Corporate e-learning: Justification for implementation and evaluation of benefits. A study examining the views of training managers and training providers

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Newton, Robert^{a; *} | Doonga, Nitin^b

Affiliations: [a] Associate Dean (Research), Aberdeen Business School, Garthdee Rd., Aberdeen, AB10 7QE. Tel.: 01224 263907 (direct); Fax: 01224 263550 (via Secretary); E-mail: [email protected] | [b] Research Project Assistant, Aberdeen Business School, Garthdee Rd, Aberdeen, AB10 7QE. Tel.: 01224 263941; Fax: 07865213675 (mobile); E-mail: [email protected]

Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author.

Abstract: This study examines the experience and perceptions of training managers and training suppliers with respect to provision of e-training to corporate clients – a rapidly growing area of commercial activity. In particular the study explores the justification for implementing e-training and the consequent benefits which are anticipated by training managers. The literature review broadly examines how the business case for using e-training is supported and is subdivided into 3 sections which respectively examine the technological basis for e-training, the rationale provided to support e-training, and the manner in which anticipated benefits of training are measured. Two questionnaire surveys were used to gather opinions of both users and providers of e-training services and these were supplemented by interviews with both training managers and training providers. The results demonstrate that the market for e-training services is growing rapidly but that the business case to justify its implementation is often not clearly articulated. In addition the results of the questionnaire survey and interviews demonstrate a significant difference between training managers and training providers with respect to the relative importance of a range of potential benefits of e-training. The measurement and evaluation of benefits by training managers is often not well considered and robust evaluation methods require more critical investigation.

DOI: 10.3233/EFI-2007-25203

Journal: Education for Information, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 111-130, 2007