Case Study: eLearning Training Solution vs.
Third-Party In-Person Instructor
As part of our recent report on the cost savings of eLearning training for the multifamily property industry, we compared the costs of eLearning to third-party in-person instruction. Our results showed that eLearning costs only 29% as much as third-party instruction. Savings were found in the areas of productivity, administration, and logistics.
One of the primary cost savings associated with eLearning vs. third-party in-person instruction is increased productivity. Due to its modular and autonomous format, eLearning can be fit into unproductive slots in employee schedules, requiring very little unproductive time. In-person instruction, on the other hand, requires employees to be away from work for significant periods of time.
Increased productivity associated with eLearning represented a projected annual savings of $66,000 for a property with 10K units.
eLearning also produces administrative savings over third-party in-person instruction. While third-party in-person instruction does not require in-house personnel to deliver the instruction, it does require some resources for coordinating the instruction. The streamlined employee usability of eLearning requires no additional administrative support.
Reduced administrative resources needed for eLearning represented a projected annual savings of $3,000 for a property with 10K units.
Logistical savings represent the largest cost benefit of eLearning training. The costs involved in securing a venue, equipment, materials, and travel are significant. eLearning requires none of these costs.
Reduced logistical costs of eLearning represented a projected annual savings of $71,000 for a property with 10K units.
After subtracting eLearning vendor costs, the total projected annual savings of eLearning training vs. a third-party instructor for a property of 10K units is $108,000.