If learning activities impact employees’ performance and organisational goals, how can this impact be quantified? Which learning programs can yield the best results and why? Are there more effective and efficient ways to deliver learning and are they worth it?
Learning needs to be viewed as a change initiative, and not as a intervention.
To maximise learning investments, resources should be focused on the most important initiatives. Otherwise resources may be wasted on programs with minimal impact on organisational goals.
In a knowledge based economy, peoples ability to absorb and process new information, as well as quickly adapt to new realities are critical to the continued success of the organisation. This reality is demanding greater emphasis on high-order learning for both individual and team cognition. To respond to these emerging needs, learning professionals are seeking out alternative learning design models and innovative learning delivery methodologies. With the demand for learning most likely exceeding capacity, resources must be focused on the most important initiatives – to maximise learning investment and demonstrate value. Otherwise, limited resources may be invested in learning programs that have minimal impact on the organisation’s overall goals.
So, how should decisions be made on which programs to fund? Should money/resources be allocated equally amongst several programs? Should the focus be on just a few programs? How can spending be prioritised in advance and how do we deal with the constant onslaught of new requirements and performance challenges that require training?
THE VALUE OF LEARNING
Whether learning decisions are based upon financial measures – such as Return On Investment (ROI), or qualitative measures – such as Return On Expectations (ROE), the ultimate objective should always be the same – generate the greatest benefit (value) at the lowest possible cost. With the exception of programs dictated by policy (e.g., compulsory compliance-type), the value of most learning programs can generally be derived from learner’s application of the newly-acquired skills and competencies. That is, how these skills and competencies directly support the individual in performing their tasks, and the impact of these tasks on the overall department’s goals.
STRATEGY #1: ALIGN TRAINING WITH GOALS
Determining where learning budgets and resources should be allocated is an important decision for any learning department. Managing learning budgets and resources should be no different than managing any other investment, such as major equipment or information technology acquisitions. The answers equate to how much time, money, and resources are required by each program, and the potential benefits generated in return. To identify tangible benefits, clear links should first be established between learning activities and goals. In other words, a clear understanding is required on why the training is needed in the first place. Each learning program should be required to address specific performance deficiencies, and what is needed to achieve performance improvement. As a result, the success and importance of learning will no longer be measured by the skills and competencies that are being developed, but by the impact of the newly acquired skills and competencies on desired performance. In other words, how well the learning resolves specific on-the-job “problems” or “performance gaps” and, of course, the priority assigned to each problem. If, for any reason, the learning solution does not contribute to a specific “performance” gain, then the need for learning should be questioned.
STRATEGY #2: IMPROVE HUMAN PERFORMANCE
“I need a training program on …” the typical opening statement in what oftentimes turns out to be a costly, frustrating and unsuccessful campaign to achieve the desired level of performance. The rationale for learning often seems clear – a new system is being implemented, too many accidents or mission failures are being experienced, a process has too many errors, performance quotas are not being achieved. However, we could argue that most performance deficiencies are due to environmental factors, which may include vague expectations, insufficient/untimely feedback, limited experience, insufficient access to required information, inadequate tools, resources and procedures, inappropriate and counterproductive incentives.
Yet, when a performance gap does occur, the default intervention is all too often training – although it is typically much easier to fix the environmental issues rather than the people. In simple terms – if the gap is not due to a lack of skill and knowledge, don’t train! Moreover, even when it is determined that training is necessary, is it sufficient? A learning intervention, on its own, will rarely work if it is not part of a total performance system.
STRATEGY #3: REDUCE TIME TO COMPETENCY
Since the ultimate objective of a learning program is to develop skills, competencies and/or attitudes needed to resolve a performance deficiency and, in-turn, attain department and organisational goals, closing the performance deficiency sooner may result in significant added benefits. For example, the sooner operational staff acquire skills needed to implement a new process, the sooner the productivity gains will be achieved. The benefits of reducing time to competency are captured by translating time-savings into monetary value.
