Nestled in the northwestern corner of Cary, North Carolina, a capital-city bedroom community of nearly 50,000 lies a quiet giant. SAS Institute, Incorporated, the largest privately held software company in the world goes busily about its way, unknown and unrecognized by the public majority of a technology-obsessed world that uses the word "Microsoft" nearly generically. It is here, on a sprawling, immaculately landscaped campus that the world's premiere data-mining and decision support software, simply and fittingly called "SAS", or "Statistical Analaysis Software", is developed, distributed and supported. From government agencies to international hotels, customers of SAS Institute rely on the software, originally developed as an agricultural-research data analysis tool by co-founder and SAS Chief Executive Officer Jim Goodnight in graduate school at North Carolina State University. It is the loyalty of such customers, and, perhaps more notably, of the employees of SAS Institute that have made this company what it is today and has placed Jim Goodnight 43^rd on Forbes magazine's list of the 400 richest people in the United States (Fishman, 1999).

Within the Human Resources Division of SAS, Institute, there are separate departments, demonstrating the structure throughout the company. The HR Division houses both Personnel and Management Education Administration (MEA) in addition to Health Care, Work Life (Child Care), Food Services, and Recreation and Fitness Departments. Both the Personnel and the MEA departments were studied in an effort to compile a broader, more complete and accurate snapshot of the division. Greater emphasis and detail, however, was focused on the latter department in an attempt to ascertain the function of training and development within SAS Institute for the purpose of human resource development.

Roberta Morgan, Manager of the Management Education Administration department began our first conversation by emphasizing that one quality that is unique to the Human Resource Division of SAS Institute is the variety of departments housed within the division. She pointed out that it is this emphasis on more than just Personnel that demonstrates clearly SAS's commitment to its human resources.

It is the function of the MEA department to provide training to all SAS employees in the "soft" skills, including communication and social skills. The first responsibility of the seven employees in the department is to "teach managers how to manage and leaders how to lead." A separate department within the Institute, the Research and Development department, teaches computer skills to SAS employees as a separate and distinct training within the Institute. Ms. Morgan pointed out with a wry grin that many computer programmers, those individuals who make up the majority of employees at the Institute, are notorious for having underdeveloped communication skills and it is the goal of her department to work on those skills to improve employee management quality. The irony of a computer software development company distancing itself so far from using computers in training was apparent and emphasized many times during discussions.

The mission of the MEA department appears on the top of every web page associated with the department and within the training rooms. It states simply, "Fun in Learning for Professional and Personal Growth." The department, through its own mission, supports the objectives of the organization, to provide the best quality software possible, by developing the communication and management skills of staff members managing the departments responsible for producing, developing, and supporting SAS software.

Detecting a need for training and developing new training is the responsibility of the MEA department. Anticipating my questions regarding the processes involved in developing training programs for the employees with whom she works, Ms. Morgan depicted a mostly informal approach to needs assessment and analysis. Often, Ms. Morgan indicated, the need for training is "sort of forced upon us." A TQM (Total Quality Management) Committee consisting of the Vice Presidents and Directors of the company makes suggestions regarding need for training. A more formal employee survey has been conducted two years in a row to help determine training needs as identified by employees. Recently such a survey identified a need for "trust and teamwork" training, for which the department was responsible for developing a program. A curriculum was located and purchased and the training was initiated in response. Word-of-mouth and repetitive problems identified on the work site are the methods Ms. Morgan and her staff relies on most consistently to indicate a training need. "We're really a word-of-mouth company and we pay very close attention to the word-of-mouth whether it be a training need or something good that has happened."

While the ISD Model we studied in the course is very structured and precise, the MEA department takes a much more informal approach to developing and designing training. Again, the need assessment process used is unscientific. When the MEA department does identify a training need via this method, there seems to be little emphasis on process to identify training objectives and performance evaluations. The department focuses on such a specialized area, communication and social skills, that experience seems to take over the process of selecting appropriate curriculum and developing a training plan. While the ISD process emphasizes pretesting, again, the department is so specialized and, as a whole, so experienced in the area in which they train, there seems to be little emphasis on redeveloping current programs and little need to develop many new ones. As a result, much of what the MEA department does is refine the programs that already exist in their specialized area of training.

Seven staff members make up the MEA department. These positions include the department Manager, the position Roberta Morgan holds, one Senior Trainer, two Trainers, one Assistant Trainer and two Administrative Support positions. Ms. Morgan shared the job descriptions for the Senior Trainer, Trainer, and Assistant Trainer with me for comparison with the competencies and outputs studied in the ASTD Models research. The primary difference between the three positions is the level of experience required and the responsibilities associated with the position.

