1. Learning and Development
Strategy
Draft

2. Agenda
 Executive Summary
 Development Solution Landscape
 Development Planning Overview
 Options and Recommendations
 LMS Partner Landscape
 Revenue Projections

3. Executive Summary
Overview
 Learning and Development (L&D) is the fourth pillar of Talent Management (Recruiting, Performance, and Comp)
 ABC has no L&D presence
 Recommendation to not build the LMS – heavily penetrated market slow growth market; seen as back office app
Risk Factors
 With no learning story, xxx is at risk of losing out on further deals requiring LMS (e.g., Shaw Group – 25k employees)
 ABC may be considered an “incomplete” Talent Management solution
 Competitors currently partners with XYZ for LMS and has an established L&D story
 Indications that they are not building LMS. Keep a close eye on this and its impact on the market
 Recently announced partnership with XYZ for e-Learning integration (single sign-on)
Strategy
 Next release will include Development Planning functionality that is thought to leapfrog competitive functionality
 Development Content: Partner with content providers to provide (light-weight) development and coaching content
 Learning Administration: for customers/prospects seeking a new LMS, evaluate and select a “Premier” go-to-market
partner that could make for an attractive acquisition in the future
 Learning Administration: for customers/prospects with an LMS and no desire to replace, seek “Ecosystem” partners
from heavily penetrated LMS market
 In the absence of LMS vendor willingness to partner, integration approach will model approach to ERPs; build
integration packages and reuse with other prospects and customers
 Holistic Development: Build open APIs for development content providers and various other applications (e.g., social
learning applications) to offer a more holistic approach to L&D. Note, this is a longer-term approach that may result in no
action depending on market evolution

4. Development Solution
Landscape

5. Four Dimensions of Development
Feature Description Core Competency Comment
Ability to manage programs and Primarily tactical, transaction-
Administration learning offerings offered to based system. Not talent-
employees focused.
ABC not interested in
Ability to house, manage and
becoming content vendor,
Content create content that is provided to
rather interest lies in serving
employees and managers as part
as open platform to hundreds
of the development process
of vendors
Provides the connection to Talent ABC’s greatest strength is the
Context Management processes and connections to the other talent
integration into the actual work life of management processes
the employee
Provides development ABC has strengths in allowing
Human Factor opportunities that come via collaboration; however, some of
peer-to-peer or other non- the technologies in this area are
centralized learning not ones ABC has supported
previously.

6. Capabilities within Four Dimensions
Administration Content
• Manage course catalogs • Light content management (coaching tips)
• Optimize the use of training resources (e.g., • Heavy content management (eLearning
rooms, instructors and materials) content)
• eLearning delivery • Learning content management (LCMS)
• Course costing and accounting • Knowledge portal
(chargebacks)
• Content creation tools
• Certification Processing and Expirations
• Virtual classroom
• Learning simulations
Context Human Factor
• Individual Development Plan • Peer-to-peer recommendations
• Competency tracking and development • Organic content development
• Experiential Development • Rating and Feedback
• Performance and Goal Integration • Networking
• Succession and Career Integration • Mentoring
• Mobile Learning • Wikis & Blogs (collaborative content)
• Exams and Assessments • Forums

7. Solution Landscape
• LMS
• Primarily focused on administration but
Administration Content
having pieces of Context, Content, and
Human Factors
• Content Aggregator Content Aggregator
• Provide LMS capabilities (not as robust)
and aggregate eLearning Content
• Content Providers Content Providers
• Two major categories of content vendors – LMS
light content (competency providers) and
eLearning Content.
• Authoring tools mostly by niche vendors
• Professional Network Talent Professional
• Focus primarily on collaboration via wikis, Management Networking &
blogs, forums, and knowledge portals Vendors Collaboration
• Talent Management Tools
• Cover a small portion of the Context space Development
• Likely to try to expand into Human Factor Planning
• Development Planning
• Significant coverage of context with partial
coverage of Human Factor
Context Human Factor
• Niche vendors cover the remaining
“white space”

8. Strategic Thrust 1: Administrative Dimension
Definitions
a) Go-to-Market LMS
 Partner with a forward-thinking vendor similar to provide an integrated offering for those
customers looking to purchase an LMS
b) White Label OEM LMS
 Find a strong, innovative LMS partner and “white label” their solution (e.g., ABC Learning
Powered By X)
c) LMS Ecosystem
 Forge multiple partnerships with LMS vendors to provide an LMS linkage – especially for larger
enterprises who have one or more LMSs.
d) Acquire LMS
 Purchase LMS vendor and incorporate functionality into Performance suite
e) Build LMS
 Build LMS functionality
f) Development Planning only (no LMS relationships)
 With this approach ABC would simply sell Development Planning and the integration to an LMS
would be the same as our approach to integration with ERPs. Sales and Marketing approach
would be to focus on differentiators and be an agnostic bridge to any LMS

9. Administrative Dimension Options = Highest = Lowest
Options Cost Risk Time to Revenue Meets Overall Recommendation
Market Potential Market Ranking
Need
Go-to-Market Evaluate Short list vendors and
LMS Partner select go-to-market partner(s)
(multiple if needed for
international)
White Label Re-evaluate go-to-market
OEM LMS partner after 1 year as option to
acquire or white label
LMS Ecosystem * Reach out to potential partners.
Ideally stage after go-to-market
partner identified
Acquire LMS Not currently recommended,
but to be re-evaluated go-to-
market partner after 1 year as
option to acquire or white label
Build LMS Not recommended given state
of LMS market (see appendix)
Development Fall-back position if LMS
Planning Only partnerships can’t be
(ERP-like established
integrations)

