4 Responses

1. Hi neilpitts, I think you are
   Hi neilpitts, I think you are possibly looking at this the wrong way. I think you should look at what new/improved/different performance the learners need to achieve and how that is achieved in total. This means looking much wider than the event (course/ workshop etc). The real focus/cost should include what activity needs to be done to embed the new learning post course and this helps to give the real indication of how long it takes and how much it costs. The danger being that it makes people think that the course or single event is the most important thing which, of course, it’s not. You should always consider what it takes to support/coach/embed – that’s the real meat of learning.
   To achieve this, I would look at something like Kirkpatrick’s New World Model which very much starts with the learning intervention being aaligned totally with business objectives. Hope that helps.

   1. Clive,
      Clive,
      Thanks for spending time to answer.

      I have been thinking about this one a fair bit since I posted it and what you say – “…what new/improved/different performance the learners need to achieve and how that is achieved in total” – agrees with my thoughts. So far so good. I also like the New World Kirkpatrick Model which had passed me by, thanks for that. In a nut-shell; the cost of training design is not affected in any great deal by a full TNA.

      However, and at the risk of starting a whole new discussion, my problem starts with your absolutely correct statement that;

      “…The real focus/cost should include what activity needs to be done to embed the new learning post course and this helps to give the real indication of how long it takes and how much it costs.”

      When bidding for work I have to cost things fairly accurately and always have to keep costs down in order to win work. I can only work within customer driven parameters so usually can only look at initial delivery, pretty standard feedback, review and re-design as necessary. So, your additional statement that one should;

      “…always consider what it takes to support/ coach/ embed…”

      almost never happens because the opportunity to sell such important add-on’s does not exist. When tendering for work the training element is often the poor relation of the product we are aiming to sell, with training seen as an afterthought both internally and by the customer. As a result of this training costs expected by customer’s are very often unrealistically low.

      I almost think that it is worth trying to access the customer community somehow to educate them in how they should be thinking when tendering for contracts.

      1. No problem. I’m assuming then
         No problem. I’m assuming then that you sell some kind of product; possibly a tool or system of some kind which requires an element of training which the customer sees possibly as a necessary evil.
         If I’m right in that assumption maybe it’s worth thinking about delivering the training/learning in new way that enables learning to be embedded.
         As part of my role, I have researched where people learn naturally and of their own free will. The answer is that it’s at home; when people need to learn how to maintain their pushbike or make a perfect beef wellington or repair their washing machine. They all watch youtube videos. The question is why. The answer is because they are in control of their learning; they can watch a video once or five times or ten; it’s up to them as an individual. They can even watch a small part that’s 2 minutes in for 15 seconds and watch it over and over again if they like.
         Have you considered rather than running courses to instead use on-line platform that learners log-in to to watch bite-sized video tutorials curated into a learning journey. As they are in control they can watch them time and again if needs be to embed the knowledge. You could also have an on-line help facility so that if people wanted to chat to a ‘live’ person they could. I can guarantee this would be a much cheaper option than running old school courses and would support embedding knowledge. You could still run those courses of course but it would be an optional add-on rather than the main solution. Hope that helps.

         1. As part of most bids we try
            As part of most bids we try to include CBT embedded with on-line tutorials and linked to on-line help which is great if it is accessed effectively and sold to the users correctly. the control of much of it is out of our hands relatively quickly. it is highly effective as you say, and about as close as we are allowed to the YouTube world.