Ms. Morgan estimated that, as the MEA Manager, she spends 70% of her time acting as a trainer within the classroom responsible for many of the outputs associated with the Instructor-facilitator role as defined by the ASTD Models research. Clearly, she sets the learning environment, presents the material, and facilitates structured learning events and group discussions. Again, she emphasized that most of their training design utilizes role-play and case studies but little to no media-based learning events. As an Instructor-facilitator she provides feedback to learners and encourages learning transfer to the job.

Twenty percent of Ms. Morgan's responsibilities include development and planning of training activities. In this respect, she fulfills role qualities of Program Designer and HRD Materials Developer as defined by the ASTD Models research. Ten percent of the time, Ms. Morgan handles management responsibilities, comparable to the Administrator, Evaluator and HRD Manager roles. With a staff of only six, little of her time is spent on the outputs associated with these roles including staff evaluation, department strategy or budgeting.

The Assistant Trainer position is primarily one of support. This individual creates outputs associated with the ASTD Models research roles of Researcher, Program Designer, HRD Materials Developer and Instructor-facilitator. Key competencies identified in the job description include knowledge of training methodologies, curriculum development and media, presentation, interpersonal, communication and organizational skills, and knowledge of adult training and development methodologies including course development and curriculum planning within a corporate setting. In comparison with the ASTD Models research, these competencies clearly match with the technical competencies of adult learning understanding, training and development theories and techniques understanding, and research skill. Key business competencies as outlined in the ASTD Models research are indicated by the emphasis on corporate experience and match business and industry understanding. Interpersonal competencies are obviously of importance with an emphasis on presentation and group process skill.

The Trainer and Senior Trainer positions are nearly identical in description to requirements of the Assistant Trainer, varying only in amount of experience. The primary difference between these positions is in the number of roles and outputs associated with them. The Trainer assumes the roles of Researcher, Program Designer, HRD Materials developer and Instructor-facilitator, but also Marketer and Administrator. Outputs expected include marketing HRD products, services and programs and facility and equipment selection and scheduling. Senior Trainers assume all of the roles of the other two staff members, plus that of Organizational Change Agent, responsible for implementing change strategies within the organization (Rothwell, 1996).

Organizational Development within this department of the Human Resources Division appeared to not be a primary function compared with the training function. As mentioned above, only in the job description for the Senior Trainer, sandwiched between "presenting group seminars" and "evaluating and assisting in evaluating training materials", is a reference to Organizational Development. The Senior Trainer is charged with the responsibility of "consulting with division and department managers to explore possible solutions to communication related challenges." This is very similar to our definition of OD within HRD: "assuring healthy inter- and intra- unit relationships and helping groups initiate and manage change." Following that requirement is the responsibility "facilitates OD interventions for departments and staff." With these identified outputs, similar to the ASTD Models research outputs "resolving conflicts for an organization or group" and "planning and implementing organizational change strategies", it seems clear the Senior Trainer is expected to produce outputs associated with the Organizational Change Agent role within SAS Institute. Key competencies identified in the job description associated with that role in the ASTD Models research include business and industry understanding, organizational behavior understanding, organizational development theories and techniques understanding, organizational understanding, negotiation skill, presentation skill, and relationship building skill, as well as nearly every other identified competency for that role. (Rothwell, 1996)

Through our discussion and study of OD, we learned that training is often a part of organizational development interventions. The Senior Trainer utilizes training as an intervention strategy on behalf of and as an agent of the MEA department. As it is a function of this department to develop the human resources of SAS Institute through training, organizational development takes place through that same training function. While we, through much discussion, learned that training is not the only useful organizational development intervention and that the two are indeed distinct entities within HRD, it is used by the Senior Trainer to improve the relationships among groups within the Institute.

When asked about Career Development directly, Ms. Morgan stated that SAS Institute does not do anything directly to assist individuals on staff with career development and that they have no long-range plans or programs. However, upon further discussion it became apparent to me that the Institute does indeed take steps to align individual career planning and organizational career management processes to reach a match between organizational and individual needs, the definition we developed for Career Development in this course. Indeed, the very mission of the department, with a focus on "personal" growth in addition to "professional" growth indicates a commitment to Career Development. The terminology was, perhaps, not the same, as Ms. Morgan referred to personal growth initiatives, and personnel improvement strategies, but seemed to view them as separate entities unrelated to career development.

