A course is an input you can put on a purchase order. Behaviour change is the outcome you actually wanted. Procurement keeps buying the first and hoping for the second. The gap between the two is where most training budgets quietly disappear. You approve a catalogue of courses, people complete them, and six months later the capability you were trying to build is nowhere in the numbers. You did not want a course. You wanted a manager who can hold a hard conversation, a rep who

Three weeks after the workshop, behaviour is back to baseline. Here's why training decays, and the reinforcement design that makes it stick. Plus a decay estimator.

Completion rate proves attendance, not capability. Here are the four numbers that show training actually changed behaviour, plus a 2-minute scorecard.

"Just send us your communication module. We'll run it for the whole team." The short version Buying a training course before diagnosing the problem is like prescribing before examining the patient. Diagnose first, and you can define what to fix, avoid wasting spend, and prove impact afterwards. Most training solves a problem nobody defined The default sequence in corporate learning is backwards. Someone senses a gap, a course is chosen or bought, the course is delivered, com

Course completion rates tell you people clicked through a module. They say nothing about whether behaviour actually changed on the floor. Here's why capability, not completion, is the number that moves your CSAT, escalations, and turnaround time, and what to measure instead.