Amid economic uncertainty and budget constraints, learning and development (L&D) leaders are under pressure to show measurable training impact.
Training Industry research found that in both 2022 and 2026, 18% of L&D budgets were expected to shrink, indicating that budget concerns have remained steady over time. However, training budgets still increased by an average of 4.3% in 2026. This shows that organizations are continuing to invest in training, but with growing expectations around accountability and business value.
Without a clear connection to organizational outcomes, stakeholders may begin to view L&D as a cost center rather than a strategic business asset.
However, measuring training impact is easier said than done. Training Industry research found that less than one-half of L&D professionals are effective at measuring impact, despite it being a core process capability of great training organizations.
What Is “The Activity Trap?”
Too often, L&D professionals run into what Kallidus has deemed the “activity trap.” Harry Chapman-Walker, CEO of Kallidus, explains, “The reality of the activity trap is when learning is measured by participation or completion metrics rather than actual measurable business performance and improvements aligned to the inputs from L&D.” There’s a certain “safety” that comes with showing completion metrics or dashboards versus owning real metrics tied to business outcomes, he says.
Paul Leone, founder of MeasureUp Consulting and an instructor for Training Industry’s Measuring the Impact of L&D Certificate, echoes this idea, noting that many L&D professionals avoid measurement because they fear uncovering a negative return on investment (ROI). They may think, “Why are we opening up this can of worms? We get budget. We get training dollars and that continues year over year. Why would we start measuring, and what if we do start measuring these two or three programs, and it’s a negative impact, or we can’t define the value and show the stakeholders that it had this colossal 200% return on investment?”
However, Leone explains that even programs with a negative ROI can provide valuable insights. Measurement can uncover opportunities to improve programs or address barriers preventing employees from applying new skills, such as lack of manager support. In some cases, the training delivers positive outcomes, but the program is simply too costly. By identifying these issues, organizations can reduce unnecessary costs and improve future results.
Activity Metrics Versus “Value Metrics”
Common examples of activity metrics include:
- Hours of training completed
- Course completion rates
- Attendance rates
- Learner satisfaction/”smile sheets”
While these metrics may show participation or efficiency, they do not necessarily demonstrate whether training created meaningful business impact. Showing impact and value-based metrics is “the only way that you’re going to get a seat at the table,” Leone says, because it demonstrates how training contributes to the organization’s bottom line.
When considering the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)’s standards for L&D metrics, most activity metrics fall within the “efficiency metrics” category. The standards outline three categories of L&D metrics:
- Efficiency Metrics: “Quantity metrics” that measure learning activity, such as course completions, participation rates, utilization and training costs.
- Effectiveness Metrics: “Quality metrics” that evaluate how well training worked, including learner reactions, knowledge gained, behavior change and ROI.
- Outcome Metrics: Metrics tied directly to business results, such as increased sales, improved productivity or reduced compliance incidents.
To measure true business value, L&D professionals should focus on evaluating outcome metrics, or “value metrics,” even though they’re more difficult to measure.
Chapman-Walker says value metrics typically fall into four categories: risk, revenue, retention and productivity. Even in organizations where revenue is not the primary focus, such as nonprofits, bottom-line impact still matters in the form of cost savings or reduced risk. For example, he shares, an L&D team might report that 95% of employees completed a compliance training program. While that may satisfy a reporting requirement, he notes that completion rates alone are still activity metrics. “The value metric, or the outcome metric, would be that we’ve solved, ultimately, a risk, and the number of compliance incidents has dropped.”
Other value metrics might include increased sales performance post-sales training, improved customer satisfaction scores after customer service training, reduced employee turnover tied to leadership development initiatives and increased adoption of new technologies or AI tools following technical training or upskilling programs.
Training Measurement Myths
Before diving into best practices for measuring real business value, let’s take a moment to consider some “measurement myths,” identified through Training Industry research, that may be holding back your efforts:
Myth: High learner satisfaction is a strong indicator that a training program was effective.
Research consistently shows learner satisfaction does not always correlate with learning or behavior change. Training that is enjoyable may not drive results, while more challenging programs may produce stronger outcomes.
Myth: Every training program must show ROI.
While ROI can be a useful effectiveness metric, it’s not always the most practical way to evaluate training impact. Calculating ROI often requires isolating variables and significant data collection, which may not make sense for every initiative. Instead, L&D teams should focus on selecting measurement methods that best align with the program’s goals and the business outcomes they’re trying to influence.
Myth: Training programs should generally be evaluated at all four levels: reaction, learning, behavior and results.
Not all programs require full evaluation. Evaluation should be proportional to risk, cost and importance. Over-measuring can waste resources.
Steps for Measuring Real Business Value
To start measuring true business value, consider the following steps:
- Identify Needs Upfront
Conducting a thorough needs analysis is a crucial first step for delivering strategically aligned training. As part of this process, L&D teams should meet with stakeholders to define what success looks like and identify the business metrics that matter most.
Leone says that “real business value needs to be defined by the business.” Metrics such as sales, customer satisfaction, productivity, retention or AI adoption may all be priorities depending on the organization’s goals. Because priorities evolve over time, regular stakeholder conversations help ensure training aligns with current business needs.
- Determine Which Metrics to Measure
Based on the results of your needs analysis, determine which metrics are worth measuring. Ask: What business outcomes does the organization use to define success, and where can L&D realistically influence or contribute to those outcomes?
Chapman-Walker cautions against overcomplicating measurement or reinventing ROI models. Instead, he suggests, “Go measure and impact one area that is important to the business. Don’t go and boil the ocean; don’t go and build loads of content; go and pick one thing.”
In practice, this means identifying a small set of meaningful metrics already tied to organizational priorities, such as compliance incidents, sales performance, customer satisfaction, employee turnover or productivity, and linking training outcomes to them. L&D doesn’t need to own these metrics outright to demonstrate value. The goal is to show how learning contributes to progress in outcomes the business already cares about.
- Utilize Measurement Methods and Models
There are many models that can help you measure training outcomes. One of the most widely known is the Kirkpatrick Four-Level Evaluation Model, developed in the late 1950s. It evaluates training across four levels: Level 1 (Reaction), Level 2 (Learning), Level 3 (Behavior) and Level 4 (Results).
Despite its prominence in L&D literature, only 6% of organizations report actually following the Kirkpatrick Model. This raises questions about whether a model developed in 1959–1960 still fits today’s complex business environment.
The 5-4-3+ Framework, developed through Training Industry research, offers a modern, business-aligned alternative grounded in ISO recommendations. This model helps connect learning more directly to performance and business impact.
Ultimately, the right framework depends on your unique organizational context and goals.
Conclusion
At a time when all departments, including L&D, are expected to deliver clear business value, those who get measurement right will position both themselves and the training function for future success.
Through outcome-driven measurement, L&D teams can better secure investment and elevate the function as a strategic business partner. As Chapman-Walker puts it, in today’s business environment, “You have to decide that you’re going to own performance, not just deliver learning.”