In fact, SAS Institute is extremely supportive of their employees' personal career growth and has effective career development practices in place. Such implementations include posting job openings and promoting from within (Ms. Morgan indicated that SAS Institute rarely hires management positions externally, but almost always promotes an existing employee), providing ongoing management training, and offering educational opportunities by way of an informal tuition reimbursement program.

Almost incredibly, SAS offers training to its employees on developing job-seeking skills. Within a program administered by the MEA department, called the Administrative Staff Educational Program, the curriculum includes a unit of effective job-hunting methods. A description of the program states that trainees will "learn how to move through the internal job posting process and how to successfully interview. Determine whether your job is meeting your needs and who is responsible for your own career growth. Do you know how to write a resume?" Again, unique and supportive, this practice is clearly demonstrative of SAS's commitment to Career Development within HRD.

Finally, outside of the MEA department but within the HR Division, SAS incorporates a training and career development program called "boot camp" in which new college graduates are recruited immediately upon graduation. These new employees are nurtured through an 18-week "camp" in which they learn three job functions by way of formal mentoring, short, six-week work assignments and job rotations. While learning the jobs, the "green" employees also receive training through the Personnel office to orient them to the SAS corporate culture, and, in many cases, to their first job.

The beginning training program that MEA offers to managers is a sort of orientation program. Called Human Resource Management Training, or HRMT, it is "designed to meet the needs of employees who have been managers for a while and those who have just been promoted." Ms. Morgan classified this training as being very specific to managers within the Institute, including information regarding hiring practices, compensation scales and all things specific to management within SAS Institute. Offered every quarter in five employment modules, HRMT may be scheduled two days per week over a three-week period or in an intensive two and a half-day seminar for managers attending training from distant SAS sites. The program was developed in house by the MEA department and has been in existence and use approximately two years.

Upon completion of the HRMT program, the MEA department invites managers to return to a purchased training program entitled Frontline Leadership. Presented in a series of 17 units in five skill groups, managers learn core interpersonal skills, how to manage individual performance, how to make an organizational impact, how to develop team performance and problem solve for individuals and teams and how to manage change. Created and developed by a company called Zenger-Miller, the program "gives supervisors and managers practical tools to meet the expanding demands of their jobs." The training courses are available to all managers and are delivered by "skill group" in two to five training sessions of three hours each. Managers are encouraged by the Institute to attend the first five classes in a series, but the remaining lessons, while not mandatory, are usually well-attended.

Discussion of this program led us to explore the concept of mandatory training versus optional training. Ms. Morgan stated that SAS Institute has no mandatory training requirements for its employees, a decision she expressed conflicting emotions about. "There is no mandatory training at SAS Institute. And that has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that there's nobody there who doesn't want to be there…and the disadvantages are that not everybody will come. We run hot and cold on that. Some days we want mandatory training and some days we don't." Such a statement mirrored discussion we have had as a group regarding the pros and cons of requiring training for personnel. Interestingly, in my conversation with Laurie Krysiak, a Human Resources Generalist in the Personnel department, she stated that she had attended training during her employment at SAS. The mention of the fact that such training was optional was met with a momentary silence, a deliberate consideration of words, and the response, "Well…it may not be mandatory, but when my supervisor says, 'Here, go to this training', I don't exactly not go." This implied to me that, while the trainers, MEA department and supervision do not require such training, that may not be a commonly known fact to those who are actually attending the training.

A third training program offered by the MEA department, called Leadership 2000, provides "a study of and an opportunity to model the behaviors that most people associate with leadership" and is offered to all Institute employees. Offered in seven units, the program focuses on defining leadership, feedback, coaching, resolving conflict, and navigating change. Another purchased program, trainers teaching the course must receive training and certification in Leadership 2000 facilitation.

MEA also offers specialized training programs as the need arises, assumingly identified via word of mouth or by the TQM Task Force. Such specialized topics include public speaking skills, pre-retirement planning, and trust and teamwork. Employee general interest courses are also offered to "improve the knowledge base and the job-related skills of all employees." Such courses include business ethics, grammar and writing, keyboarding, and the job-hunting methods mentioned previously.

Finally, to enhance the skills of the administrative support personnel in the Institute, MEA offers training called Administrative Staff Educational Program (ASEP). Employees completing this course receive a certificate and a $750 lump sum incentive. Course emphasis includes active listening, customer service, professionalism and time management.

