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. and corporations with (Q3) 2. In particular. those with between 2.001 to 50. Each chart offers some further indicators about LMS adoption. Yes. 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). RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems LMS Implementation and Usage Since we have such consistent results over a twelve month period with a reasonably similar sample. R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 Therefore.eLearningGuild. All rights reserved. we are looking.500 49% 22% 13% 16% 2.000 63% 26% 10% 1% 50. http://www.000 62% 17% 18% 3% 10.501 to 10. 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. and No.501 employees and are not e-Learning product or service providers.500 employees in size are six to ten times more likely not to need an LMS. This same group has a slightly higher level of adoption (79%) than the average. and we are satisfied” and “Yes.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%).

http://www.eLearningGuild. 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. 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. We using an LMS? hoped to gain some perspective on growth rates over the past five 18% Less than 1 year years. However.com .501 plus We can therefore generalize that colleges and universi- employees ties were the earlier adopters of LMS technology. Service Comparison (2. while 33% of corporations have had Q7. How long has your organization been dents how long their organization has been using an LMS. when we segmented the sample by the higher educa- 12% 4 years to 5 years tion and the corporate group as defined above. Less than 1 year 18% 8% 18% 1 year to 2 years 13% 1% 15% 2 years to 3 years 17% 10% 19% 3 years to 4 years 20% 22% 26% 4 years to 5 years 12% 15% 10% More than 5 years 20% 44% 12% R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 8 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. 20% 3 years to 4 years However. note than the rate of adoption has decreased for higher education — 9% have had their LMS for less than two years. the corpora- Corporations Sample Only vendors tions in this size group are rapidly catching up. Length of Corporations their LMS for less than two years. All rights reserved. and between Higher excluding Higher Education and Total Education e-Learning that while more of them are using an LMS. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems LMS Implementation and Usage The 2004 LMS survey was the first in which we asked respon- Q7. Within the margin of error for this survey.

RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems LMS Implementation and Usage In this year-over-year comparison we found that most organiza- Q8.eLearningGuild. and yet were looking for 19% 2 another (23% — see Question 6). http://www. we can speculate 65% 1 that those who had an LMS in 2004. yet about 20% do have two.com . All rights reserved. were more likely to be displacing 7% 3 rather than supplementing their current LMS. 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). 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% R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 9 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. Since these results have not changed significantly over the past year.

com . however. we decided to compare their acquisition practices as well. 5% I do not know Third. we found some interesting. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems LMS Implementation and Usage In the year-over-year comparison of the ways that organizations Q9. 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). is on the rise. fewer organizations are buying and customizing their sys- 46% Bought and customized tems (52% in 2004 versus 46% in 2005). and when they bought an LMS were much more likely to use it as is rather than customize it (42% versus 25%).501 plus employees Higher excluding Q9. especially among How did your organization acquire its LMS? smaller organizations. 29% Bought and used as is Second. while using a hosted LMS. Anecdotal evidence in the industry suggests that building your 2004 Survey own LMS is waning. Corporations (2. 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%). this variance is also within the survey’s margin of error. 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. however. this variance is within the 19% Hosted on an ASP basis survey’s margin of error. All rights reserved. and potentially LMS(s)? (Select all that apply) significant. http://www. half as likely to 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% have a hosted LMS (10% versus 21%). trends.eLearningGuild. First. slightly fewer are building their own LMS internally (28% 25% Built internally in 2004 versus 25% in 2005). 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. How did your organization acquire its are acquiring their LMS. LMS Total Education e-Learning Acquisition Sample Only vendors Less than 1 year 46% 51% 59% 1 year to 2 years 29% 42% 25% 2 years to 3 years 25% 25% 12% 3 years to 4 years 19% 10% 21% 4 years to 5 years 5% 4% 4% R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 10 © 2005 The eLearning Guild.

As the increase in e-Learning content development and deployment increases.com . 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.45% balance between LMS with LCMS functionality and LMS 2% LCMS only without LCMS functionality. So. http://www. Very LMS) few chose more than one option. 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% R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 11 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. All rights reserved. and so we have only a slightly 42% LMS only amplified 100% chart.eLearningGuild. we have a fairly steady 5% I do not know 55% . we Q10. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems LMS Implementation and Usage In the year-over-year comparison of LMS configuration types. 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. 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. Only 2% have LCMS only function- 6% LMS that is part of a larger ERP System ality and just over 40% have LMS only. For this ques- apply if your organization has more than one tion we asked respondents to select all choices that applied.

