Training Effectiveness Starts Before the Course, Not After Completion

HR Briefing's recent six step framework is worth attention for where it starts. It puts diagnosis before delivery, brings managers into reinforcement, and checks application at 30, 60, 90 and 180 days after training. If you wait until a program ships to ask whether it created value, you are asking too late. The better question comes before budget, design time and manager attention are committed: is training the right intervention at all?

The fact base is limited. HR Briefing describes a six step approach that emphasizes diagnosing skill gaps before training, involving managers in reinforcement, and assessing application over time. It prioritizes sustained on the job behavior over completion and satisfaction measures. What the source does not establish is whether this framework materially improves performance outcomes.

That still leaves a useful judgment. Many training portfolios are approved in the wrong order. Leaders often want scale, speed and coverage first, then ask L&D to prove business impact later. The problem is not only weak measurement. It is weak investment discipline. When the real issue is role design, workflow support, manager follow through or unrealistic performance expectations, training adds cost without improving readiness.

The manager requirement is where this becomes an operating decision, not just a learning design choice. A 30, 60, 90 and 180 day reinforcement cycle depends on managers having the time, clarity and incentives to observe work and reinforce application. In many organizations, that will be the binding constraint. A CHRO, CLO or business leader should treat manager capacity as part of the approval decision, because without it the follow through turns into administration rather than performance support.

I would ask for the performance requirement, the current gap, the likely causes and the manager role after the learning event before approving any material training spend. Then decide whether training is central, partial or unnecessary. Speed without diagnosis scales waste.

This remains a framework, not outcome evidence. The source provides no sample, no measured performance gain and no basis for broad claims about how often training fails or how much this model improves transfer. The correction is still sound: check the problem before approving the program, and treat manager reinforcement as a real dependency rather than an afterthought. I would change that view if stronger field evidence showed that the same post training checks work even when diagnosis is weak or manager involvement is minimal.