Primary training techniques used in these programs include role-playing, case studies and skills practices in small groups. In these activities, employees are encouraged to bring with them to training real-life issues and problems they are facing within the situations in which they work. Such attention to incorporating relevancy into the training program as a way to encourage training transfer and demonstrates a clear understanding of adult learning principles. As we learned in the course, adults need training to be relevant. Additionally, the group action meets the adult learner's need to be self-directed. The emphasis on bringing related issues to the training from the work place validate the understanding that adults come to training with a wealth and variety of experiences. The $750 incentive associated with the ASEP nods in recognition of adult learners' reception of external motivators, while the policy of mandating no employee training allows for intrinsic motivators to spur employees to classes.

To repeat, the mission of the MEA department is "Fun and Learning for Professional and Personal Growth." This mission statement meets many of the criteria for good mission and policy goals as discussed in our lesson. Long term and broad, the policy reflects both organizational and individual needs and expectations. Clearly, the mission of the department meshes well with that of the Institute as a whole.

Funding for the training programs offered by the MEA department appeared to be a very "ho-hum" subject for Ms. Morgan. Not the primary decision-maker regarding training budgeting, she indicated that the Vice President of Human Resources made the final decisions regarding training expenditures. She pointed out the extreme financial success of her organization and stated that every training need she noted was usually received positively if she truly felt it would benefit the employees of the Institute. "If you know anything about SAS Institute, you know how successful we've been and so we have a lot of money. So, money is not our problem. If we see some new training…that we want, and it makes sense, we can get it." The simplicity of this situation and the low regard with which Ms. Morgan viewed its importance was nearly mind-boggling for me, as it might be for many corporate training professionals.

While we identified many key legal and ethical issues facing HRD professionals today, Ms. Morgan's response to my inquiry in this area indicated it is not of major concern to her department. She emphasized that each individual who attends training is treated equally and stated that the company prides itself on treating all trainees the same. Providing training services to a diverse group, from housekeeping staff to Ph.D. level programmers, they attempt to ensure total equality within the classroom setting. Such issues such as safety, failure to train, failure to maintain adequate records, and copyright concerns, all issues outlined and studied in the lesson appeared to be of little interest to Ms. Morgan. "Of course we know the laws, of course we don't discriminate and all that, but it's never even a question we have to ask ourselves. That's the way we are."

When an inquiry was first made regarding the use of outsourcing as a training tool by the MEA department, it was met with the response that it was used seldom. However, later in discussions Ms. Morgan stated that the department utilizes instructors from Wake Technical Community College to train workers in Conversational Spanish and to facilitate grammar classes. Ms. Morgan emphasized the bargain at only $35 per student, no matter how long the training program.

Ms. Morgan recognized the value of utilizing outsourcing. She noted that it is sometimes simpler and more effective to have someone who has a specialty or are of expertise to come in and cover a topic rather than expanding a competency to an already-strapped trainer. The input provided by the outsource trainer breathes new life into training and provide innovative newness for trainees.

As stated earlier, no formal evaluation assessment is done after training. The MEA department conducts Level 1 evaluations, measuring trainee satisfaction, but relies almost totally on word-of-mouth to assess training success and to keep classes full.

All training offered by the MEA department takes place in a classroom setting. Our study of classroom instruction revealed that key to effective classroom-based training are the instructor, the environment, relevant learning, energized participants, active participation, clear objectives, understanding of progress, enthusiasm and commitment to implementation.

Most classes hold twelve to eighteen participants with an optimum size of 15. Training is held on the SAS campus within the Human Resources building. Security is extremely tight in the organization, so attention to safety is apparent. The training rooms themselves are large, open and comfortable, and flexible in set up. Tables can be shaped into a "u" for maximum trainer-trainee interaction, or can be pushed to the side and chairs used only. Flip charts and overheads are available and windows graced at least one wall in each room. The temperature is moderate and break rooms are located nearby.

The structure of the classes, utilizing skills practice, case studies and role-play indicates the learners are active participants. As discussed previously, the fact that training is not mandatory indicates that all participants are there by choice and will be enthusiastic and energized about training.

Instructors receive training and certification in at least one of the programs they facilitate, indicating that they are knowledgeable about the areas of instruction. Specialized areas are often outsourced, facilitated by subject matter experts.

Since trainees are bringing real-world issues and problems to the training to work out, all training is based on relevant information and can be transferred directly back to the work site.

SAS Institute is growing at an amazing rate. Hiring two hundred people a year, the company is changing regularly. Meeting the training needs of that growth is a challenge for the small MEA training team with regard to time.

