1. Running Head: CAN THE TIERED SERVICE MODEL SAVE L&D
Can the Tiered Service Model Save L&D:
An argument for change and sustainability
13 May, 2016
James Frame

2. 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................3
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................5
Background and Trends ......................................................................................................................5
A Tiered Solution ...............................................................................................................................9
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................12
References .......................................................................................................................................14

3. 3
Executive Summary
A research study was launched to identify and determine if a tiered service model can be
a viable and sustainable growth model for learning and development (L&D) within large
organizations. This study searched for published examples, models, reviews and trends. The
findings are summarized here.
Goals:
1. Answer the question; can a tiered service model for L&D help reduce overall allocations
across business segments while still providing support options to current and future
business partners.
2. Identify how business partners can/should be segmented and still maintain appropriate
levels of service.
3. Determine potential success measures for a tier model approach.
4. Answer the question: Is a tier model approach for L&D practical and sustainable for large
organizations?
Process:
1. Review existing tier models in either L&D or other corporate service sectors for viability
within L&D.
2. Review literature regarding objective methodology to segregate businesses for a tiered
approach.
3. Search for common definitions.
4. Integrate the results.
5. Provide recommendations.

4. 4
Findings:
1. No empirical studies found showing benefits of existing L&D organizations structured in
a tiered model approach.
2. Tiered models are used in other service sectors within a large corporate environment.
3. L&D has significant gaps in meeting the current trends.
4. The tiered model approach does suggest long-term sustainability and application to
address known gaps.
5. The tiered model can be based upon learning maturity.
6. Success measures to address known gaps suggest a long-term focus on performance
outcomes (or impact on business) and learning maturity progression across the
organization.
Recommendations:
1. Large organizations with internal L&D departments can benefit from a tiered service
model.
2. Business unit segmentation within tiers should be based upon, at least in part, evidence of
learning maturity in order to properly address unique learning needs.
3. Further empirical study on success metrics in a large organization that has employed a
tiered service model is needed…specifically addressing impact on the business and
organizational performance.

5. 5
Introduction
The field of Learning and Development (L&D) has long been a critical component of
Human Resources. The traditional model for L&D is as a service to the greater internal business
functions and a cost on the bottom line. As a result, to reduce that cost mainly equates to creating
efficiencies. But, in the last several years, professionals in L&D have begun looking at other
models within the organization to include, how to become a source of competitive advantage
(Martinette and Obenchain-Leeson, 2009) by providing a direct tie to organizational performance
in a fast changing world.
Peter Senge (2008) continues to argue that an organizations ability to learn and change
(adapt) – becoming learning organizations – is the best way to competitive advantage. The
reality is in many organizations the current L&D model has not changed significantly neither
does it address specific business outcomes. The traditional L&D functions remain focused on
training events and report their success based upon Kirkpatrick level 1 or 2; a perceptional
assessment of the learning event. This research proposed to identify and determine: 1) if a tiered
service model can be a viable and sustainable growth model for learning and development
(L&D) within large organizations; 2) what are the success measures for a tiered model; and 3)
how should tiers be defined.
Background and Trends
Bob Dylan brought us, Times They Are A Changin (1964). Why does L&D need to
change anyway? Is it broken? Jeanne Meister and Karie Willyerd state that the workplace itself
is changing and if human resources does not adjust they may well be left behind (2010). The
function of HR is shifting. It not only requires the ability to recruit, grow their human resources,
provide ‘meaningful experiences’ (Morgan, 2016) but, also to facilitate access to the necessary

6. 6
knowledge at just the right time (CEB, 2015). Since L&D has been a traditional part of human
resources in many large organizations, their model of success has often been relegated to
measurement of past performance on their ability to simply taking training orders and deliver on
those orders. The age of the knowledge worker and the knowledge organization has evolved and
operates now with a new reality; the source for competitive advantage (as Senge has always
eluded to) is much more in the hands of the very human resources L&D seeks supports. Since
change is happening faster than ever before, L&D must adapt.
Those workers, that in 1986 were capable of knowing 75% of what they needed to know
to do their jobs are now barely able to keep 10% in their head (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). The
evolution of knowledge change is now estimated, in some industries, to double every 2 years, or
less (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). So, workers are being asked to become more efficient in the
performance of their jobs, with less ability to know everything they need to know, and yet
contribute in more ways to bottom line. Therefore, organizations and people, in order to remain
competitive, have to become increasingly interdependent with each other and technology in ways
that once seemed like structure and convenience, but are now a necessity.
Not only are workers asked to do more with less as organizations pursue this marketplace
competition, but the workplace in general has changed. For the first time in history,
organizations also have 5 generation groups that striate across one of the largest and most diverse
learning backgrounds ever seen (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). This generational segmentation is
more than accommodating population groups from 18 to over 70 years of age, but adapting to the
vast differences in how each individual learns, accesses, and retains knowledge in order to
perform their daily tasks. For example, those in their 70’s grew up with no access to computers,
while someone in their 20’s doesn’t even know what it’s like to not have access to a computer.

