MEASURING IMPACT & ROI IN l&d: HOW DO WE GET THIS RIGHT?

I recently facilitated a Talent Forum call focused on a question that’s always been a hot topic in our profession…

“What is the core challenge in measuring impact and ROI well in L&D today?”

The conversation quickly confirmed something many of us already sense. While our tools, technologies and data capabilities have evolved, many of the underlying challenges remain familiar. We’re still talking about performance, engagement and capability in day-to-day work. We’re still justifying investment to budget gatekeepers. And we’re still trying to demonstrate that learning actually makes a difference.

So, what’s new? And what’s worth reminding ourselves of? There was broad consensus that much is the same, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth revisiting some fundamentals:

• Impact doesn’t live in the classroom or virtual room—it lives in observable shifts in behaviour, confidence, decision-making and performance over time.

• Line managers remain one of the biggest levers, and most underused. If they’re not involved, aligned and accountable, measuring impact becomes infinitely harder.

• No single metric tells the story. ROI is rarely found in a neat spreadsheet alone—it emerges when multiple data points are brought together thoughtfully.

These aren’t ground-breaking insights. But they are easy to overlook when we’re under pressure to show quick wins. So what might we do differently?

Involve line managers far earlier, and far deeper

Several members reinforced the importance of involving line managers not just at the end, but at the point of programme selection, launch, and closure (celebration matters too). This creates shared ownership and clarity around expectations, application in role, and what ‘success’ should look like. Pre- and post-programme evaluation from both managers and delegates was widely seen as essential, not optional.

Think like a scientist (where possible)

I’ll admit this is where my background shows, but the idea of a control group feels increasingly important. We explored questions around how do employees not on the programme perform compared with those who are? What’s the difference between the control group vs programme-only, coaching-only, and programme + coaching? How does impact vary by service area, function or region? (if applicable to your organisation) And HOW easy is it to measure this difference??

While not always practical in a ‘pure’ sense, introducing comparative thinking strengthens credibility and confidence in our conclusions.

Blend quantitative and qualitative data, deliberately

What really landed, was the reminder that qualitative evidence needs intention and structure. Case studies don’t magically appear. Stories don’t write themselves.

Are we prompting alumni to share reflections?

Are we encouraging internal comms or LinkedIn posts post-programme

Are we capturing examples of application after the busyness returns?

Take a genuinely holistic view of impact

Yes, leaders care deeply about the bottom line, and rightly so.

But meaningful evaluation often sits across performance data, promotion or progression rates, engagement and retention, confidence and decision-making quality, and peer and stakeholder feedback.

When these disparate data sources are woven together and shared clearly, they tell a far richer and more convincing story.

One question I’m still sitting with…

“How do we sell the benefits of L&D to leaders who’ve joined from outside the organisation, and don’t yet understand its nuances, history or culture?

What counts as progress in one organisation may look very different in another. Helping leaders see this, without overwhelming them, feels like a growing capability for today’s L&D teams.

One member shared a compelling case study - an example of ROI done well. Creating a regional coach network by pooling in-house coaches with trusted external coaches across organisations.

The benefits?

• access to a diverse pool of coaches (broader than was possible with internal coaches)

• reduced bias thanks to impartial, external coaches

• broader perspective for participants

The result? An evidenced 840% ROI.

Undoubtably GREAT value for money, and a reminder that how we design the ecosystem matters as much as the programme itself.

What really struck me throughout the discussion was how complex and data-rich good impact measurement has become.

This is where working with an external training provider, like Interaction, can genuinely elevate the process. Not just delivery, but capturing and integrating multiple data sources, designing built-in evaluation from the outset, and helping organisations move beyond anecdote to evidence.

When measurement is intentional, ROI stops being a defensive conversation, and becomes a strategic one.

If this topic resonates, or challenges your current approach, the Talent Forum is exactly the space for you. It’s an employer-led, welcoming environment where we explore real issues, learn from each other’s experiments (and mistakes), and leave with ideas we can actually apply.

If you’d like to join a future call or simply want to continue the conversation on measuring what really matters in L&D, join at the link above or get in touch here.

I'm curious to hear...

What might you do differently next time you’re asked to prove impact?