Training software’s potential to transform business results is hiding in plain sight. Before you get to the benefits, changes, or improvements that will impact the numbers, consider what’s undermining the impact of your existing software. The most likely candidates are always the same things: poor content performance, bad content accessibility, and ineffective administration and follow-up.
Completion Rates are Not Performance Data
There is a gap between finishing a course and being able to do the job. Legacy learning systems that revolve around pass/fail tests can validate the fact that an employee has gone through all the slides. But they can’t say whether that employee can translate that knowledge to their job.
This is where formative assessment makes a difference. Rather than having a single end-of-module evaluation, having an assessment all along the journey provides managers with a much clearer message. Did that employee struggle on a particular task? Did they have to replay a section three times before moving on? That type of data, which can be tracked via standards such as xAPI, creates a profile of true competency, not just presence.
And it matters when setting KPIs. Error rates, rework volumes, output speed – these indicators change when the training delivered actual competencies, not a diploma.
Real-Time Data and the Productivity Gap Problem
There can be various reasons for a drop in an employee’s output. For example lack of training, a broken process, or changes in staffing. When managers have no data to work with, they can only guess.
However, when a platform like Cloud Assess is integrated in real-time with performance management tools, these are no longer just guesses. In this case, the training and the performance data are connected and if a technician’s accuracy rate drops after taking on more responsibilities, their manager can simply check if they completed the corresponding training as well as if the assessment ensured that they were prepared to perform the new responsibilities.
If training was missed or the assessment didn’t provide sufficient preparation, the issue lies with training; If training was completed and the assessment scores were positive, the manager can exclude training and look elsewhere.
Personalized Paths and the Cost of Generic Training
One reason high performers leave isn’t pay – it’s boredom. If you make your most experienced employee re-do onboarding he completed two years ago, he’ll quickly realize two things: “This company doesn’t know me. This company doesn’t respect my time.” You’ve just created friction where there was no need for it.
Modern learning platforms avoid that scenario. When a new hire arrives, the technology evaluates the knowledge and competencies required by their role. Then it tests the employee to see what they already bring to the table, and only gives them what they need to learn, reserving their mastery and validating their time.
If a user rises to a “proficient” level in a certain skill within an hour after starting a training course, the system sees that. When they need to start a new course, they’ll skip the basic parts. Let the new content be more challenging, push the boundaries of their comfort zone. That’s how you keep them engaged, as opposed to performing dead-end activities.
Onboarding Speed as a Measurable Outcome
The number of days it takes for a new hire to become fully productive is critical. Every day a new hire can’t perform the full scope of their role is a day that hire is costing the company. It’s not just the wasted salary. It’s the unmet productivity. And effective L&D processes absolutely make that number smaller.
Onboarding in general, and mobile online learning specifically, fill a lot of the gaps that otherwise slow down getting people up to speed. There’s simply less of an ask on the attention of fully-billable staff in training a new hire when the LMS is taking all the practical aspects from an onboarding perspective – that is, teaching the new hire what they need to know without slowing down a mentor or supervisor. Then, as they get into their official role, that same training is there not as a wasted step-over material but as a just-in-time resource to answer questions that arise.
The ROI Question Deserves a Direct Answer
Software training isn’t inexpensive, and the green light from upper management typically comes when a return on investment can be shown. The costs related to software training are obvious: the software itself, the development of content, and time that employees are not working productively. Where many fall short when making the case for training is in tying the spend to business metrics.
The most direct way to articulate the return on investment connects the software’s functions to the metrics. For example, document-based training that automatically triggers compliance efforts and reduces the number of audit exceptions. Competency-based assessment metrics that impact rework rates. Mobile training that influences how long it takes a new employee to get to work independently; drives down that number. Or performance-supported, personalized learning paths that reduce the rate at which key higher performance employees leave the company.
In each instance, how the metric changes with the deployment of the software can be tracked. If that is a positive change, the cost of the software training is no longer the “people” item in the HR budget. Instead, it’s an investment decision for operations to make with a benefit to the key stakeholders.
