training budgets get cut first because we can’t prove the training worked.
Been thinking about this for a while and want to know if other people see it the same way.
Every L&D person I’ve talked to has the same problem. They can prove people completed the training. They can’t prove anyone actually retained it. And when budget cuts come around, “they completed it” isn’t enough to defend the program. The CFO doesn’t care about completion rates.
The thing nobody’s measuring is whether the training transferred, in a form that holds up outside the L&D function. Embedded knowledge checks help the learner. End-of-course quizzes are weak signals. Neither produces the kind of evidence a line manage can actively and longitudinally coach their teams with.
This feels more important now because of where orgs are shifting from role based to now skills-based org design is going. The question is shifting from “did they complete it” to “what can they actually do, what do they know, and is that changing over time.” The LMS isn’t built to answer that. The authoring tools aren’t built to answer that. Someone has to.
We’ve been building something in this space and have customers using it. Won’t necessarily get into the product here because that’s not what I want to talk about. What I want to know is does this resonate with what you’re seeing? Where does the framing break? Anyone solved this another way?