Completion rate is the most common used metric in corporate learning. That is, even though it is not the most important thing. Simply because completion of a training program says very little about anything of a certain program. 

 

So why is it not enough to measure completion rate? 

 

Two overall reasons: 

 

Knowledge retention is not merely a result of having completed a course. Employees may complete a course without fully understanding or retaining the material. You have to focus on the skills and knowledge and how the employees are applying it on their job. 

 

In other words: The outcome. You should focus on measuring how the learning is impacting business outcomes, such as for example increased sales, optimized processes, improved customer satisfaction, or reduced complaints. 

 

Completion rate does not equate to relevance. Especially not if the course is completed in a hurry. Course relevance is a very important factor when developing learning and training: You have to look at the target group and their needs and preferences to actually make meaningful learning. Too many focuses too much on the subject and too little on the employees that are to learn how to act in new ways. 

 

In having the employees as a key focal point in the development of learning and training, your chances of creating engaging, interactive, and relevant content are much higher. Organisations get ahead when creating a positive learning experience for their employees to maximize the impact of learning.

 

 

So, by focusing on other metrics than completion rate, organizations can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of their learning program and make data-driven decisions to improve it. 

 

 

Kristoffer Lolk Fjeldsted – learning lead in Tryg – is not a fan of completion rate. Get to know why – as well as getting his thoughts on what L&D should do in order to fully become a crucial gear in the organizational machinery.