"Most L&D KPIs don't tell you whether learning worked. They tell you whether learning happened. In an era where skills decay faster than annual planning cycles and business conditions change weekly, this distinction matters more than ever. The uncomfortable truth is this: many L&D teams are hitting their KPIs while the organization continues to struggle with performance gaps, execution delays, and capability shortfalls."
"Traditional L&D KPIs emerged in a time when learning was episodic, classroom-based, and largely disconnected from day-to-day operations. In that context, tracking activity made sense. If employees completed the course, the job was considered done. Today, learning is continuous, embedded, and deeply intertwined with work. Yet the metrics haven't evolved. Completion rates suggest success even when learners rush through content without applying it. Hours trained grow while productivity remains flat. Certifications accumulate while the same questions keep showing up in inboxes and ticketing systems."
Most L&D KPIs track activity instead of impact, measuring whether learning happened rather than whether it improved performance. Completion rates, hours trained, certifications, and smiley sheets offer visibility but are lagging indicators that can mislead. In fast-changing environments where skills decay rapidly, hitting those KPIs can coincide with persistent performance gaps, execution delays, and capability shortfalls. Modern learning must be continuous and embedded in work, and measurement must link learning to operational outcomes, skill application, and real-time performance indicators to show whether learning actually works.
Read at eLearning Industry
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]