7. 7
To address these often complex and unique learning needs, maintain efficiency and provide
sustainable growth, L&D is forced to look for alternatives from the traditionally models of
support where one-size-fits-all: It is simply too expensive and un-scalable to approach learning
with this the same model.
The requirements for knowledge, the amount of change in knowledge, the speed of
change and the diversity of an evolving workplace are all concerns enough on their own, but
where knowledge is shared and obtained is changing too. Since these rapid changes workers
have been forced to adapt their learning quicker than L&D. Some trends indicate that 79% of
learning today comes from outside traditional L&D (CEB, 2015). Jeanne Meister speaks of
“social learning” (Loc. 2563, 2010) as the next evolution of how and where these knowledge
workers are accessing, retrieving and even adding to this body of knowledge. And, in a recent
study from CEB, it was learned that 68% of employees are getting their information to perform
on their job from co-workers (social learning) which is supporting an upward trend of 17%
growth in just 2 years (2015).
The methods of how this evolving learning occurs are also changing. Terms like self-
direct learning and on-demand learning (think YouTube) are taking front stage as primary
methods of how knowledge is obtained (Brandon, 2016). In addition, Saks & Hacuun argue that
adaptive learning through social contextualization is the new norm, where they report 70% of
knowledge required is learned informally (2008). Together with informal learning on the rise and
57% of employees expecting learning to be just-in-time (CEB, 2015) the more traditional how of
a formal learning event approach (whether online or in the classroom) may, or should be, on the
way out. A recent study conducted by the Corporate Executive Board (CEB) found that
employees indicate they only apply ½ of what they learn from a formal learning event; therefore,

8. 8
only 21% even expect their learning (what they need to know and when they need to know it) to
occur in a formal setting (2015). So, to recap, 21% don’t expect their learning to occur in a
formal event (the traditional approach for L&D), and when they do attend a formal event they
apply only ½ of what they learn. Perhaps these are the reasons why 79% of workers seek their
knowledge outside of L&D (mentioned above). This should be a warning shot over the bow of
L&D – what you’ve been doing, it’s just not working!
The knowledge worker is also a mobile worker (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). Mobile
devices mean the methods of distribution and location have to be addressed, including where
learning is available (in the cloud or on my mobile device). Many workers have already
addressed work life balance through integration rather than separation (Morgan, 2016). L&D
specifically must become more integrated in their approach in order to increasingly impact
competitive advantage in the marketplace (Appleby & Mavin, 2000). Jacob Morgan (2016)
released his assessment of coming trends in HR for 2016 and beyond and number 1 overall is the
employee “experience” (p. 2). It is the integration of all environments that impact the employee
performance and L&D has an opportunity to take front seat and make a difference.
Terms like ecosystems now relate specifically to an organizations life-blood, not simply a
term used to describe nature. A learning ecosystem; a knowledge ecosystem; a human
ecosystem; and an analytics ecosystem are increasingly a requirement, and must be
interdependent to maintain performance and, to achieve new levels of competitive advantage in
the world of business. The knowledge worker now wants access to those ecosystems when it
works for them, defined mostly by performance expectations. Remember, many organizations
today exist in multiple time zones and finding mutually agreed upon times to hold a learning

