What are the most common mistakes to avoid when planning a training budget?

Training Budget is still a non -attended cost by many organizations . Its a project cost which is addressed when any specialized program needs to be designed and delivered by some external sources , and internal sources are not given that level of work to complete the same . 1.Annual training plans ( with internal and external ) resources are not planned 2. Stake holders are not involved 3. Focus on TNI and revisiting Needs are not available 4. A hypothetical picture is maintained and the bigger objective gets missed 5. Purpose of a program is a mislead so only even the training is conducted , the outcome is not defined

Often overlooked is to ensure enough float is allocated in the schedule to allow for training to take place without delaying project milestones. The training group / individual should be part of the planning and identify how many manhours are foreseen to be expended for each training module. Time should be allowed not only for the presentation, but the total time that staff will not be effectively expending productive manhours on site as well as a knowledge assessment or practical evaluation. (Effective manhours minus Non Productive Time = Total training manhours cost)

In my opinion, the business world and technology are changing every then and now. No business can succeed without training and development budget. Its an asset (if you beleive) not just an expenses. On annual basis, prior to budget, the leadership team has to analyse the training requirements of various departments ( what training is available, cost etc) and prepare a training calander. Also include it in the employee development program and performance apprisal.

In my view, a common mistake in organizations is failing to adapt to evolving industry skill requirements and then risking falling behind in a rapidly changing landscape. Technological advancements and new market dynamics should lead to redefine the skills needed for success.

It's also imperative to anticipate and plan for technology integration costs which are increasingly prevalent. With the rise of digital learning platforms and remote work, underestimating the tech aspect can lead to significant budgetary oversights. Ensuring that your budget accounts for licensing, subscriptions, and support for digital learning tools is crucial. Furthermore, as organizations move towards continuous learning models, budget planners should consider the recurring costs of subscription-based training content and platforms, as well as the need for ongoing technical support and content updates. This forward-looking approach ensures sustainability and relevance of training programs over time.

In my opinion, when considering a training budget, we should always plan for 3 factors: People, Processes and Technology. Missing any of these could be an expensive mistake. People - vendor costs, audience cost (per head) etc; Processes - program development, content, enrollment, surveys etc; Technology - tech infrastructure, tech tools, third party tools etc.

Alongside this, it’s critical not to overlook the potential of leveraging existing internal resources. Sometimes the best trainers are already in the organization, possessing deep institutional knowledge. Utilizing skilled internal staff can reduce costs and foster a culture of peer-to-peer knowledge sharing. It's important to balance between internal capabilities and external expertise, ensuring that training is not just cost-effective but also impactful. Moreover, integrating user-generated content and collaborative learning platforms can cut costs significantly while enhancing engagement.

Ideally you should also check the if the training method or information has any scientific support. Many trainings available are offering outdated information, invalided by science.

After living in the military simulation space for a few years now it's become apparent that (big) money invested in the correct fit-for-purpose simulation can save a lot of money over the lifetime of the simulator as well as create the ability to rapid reset exact scenarios and allow for a "safe fail environment" with very little risk and a lot of reward. Simulation is often seen as a replacement for time on the tools, which it is far from. Keeping in mind the various learning styles, (good) simulation/emulation tools can provide massive results in controlled environments with minimal staffing /instructors compared to traditional manualised training and evaluation.

In my experience, it's crucial to include stakeholders in you budgeting process, as they could have a point of view or perspective that you're missing out. Engaging stakeholders would allow you to collect expertise and thoughts on how to get the most outcome out of the budget.

Engage your stakeholders often and frequently to understand the needs which often ebb and flow in response to business challenges. These conversations build partnerships with your stakeholders and identify the developmental solutions which will require funding. Be prepared to pivot and reallocate resources at any time.

Stakeholders and participants must have equal input on a ongoing basis. Engaging with either group once will not account for the changes that regularly occur in human behaviour. Scheduling multiple review sessions allows educators and designers to tweak delivery based on real world metrics. They can ask hard questions like: “did this training create the change we needed?” “did this training stick over the long term?” “Did we misjudge the speed of adoption of new ideas? Should we speed up or slow down the training” “Did our objectives change or shift since we created the program?” Applying an AGILE design method to training and development will result in more measurable and human centred outcomes for both stakeholders and participants.

To complement this, it is advisable to adopt a 'rolling budget' framework where forecasts and allocations are updated periodically to reflect new information. This method allows training managers to pivot quickly, reallocating funds to high-performing programs and curtailing spend on those with diminishing returns. Furthermore, integrating a feedback loop from post-training evaluations into the budget revision process helps in identifying the actual impact of training, which can guide future budget amendments. Adopting such iterative financial planning ensures that training programs remain relevant, effective, and aligned with both immediate and long-term organizational goals.

In my experience, it is important to periodically review and adjust the budget to meet the dynamic business goals. The continuous budgeting model can be one solution. While some organizations opt to re-evaluate the budget periodically throughout the fiscal year.

This is a critical component. Training is an ever changing industry and new methods are constantly emerging. Pivoting budget to different areas as the business evolves will allow for the most up to date workforce.

Most of the companies are considering the training budget and the contingency plan. They set budget not intentionally for staff training rather than for emergency, when the companies are in shortage of funds they are always thinking of cutting/ using training funds.

One of the other considerations is managing numerous requests from multiple business units in a large organization for field sales training time. This can often become an issue of "we just want 2 hours of their time", but unless you have clear planning and management of the requests of 4 or 5 business units wanting the identical amount of time and budget focused on the same audience, it can become a serious challenge. Having a quarterly gated cadence focused on the overall number of hours of enablement appropriate for the target audience (AND aligned to the desired business outcomes) is essential for effective training plans and budgeting.

I think when planning for the training budget one must keep in mind that sometimes due to unavoidable situations or workload total headcount can decrease too so the budgeting for drop out should be considered