quote:

I agree with you. Have clients ever asked you to show ROI for this type thing? I will be surprised if they have.

No, and yes. Well sort of

I have proposed training to organizations who have wanted to know the ROI. When none of the possible vendors for a course could prove ROI, they chose the least expensive one; seemingly they would all produce the same "results" so the ROI was highest for the cheapest one...

I think that because higher-level results calculations are difficult many organizations settle for level 1s. Too bad.

I know some organizations have had great results with a scenario such as: define the behavior output, design the training to cause the behavior, check to see that the behavior occurs. This is possible with custom training, but difficult when the events are public or purchased by the customer "off the shelf" as is often the case.

As important as I personally believe it is to be able to have the ROI conversation it is not one that I was ever asked to "prove."

When I was active in the training delivery side of the business it was on the "pull" side...not the "push" side. So, when a client called it was to scratch an itch. The perceived value of the learning had already been established.

It all seemed to work out best for the client when they were able to look at learning as a process versus and event. When they could handle that they would then include pre-post assessments to monitor progress, plus on the job reinforcement.

(None of this may make any sense at all...but I just got back from seeing "Mama Mia" )

quote:

So, when a client called it was to scratch an itch. The perceived value of the learning had already been established.

And that's the way it should be I think. So why do trainers/facilitators go around looking for work and inventing something to create - something that is NOT in response to scratching that itch?