The diagram shows staff training by four companies for the period 2003 to 2006. Companies A, B and C had similar levels, at between 25 and 28%, with company D significantly lower at 20%. By 2006, all companies had increased their training with D rising substantially to become the second largest at 35% whilst A grew less, ending about 10 % lower than others. A and B showed similar trends rising slightly in 2004, falling a little in 2005 and then growing more steadily in 2006 with the gap between them gradually increasing. In contrast, C and D showed very different changes. In 2003 training by D fell to a low of about 17% whilst C rose steeply reaching a high of over 35%. After significant growth by D, and a steady decline by C in 2004, the two companies converged in 2001 with C peaking at around 37% and D at 35%.
Overall. It can be seen that staff training for all four companies increased, although following very different trends.
The diagram
shows
staff
training
by four
companies
for the period 2003 to 2006.
Companies
A, B and C had similar levels, at between 25 and 28%, with
company
D
significantly
lower at 20%. By 2006, all
companies
had increased their
training
with D rising
substantially
to become the second largest at 35% whilst A grew less, ending about 10 % lower than others. A and B
showed
similar trends rising
slightly
in 2004, falling a
little
in 2005 and then growing more
steadily
in 2006 with the gap between them
gradually
increasing.
In contrast
, C and D
showed
very
different
changes
. In 2003
training
by D fell to a low of about 17% whilst C rose
steeply
reaching a high of over 35%. After significant growth by D, and a steady decline by C in 2004, the two
companies
converged in 2001 with C peaking at around 37% and D at 35%.
Overall
. It can be
seen
that staff
training
for all four
companies
increased, although following
very
different
trends.