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. Given that the order of frequencies for each choice is more or less in line. and there is simply less of it in prac- 9% I do not know tice than last year’s respondents reported. With which of the following applica- parison of LMS integration with various other applications and sys- tions or systems is your LMS integrated? tems. All rights reserved. aside from the precipitous drop of HR (Human Resource) sys- (Select all that apply) tems integration (42% in 2004 versus 31% in 2005). especially given the importance and 13% KM (Knowledge Management) focus on integrated systems in today’s market. 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% R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 12 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. http://www.com . 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. but not enough to account for this type of across-the-board decline.eLearningGuild. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems LMS Implementation and Usage What is perhaps most interesting about the year-over-year com- Q11. we can assume 9% CRM (Customer Relationship Management) that we have a reliable year-over-year comparison. It 31% LCMS (Learning Content Management System) seems unlikely that there is actually less integration going on in the 17% Customer portal respondents’ organizations. We may be better 7% e-Commerce positioned in future surveys to determine where the benchmarks for 5% Financial and accounting integration actually are.

In general. as previously noted. In fact. 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% R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 13 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. how satisfied is your organi. Satisfaction Corporations these two LMS user groups are using different kinds of Comparison (2. This result may be because colleges and universi- ties. 15% Completely satisfied When segmenting these results between the higher education 56% Mostly satisfied and corporate groups. Nonetheless. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems LMS Satisfaction We did not measure levels of satisfaction in the 2004 so we Q12. Colleges and universities are generally a more satisfied 2% Completely dissatisfied group (80%) than corporate users (61%). http://www. All rights reserved. there are a number of other factors that can explain this variance in satisfaction levels.com . it turns out and perhaps not surprisingly. Essentially. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% However. have no point of comparison with last year.501 plus LMS applications and in most cases for quite different between Higher employees Higher excluding reasons. we found significant variance in the levels of 13% Mostly dissatisfied satisfaction. that Q12. 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. 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%). have been using LMS technology longer. as reported later in this report.eLearningGuild.

this action had the effect of reducing the “Other” frequency in this year’s survey to 33%. 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.eLearningGuild. 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. http://www. No single vendor has more than a 10% frequency among the total population of our respondents’ organizations. Still. As shown in the charts. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems LMS Vendors In this year’s survey we again asked the respondents what LMS their organizations are using. We compiled the 2004 list of twenty vendors by referring to lists contained in a variety of e-Learning research sources. All rights reserved. we offered respondents a long list of LMS vendors to choose from as well as an “Other” selection.” The results from both years indicate that we still have an industry that has only begun to consolidate. 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 R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 14 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. Q13. As in the 2004 survey.com . Even so.

for example. 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 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. before we draw that conclusion. Saba (9%) has seen 3% IBM Lotus its frequency increase to 13% due to its recent acquisition of 3% Peoplesoft THINQ (3%). had open source course management system. they are barely present in the corporate market. that WebCT and Blackboard were below the 1% Q13a.eLearningGuild. however. only time will tell if these vendors will be truly able to consolidate what 11% Built Internally they have acquired. Corporations (more than 501 with the new organization. chart with a only a minor shift in responses. So. we rate organizations with more than 501 employees which are not found a much different picture. When we turned to the corporate market as defined above. Due to this large number of two vendors. Docent. while they dominate in higher edu- cation. 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. perhaps two consolidated leaders are emerging in 3% Sakai the corporate market. 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). Higher Education Only threshold in this segment. So. 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. 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%. (It is interesting to note. One note of caution. 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. 9% Saba 8% Docent Q13c.com . both well known and not so well known. Then. growth by acquisition is no guarantor that the customers acquired will stay Q13b. may in employees excluding e-Learning vendors) the end switch to a brand other than the new SumTotal. Unlike WebCT and Blackboard whose growth 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% and customer development has been largely organic. A Docent customer. So. Many vendors. http://www. however. an share. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems LMS Vendors Comparing the differences between higher education and corpo. All rights reserved. In the meantime. In higher education vendor had more than a 9% frequency. the frequency per- the LMS competitive landscape.) 44% WebCT However. When we culled through frequencies of between 1% and 3% and many of these could easi- the full list of “Other” selections. we find the SumTotal fre- 3% eCollege quency increasing to 19%. centages in this case are not reliable indicators of true market tance are “built internally” (18%) and the surprising Moodle. considering SumTotal’s 3% Desire2Learn very recent acquisition of Pathlore (5%). Following at a considerable dis. WebCT (44%) and Blackboard (35%) actually dominate vendors and the margin of error in this sample.

CRM. 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. 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. 12% Measure and report on satisfaction with training Although declining only slightly year-over-year. If it is not measured.eLearningGuild. Likewise complying with regulatory agency requirements jumped from 13% to 17%. including 31% Ensure employee compliance with mandated training programs secure audit trails for review and certification by regulatory agencies. http://www. but such a dramatic shift in 13% Manage ILT logistics such a key area is worth noting and watching in the future. Why did your organization implement money-laundering provisions. how would an organization know 7% Deployed along with an ERP. 23% Measure and report on training offerings and delivery On the other hand. All rights reserved. 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. Ensuring employee compliance with mandated training programs has also significantly increased in frequency (up from 27% in 2004 to 31% in 2005). It would appear that new regulations in the financial services industry. managing instructor-led training (ILT) logistics decreased significantly (down from 29% in 2004 to 13% in 2005). 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. 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 R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 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 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. such as Sarbanes-Oxley and anti- Q14. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems 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. 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.com .

we found that there were corresponding differences in the rationale for using an LMS between these two segments of the survey sample. http://www.eLearningGuild. 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 R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 17 © 2005 The eLearning Guild.501 plus employees Higher excluding Total Education e-Learning Q14. 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. Although both groups cite implementing e-Learning as the primary reason for using an LMS. Only 19% of colleges and universities cite alignment as a rationale as compared to 51% of corporations. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems 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. All rights reserved. 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.com . there are major and quite logical differ- ences when it comes to aligning employee learning with business initiatives. For corporations. Corporations (2.

All rights reserved. We may speculate that higher education has simpler and more common. CRM. 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. 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.com . we found two significant differences.501 plus employees Higher excluding Total Education e-Learning R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 Q15. content integration (37%). however. Secondly. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems LMS Challenges There were no significant differences found in the area of LMS challenges between the 2004 and 2005 surveys. http://www. This may account for the dominance of this market by two vendors. Q15. clearly defined needs. On the other hand. staff training seems to be much more troubling in higher education (46%) organizations than the corporate world (19%). etc. 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 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. When comparing the results of the higher education and corporate groups.) 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. perhaps based on size or vertical market.eLearningGuild. ERP. Customization to meet business requirements (46%). customization is much less of an issue for the colleges and universities (26%) than for the corporations (59%). First of all. and integration with other systems (36%) remain the three biggest chal- lenges.

Q16. Corporations in turn value tracking. training history (63%). All rights reserved. This reflects the growing use of synchronous e-Learning as reported in other Guild research reports.eLearningGuild. 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). 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. or measurement organization? (Select all that apply) 58% Content delivery 62% Tracking. reporting. 19 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. 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. In addition. a feature usually associated with an LCMS. in 2004 content assembly was at 15% and well behind authoring and integration. content assembly (21%) moved ahead of content authoring (20%) and content integration (20%). we found significant variation between the higher education and corporate segments of the population. but there a few exceptions worth noting. reporting. and catalogue and registration (44%) far more than do higher education organizations. Higher education finds content delivery (76%) and assessment and testing (56%) far more valuable than do corpora- tions. measuring. http://www. 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. and report- ing (69%).com . Although these three content features are in a statistical dead heat this year. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems LMS Features The frequency list of the most valuable features did not change much year-over-year.

RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems 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. 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.000 10% Over $1.000 9% 50.eLearningGuild. if any.com/resources/resources/index.001 or more 8% I do not know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Q18. when the 2005 results are compared with the percentages in Question 2 (What is the size of your organization?).000. and explore other lines of inquiry.000. employees are left behind and that most LMSs tend to be centralized systems serving the entire enterprise. 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.cfm?actions=viewcats The eLearning Developers’ Journal: http://www.cfm?action=view This survey generated responses from over 515 Members and Associates.001 to $100.000 set of questions.” The Resource Directory: http://www. 20 © 2005 The eLearning Guild. 20% 10. these results are statistically significant and can be generalized to the entire Guild membership.001 to $250. This would indicate that few.001 to 50.000 34% I do not know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 To learn more about this subject: To learn more about this subject. http://www. we encourage you to search the following pages on the Guild’s website using the keywords “LMS” and “LCMS.000 13% $100. All rights reserved.com/articles/abstracts/index. How much money has your organiza- tion invested in its LMS(s) implementation over the past 3 . Given that higher education primarily serves a population of learners outside of its employee base.501 to 10.com .eLearningGuild.5 years? 0% $0 16% $1 to $50.eLearningGuild.001 to $1. As with the 2004 results. to ask a different 25% 2.000 12% $50.500 able data in this area we need further research. we would expect a difference for that segment.001 to $500. The range of data presented in regard to the question of how Q17.000 11% $250. 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.000 4% $500.

ing of a wide range of corporate educa. worldwide community look to the Guild for timely. Folts. Macromedia gy sector where he was responsible for Dr. Brand. Content Manager. developers. IT Training Specialist. government. Microsoft Global e-Learning The eLearning Guild Services Ms. Instructional Designer. Dawn Adams. Senior Learning Technologist. FC Business Systems learning. improve their professional skills.000 members of this growing.21. CEO. Patti Shank. Frank Nyguen. students. They also are employ- ees of e-Learning product and service providers. http://www. Dr. in Education Technology. Joe Ganci. Manager.18. Writer. Richard Smith. Director of Research. Inc. networking services. Silvia R. President. developers. Knowledge Management. and managers of e-Learning.. Sr. Product Manger. 2005 TBD TBD Face-to-face Events. a vir. Intel University Graduate School of Education and Psychology Mr. Senior Instructional Designer. Director. Celisa Steele. academic. delivery. contractors. The eLearning Guild organizes a variety of industry events focused on participant learning: Online Events. Steelman Services LLC tion as an English instructor at Rutgers Dr. Mr. Online Learning Strategist. Ms. RESEARCH REPORT / Learning Management Systems About the author The Research Committee Members Joe Pulichino. relevant.eLearningGuild. President. consultants. project managers. develop- ment. The World Bank Institute vice-president of education services at Sybase. Ms.7. 2005 April 18 . Most recently he has served as Ms. the Guild provides high-quality learning opportunities. Members work for organizations in the corporate. Distance Instruction the development. 3M Corporation University over 25 years ago. Joe Pulichino began his career in educa. then he has held a number of senior Mr.. The eLearning Developers’ Journal is the premier weekly online publication of The eLearning Guild. Maggie Martinez. Dazzle Technologies. IFMG. The Training Place Point. Pfizer tion programs and services. Thursdays October 5 . and CEO of Edu- Dr. Angela van Barneveld. e-Learning Specialist. Chief Creative Officer.com . vice-president Dr. resources. Learning Design & Technology. Pharmaceutical Regulatory Education. performance Canada Customs and Revenue Agency enhancement and Communities of Practice. Guild members represent a diverse group of instructional designers. Nancy Grey. CEO. Barbara Fillicaro. Ernie Thor. Learning Strategy. Cingular Wireless Ms. Corp. Through this member-driven community. LearningPeaks. Joe is principal of the Athena Learning Group. Instructional Designer and Software Trainer. About the Guild The eLearning Guild is a global Community of Practice for designers. content developers.. and management. He is an adjunct faculty member of the Pepperdine Mr. Silke Fleischer. consultants. Karen Allnutt. Jerry Day. All rights reserved. David J. and publications. Managing Partner. Stanford University where he is completing his Ed.D. 2005 Date/Location TBD 21 San Francisco Boston © 2005 The eLearning Guild. Convergys of eLearning at Global Knowledge Network. Since Ms. Eric Rosen. LLC The focus of his research is on informal and organizational Dr. Day for Learning Ms. Web developers. Paula Cancro.. Dr. and expand their personal networks. Sheila Jagannathan. and K-12 sectors. Training Media Review management positions in the technolo- Ms. and market. The Journal showcases practical strategies and techniques for designers. Learning Design Specialist. November 15 . managers and directors of training and learning services — all of whom share a common interest in e-Learning design. The more than 18. and self-employed professionals. fields of learning. Isoph tual network of consultants and academics working in the Mr. and managers R E S E A R C H R E P O R T / August 2005 of e-Learning. and objective information about e-Learning to increase their knowledge. Warren Longmire.