STRATEGY #4: SELECT THE RIGHT BLEND OF DELIVERY OPTIONS
How is the right blend of delivery methods for a learning program selected? Certainly, most learning professionals are aware that Digital Learning, for example, can provide just-in-time access to learning material whenever and wherever it is needed. Moreover, it can reduce travel costs and, in some cases, time required to complete training. On the other hand, effectiveness of this delivery medium may be an issue: Is Digital Learning suited for all training activities and for all learners? Does the organisation have an infrastructure in place to develop, deliver, administer, manage, update, and sustain an Digital Learning strategy? Besides, which Digital Learning method [Computer-Based Training (CBT), WebBased Training (WBT), Internet Virtual Classroom, etc.] should be used? Is an off-the-shelf solution available? Would a blending of delivery options be more effective and economical than a single method? Should it be developed with internal resources, or externally? How much is it going to cost? And where will the savings be coming from?
To evaluate the effectiveness, costs, and benefits of various blends of delivery options, the learning program should be subdivided into modules, to include such items as prerequisites, underlying theory (as applicable), and hands-on exercises, and then sequenced in the order in which these should be presented. Moreover, all learning objectives within a module should have similar characteristics – i.e., require similar audio, video, tactile, fidelity, and initiating/discriminating cue quality.
Compare the costs of plausible delivery options, which may include out-of-pocket expenses, as well as personnel needed to design, develop, administer, manager, deliver, maintain and support the delivery option. As there will likely be multiple options that are considered equally effective in the delivery of training, life cycle costs can be expected to significantly impact the final decision. In addition to pinpointing potential savings, the cost analysis facilitates resource management by identifying upfront versus recurring costs, and resources needed over the life-cycle of the [learning] project.
STRATEGY #5: CONSIDER INTERNAL VERSUS EXTERNAL OPTIONS
In certain circumstances, external training consultants can be more effective and economical than internal staff. External consultants, for example, may offer certain expertise in specific fields that are difficult to attain within a learning group that caters to a wide range of needs. By capitalising on external expertise, the learning curve of the internal learning group may be reduced and costly errors may be avoided. Similarly, there are advantages and disadvantages to off-the-shelf learning interventions versus custom built learning solutions. In general, off-the-shelf solutions can be implemented fairly quickly and are less costly, however, custom-built solutions can be advantageous when development time is flexible, target audience is large, and existing solutions do not meet critical needs. A custom-built solution in such cases may increase productivity and minimise costly errors.
STRATEGY #6: DUPLICATE EFFICIENT PROGRAMS AND DETECT PROBLEM AREAS
Do you know how other training departments, or program managers have been developing and delivering their most effective and economical training programs, and why? Do you know the real cost of developing skills needed to perform critical tasks and how this compares to other organisations? Are you comparing the costs and benefits of various learning initiatives and allocating funds accordingly? Are you forecasting budget and resource needs for your learning program over the next 3-to-5 years, or beyond? Do you know how your organisation measures up against other training organisations? In other words, are you making the most of your learning budgets and resources? Costs and resources needed to design, develop, administer, manage, instruct, maintain, and support various learning programs should be compared against others to find out what has worked and why, to detect and correct problem areas, and to minimise duplication.
Most of the knowledge and skills eventually gained through training (well over 80% by some estimates) is not fully applied on-the-job. By some accounts, less than 30% of what is learned (in training) actually gets used on the job. By focusing only on those solutions that clearly resolve identified performance deficiencies, waste may be minimised and performance maximised. Over 90% of training content is typically delivered through informal means – such as via web searches, chats, reference materials, and mentoring. Providing the right information to the right individuals at the right time “learning at the speed of work” can significantly increase the competitive advantage of the organisation.
By capitalising on the strengths of internal and external resources, the impact of learning programs may be maximised while still reducing costs. Identifying and replicating high performance programs that are considered “centers of excellence” is a strategy that has been effectively used by many organisations to improve their system performance and incrementally reduce costs. By comparing the costs and benefits of successful learning programs run by various program managers, departments, and vendors, highly-efficient learning programs can be used as a benchmark for development of other successful programs, and/or for correction of problem areas.