10. Administrative Options: Known and Unknown
Long List of Known Unknown
Options
Go-to-Market LMS • We have interest from several vendors • Can we keep these vendors from also competing
Partner • Have had success in joint-selling opportunities against us?
• Do the SaaS providers have enterprise-class products?
• How strong is their support?
White Label OEM • Would provide the best UTM story • Who would be interested in a White label approach?
LMS • Would be stretched to be able to sell, implement and • Would they provide the necessary development, sales,
support a new pillar of TM services, support?
• Is it too risky to place bets on a single vendor?
• What is the most feasible level of integration?
LMS Ecosystem • We have interest from several vendors • Will the major players be willing to participate?
• Would mitigate XYZ’s position WRT ABC • Will they be willing to pay for integrations?
• Would give greatest value to customers existing • Is it possible to build standard integrations?
investments • What percent of the big players is true SaaS
Acquire LMS • Mature market expecting sophisticated solution; • Are there vendors who would be a good buy?
immature product would not meet market needs • Is the LMS market as it currently exists still viable?
• Market has been and is still consolidating
• Would be stretched to be able to sell, implement and
support a new pillar of TM
Build LMS • If we were to build, we would not build “me too” solution • Would the market respond favorably
• Level of effort would exceed that of other products • Is there a way to innovate in the LMS space that still
• Heavily penetrated market (especially in Large meets customer needs
Enterprise)
Development • Product is built and is quickly gaining interest • Will the cost of integrations be too high, particularly for
Planning Only • Analyst believes it is unique in market the mid market?
(ERP-like integrations) • Can support ERP-like integrations • What success has XYZ had with their integration?
• Will keep us out of certain UTM RFP opportunities

11. Strategic Thrust 2: Content Dimension Definitions
a) Light Content Provider(s)
 Provide coaching tips, action steps and other developmental suggestions
associated with competencies in the library. ABC can pursue both a
“preferred vendor” and ecosystem approach with content providers.
b) eLearning Content Provider Ecosystem
 ABC would become an aggregator and host of eLearning content and
would provide the ability to launch eLearning content and track employee
completion.
c) eLearning Content Aggregator
 Content aggregators provide a library of eLearning content. Enrollment
and launch of courses would be done via ABC, but the hosting of content
is managed via content aggregators.
d) No Content
 ABC would not provide or resell content. Content would be the
responsibility of the client.

12. Content Dimension Options = Highest = Lowest
Options Cost Risk Time to Revenue Meets Overall Recommendation
Market Potential Market Ranking
Need
Light Content Begin discussions immediately
Provider with selected vendors
Partner(s)
eLearning Hold and evaluate COGs
Content associated with hosting content
Provider
Partner(s)
eLearning Evaluate partners in parallel
Content with LMS partner and
ecosystem above.
Aggregator
Partner
No Content Begin discussions with potential
partners while doing further
customer and market viability
research

13. Content Options: Known and Unknown
Options Known Unknown
Light Content • We have interest from several vendors • One time sale or ongoing revenue?
Provider Partner(s) • Product integration would be low cost • Do they have any method to update customer content?
• How do they handle translations?
eLearning Content • Huge market with multiple vendors developing custom • What would the COGS be associated with hosting
Provider Partner(s) content content?
• “Standards” have variability resulting in difficulty in • What is the development effort needed to support?
hosting content • Is there a “middle way” in which we don’t host but still
aggregate content?
eLearning Content • XYZ has OLSA standard that they use for integration • Have not talked to the most attractive partner
Aggregator Partner • Content aggregators also have light LMS capabilities • Unsure if XYZ host custom content
• Reduced COGS/reduced revenue
• elementK also resells Jive software
No Content • Competition provides own content and partner content • NA

14. Additional Thrusts
a) Human Factor
 Observe customer reaction and participation before pursuing
Professional Networking partnerships
 Possibility that LMS partnership would provide human factor
dimension either on their own or via partnership
b) Context
 Prototyping and UCD to pursue additional context capabilities
 Evaluate early adopter reaction to Development Planning
 Pursue integration of Assessments into Performance to expand
footprint of assessments and expand breadth of Performance
offering

15. Options and
Recommendations appendix

16. Potential LMS Partners
= Highest = Lowest
Options Global Techno- Financial Market Competitor Product Overall Partner type
logy Viability Share Robustness Ranking
GeoLearning Ecosystem
SumTotal Ecosystem
Saba Ecosystem
Plateau Ecosystem
Cornerstone Ecosystem
OnDemand

17. Potential LMS Partners: Go-to-Market
= Highest = Lowest
Options Global Techno- Financial Market Competitor Product Overall Partner type
logy Viability Share Robustness Ranking
Learn.com Go-to-Market
Option
ElementK Go-to-Market
Option
NetDimensions Go-to-Market
Option
Skillsoft Go-to-Market
Option
Meridian KSI Go-to-Market
Option

18. Revenue Projections

19. Development Planning
Large Enterprise 2009 2010 2011
Development Planning Customers 4 8 12
Bookings $452,206 $1,011,029 $1,171,618
Mid-Market 2009 2010 2011
Development Planning Customers 4 10 12
Bookings $200,735 $448,529 $519,265
Projections Totals 2009 2010 2011
Development Planning Customers 8 18 24
Bookings $652,941 $1,459,559 $1,690,882
Assumptions:
• Packaging with Career Management and
rebranding to Development Planning
• Quarter over Quarter Growth: 3.75%
• Attach Rate: 50%
• Price Point: 50% of Reviews ASP (increase from 25%)