9. 9
event is itself a nightmare. Combined with what we have learned already the age of the learning
event is inefficient as well as ineffective.
Finally, L&D measures of success also need to shift and leadership is quite aware; 96%
of CLOs believe L&D should measure impact on business, but fewer than 8% are actually doing
it (CLO, 2009). The historical classroom reports indicating some level of general pleasure or
happiness with the content, instructor, and feelings that “I will apply this back on the job” is not
good enough. The business unit needs a partner and the organization needs better alignment with
organizational measures; not just a service provider. How does L&D contribute to the bottom
line? What is the impact to the business performance? With access to data like never before,
L&D must get closer to IT (Morgan, 2016). The organization is asking, soon they will be
demanding: move from descriptive analytics to prescriptive analytics and share with the business
leading indicators and solutions to support business outcomes!
A Tiered Solution
Models for service providers within large organizations have shown to be nearly as
diverse as the functions themselves; accounting, human resources, supply chain, etc. Current
L&D functional models still seem to support a one-size-fits-all approach across all supported
business sectors. This study found no studies or examples where L&D was structured in a tier
solution but, there are a few examples in other service sectors. For example, in supply chain, one
study introduced a tiered model to solve for similar business problems; one-size-fits-all was
found unsustainable nor able to deliver efficiencies across supported businesses (Wright, 2006).
This tier model focused on a high-medium-low business segmentation which has some
applicability with L&D. A couple key critical findings were; impact on productivity; and make
sure promises are managed at all tier levels (Wright, 2006).

10. 10
It’s not just the approach to service, but also the respective focus that a tiered approach
can deliver. For example, studies have shown that an increased engagement in a training (event)
doesn’t not necessarily increase productivity (CEB, 2015). The previous logic came from
education circles where increases in participation (or engagement) has been shown to improve
scores in the class. CEB’s study indicates the engagement=higher test scores model in education
does not extrapolate to engagement=higher productivity on the job in the workplace. If L&D has
a responsibility to the business objectives and the larger corporate performance, then it must
address productivity and impact on business, not engagement in an event.
In that same empirical study, CEB learned that, in many organizations, associates were
spending 39% of their time in learning (2015). Perhaps this is a byproduct of remaining focused
on developing learning events to address performance problems without consideration of just-in-
time and/or social learning changes. Their supporting research indicated that a tipping point in
time spent in learning to productivity should really be about 28% (CEB, 2015). This would
indicate there is a waste of nearly 11%, which could equate to nearly $135M lost in productivity
for a 25,000+ organization (CEB, 2015). If learning participation/engagement doesn’t improve
performance and workers are spending too much time in learning, one can see where L&D must
really re-think what really is their impact on the business.
In another study by CEB (2014), it was discovered that less than 10% of organizations
have, what could be termed, a ‘productive learning culture’. This study indicated a potential
cause is the lack of understanding in levels of learning maturity. Perhaps, like the introduction of
a new piece of technology, say an iPad: Some will pick it up and know how to effectively use it
right away; Some may simply treat it like a paper weight – the perfect size to hold down their
printed papers; While others won’t know where to begin to effectively use this new piece of

11. 11
technology and perhaps use it as a glorified typewriter. This study indicates a need, not only to
understand a workforce’s varying levels of learning maturity, but also address those levels in
very different ways. Following the analogy of the iPad deployment, it would be extremely
inefficient and ineffective to have everyone go through the same level of training.
The tiered solution takes all the research and the identified gaps and provides a new
structure to support the changes identified. Underlying this tiered model should be a knowledge
ecosystem the entire organization can tap into. Access and training on use of this ecosystem
becomes foundational at all tier levels.
In the 2015 study done by CEB it was learned that inefficiencies are most often a result
of disproportionate support. The tier model approach for L&D could solve for that by aligning
resources appropriate to the level of learning maturity. Bersin provided a great study on learning
maturity and an example of level definitions with 4 varying levels derived from over 18 months
of research and 400 organizations (see Table 1) (2012).
Table 1
Level 1: Incidental Training On-the-job Training; some support
Level 2: Training Excellence The Corporate University
Level 3: Performance Improvement Continuous learning; alignment to role; performance driven;
career paths.
Level 4: Organizational Capability Organizational & Individual capabilities for success; Coaching;
Knowledge Sharing; Delivered locally, but available globally
Those levels can be used to outline a level of support needed with the additional benefit of
outlining a success measurement to the board of directors: How much has the needle moved on
learning maturity at our corporation? In another study, CEB, took a look at Standard Bank where
5 stages of maturity were identified (see Table 2) (2014).

12. 12
Table 2
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5
Supplemental Targeted Strategic Systemic Optimized
Ad-hoc learning Highly Managed Aligned with
Business
Performance
Support
Learner owned
To differentiate between tiers an objective analysis of the various learning maturities
across the business segments should be performed. These two models of learning maturity
provide a framework from which L&D can draw from to objectively define the various levels of
maturity and thus, identify the tier levels and begins to define specific levels of service. In
addition, redefine success measures to specifically tie to both, movement on a maturity index, as
well as ability to meet business objectives - no matter what tier.
Recommendations
This research began from the perspective that, if one desires to achieve new horizons one
cannot continue to do what is currently being done. Einstein is often quoted as having said that
the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over again and expect
different results. L&D can’t continue to approach learning from the same approach – it's just
insane. As evidenced by the changing landscape of both the worker and the organization,
learning itself, and the subsequent knowledge share, must adapt and change or L&D may find
they have become extinct in the process.
However, L&D can choose to make a positive come back with the awareness laid out in
this research. It is recommended that L&D take a tiered approach to supporting their business
segments and define those segments by an objective analysis of the variances in learning
maturity. The measure of success for L&D must then shift to alignment with impacts on business

13. 13
performance as well as progressive movement along levels of maturity. One direct impact to the
businesses being supported by L&D is an acute awareness of the distinct differences in approach
to a learning need based upon learning maturity. But also, the business must also recognize that
L&D is a true partner on their journey to competitive advantage and performance in the
marketplace.
Research indicates that there are 2 immediate advantages to adopting a tier model
approach for L&D: 1) Immediate (bottom line) saving by strategically targeting a reduction of
“learning hours” spent (from 39% to 28%) by associates (taking back some of the estimated
$135M in lost productivity) and; 2) Increased impact on business results by strategically
targeting business objectives and directing learning at the level of learning maturity. Enhanced
performance and efficiency within L&D is really a 3rd advantage as L&D becomes better aligned
to both their partner’s objectives as well as clear understanding of their level of learning
maturity. In the end, the organization as a whole can expect to retain current competitive
advantage and begin to chart a course to expanding their competitive advantage as the
organization increases their overall learning maturity. One size doesn’t fit all and years ago I
think Burger King got it right; “Have it Your Way!”
It seems just yesterday I went to the doctor because I was sick and needed to get better;
today I go to the doctor to learn how I can keep from being sick in the future. L&D has an
opportunity to shift from doing what they have always done to becoming what they need to be.
There is a choice; there is a challenge; there are gaps; but, there are solutions. It has been said,
“The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty”
(Proverbs 22:3).

14. 14
References
Anderson, C. (2016). A Look Ahead: Learning in 2016. Chief Learning Officer.
CLOMedia.com,46-48.
Bersin, J. (2012) A Maturity Model for High Impact. Chief Learning Officer.
CLOMedia.com,14-15.
Bersin, J. (2011). "Modern Measurement: New collaboration systems analyze learning,
contribution and feedback." Chief Learning Officer. October. Retrieved from:
https://www.CLOmedia.com
Corporate Executive Board (CEB). (2014). Standard Bank's Learning Maturity Framework.
Retrieved from: https://www.cebglobal.com.
Corporate Executive Board (CEB). (2015). Building a Productive Learning Culture: More
Learning through Less Learning. Retrieved from: https://www.cebglobal.com.
Dylan, B. (1964). Times They Are A Changin. Retrieved from: http://bobdylan.com/songs/times-
they-are-changin/
Galanaki, E., Bourantas, D. & Papalexandris, N. (2008). A decision model for outsourcing
training functions: distinguishing between generic and firm-job-specific training content.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management. V19-12, 2332-2351.
Grindley, T. (2016) What's Trending? - The Changing Face of Learning and Development.
Management.co.nz, March, pg 20-21.
Garber, M. (2011). Profit Center Accounting: Theory and Practice. CPA Journal, 81(4), 6-12.
Leaman, C. (2016). Measuring What Matters Most in Your Training. TD. Pgs 76-77.
Martinette, L. A., & Obenchain-Leeson, A. (2009). A View Based On Organizational Size: How
Competitive Advantage Moderates The Learning Orientation/Business Performance

15. 15
Relationship. International Journal Of Global Management Studies, 1(4), 45-74.
Meister, J. & Willyerd, K. (2010) The 2020 Workplace: How Innovative Companies Attract,
Develop, and Keep Tomorrow’s Employees Today. HarperCollins
Morgan, J. (2016). Top 5 HR Trends for 2016 and Beyond. Forbes. March 29, 2016. Retrieved
from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2016/03/29/the-top-5-hr-trends-for-2016-
and-beyond/#17b42c624267
Senge, P., & Crainer, S. (2008). Senge and sensibility. Business Strategy Review, 19(4), 71-75.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8616.2008.00566.x
Wright, C. 2006. "Multi-tiers without tears." Focus. July. Pgs 46-47.