Most significant, Ms. Morgan noted that while most companies are moving ahead with technology based training, SAS Institute is, again, not. "See, we're probably going backwards here. While most companies are looking for computer assisted training, we're not." That trend, probably significantly affecting other companies, has little to no impact on the human resource development at SAS.

Because of a close business association with Ms. Krysiak, a Human Resources Generalist at SAS Institute, a brief overview of this department was included in this study for two reasons. Personnel is such a large part of the Human Resources of an organization, it seemed important to at least gain surface information regarding its relationship to the MEA department and its place within the organization. Second, speaking with a person who has received the actual training provided by the MEA department, it was thought that special insight might be gained on a more personal level regarding the "word-of-mouth" to which Ms. Morgan referred so often and upon which she relies so heavily.

One of the most striking things noticed when talking with both departments was the sort of vague understanding of the structure of the entire HR Division. When an organizational chart was requested, Ms. Morgan assured me that SAS, being an extremely flat company, did not utilize organizational charts and one was unavailable. My efforts from that point to sketch a diagram of the division were frustrating, as neither lady gave the same account or description. It was only after returning with notes from both conversations was a reliable sketch and understanding reached. It interested me that the two departments, working within the same division and the same building were so far removed from one another.

The Personnel department supports the Human Resources needs of SAS Institute by hiring qualified workers to fill positions within the organization. Ms. Krysiak noted that the Institute has a phenomenally low turnover rate at 4 % and, as most turnover is due to promotion, there is a constant challenge to maintain the workforce of the Institute.

Ms. Krysiak felt that the Institute is highly supportive of training and professional development of its employees and noted that, often, college degrees are not required when related experience is present. She emphasized the Career Development focus of the company, noting that most employees remain with the company for years, growing into new positions as experience levels expand. Additionally, she stated that the Institute supports her professional development activities. As a member of the Society of Human Resource Management, she finds that SAS Institute encourages her participation.

The department does not have a training function itself, though Ms. Krysiak stated that she had once gone out to other divisions to explain law regarding sexual harassment in the workplace. She did not, however, consider that formal training, but rather more information dispersal.

Within the Personnel Department, headed by the Director of Personnel, there are HR Managers, Generalists Specialists and Administration. Ms. Krysiak herself handles "customers" within three divisions in certain areas within the three. She stated that 75 % of her time is spent in employment-related functions with the rest divided equally between Employee Relations and Compensation.

When asked if she has attended an MEA training program, Ms. Krysiak again indicated that she has completed the HRMT course. She stated that she found the program "very enjoyable, well presented, and well organized." The training was interactive and she was able to apply the information provided to her work. She ranked the program very high in importance and relevance to her work and indicated that she felt more prepared as an employee upon completing the program.

Finally and most interestingly, Ms. Krysiak had a unique perspective on changes and trends affecting her department. She stated that the Institute had a large demand for skilled technical employees. Often, she noted, such employees are located within other countries. She stated that much of her time is often spent in retaining Visas for immigrating workers to become employed with the Cary facility. Interestingly, such "expatriate assignment" may be an activity that must come to a forced end, putting a crunch on retaining skilled technical workers for the Institute. Congress, it seems has placed a cap on the number of Visas that will be processed for immigrants to the United States. Apparently, Ms. Krysiak understands, that cap has been met and this type of recruitment will no longer be an option. She is unsure how much it will affect her recruitment and hiring practices.

It seems apparent that SAS Institute is in the business of making the most of its most valuable resource: human performance. It is noted on the company web site that the Institute was founded on a philosophy of President Jim Goodnight -- "If you treat employees as if they make a difference to the company, they will make a difference to the company." Through a variety of well-developed, goal-oriented training programs, the Institute maintains its commitment to the human resource development of its employees. And the result is apparent everywhere one looks. How often in today's corporate culture does one hear of an employee being with the company eighteen years? Ms. Krysiak has been with the SAS only one year. When asked what she thinks of her organization, she offered only one word: "wonderful." She says it's the little things that make the difference. She says the Institute gives its all to be everything it is projected to be. When asked if she plans to leave, her response is instant and passionate: "never." We should all be so lucky.

Fishman, C. (1999). Sanity Inc. Fast Company. SAS Institute. January.

Rothwell, W. J. (1996). Selecting and Developing the Professional HRD Staff. Pages 48-76 in Craig, R., ed. The ASTD Training and Development Handbook. Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill.