I’m honored that you’d consider IT|Redux as a credible alternative to Gartner. We will do our very best to share as much as we can in this area. Keep in mind that some of these metrics are considered as trade secrets by many end customers, therefore you will only get access to a subset of the data we’re dealing with on a regular basis.

Best regards
 -Ismael

You’re absolutely correct. The number of trained consultants is only the tip of the iceberg. For us, training is the upstream section of the adoption process. Downstream, we’re measuring the number of processes deployed, the number of steps they include, the number of integration points with external systems and interactions with end users, plus as many context-specific metrics as possible. This gives us a fairly good understanding of the business benefits provided by our software, and the cost savings it brings for both initial implementation and ongoing maintenance.

Best regards
 -Ismael

Thanks for the post. Here is my challenge to equating “number trained” to “benefits”. I know a lot of my Lean Six Sigma brethren in the top ranks look at how many people are Green Belt, Black Belt, and Master Black Belt as some critical input towards benefits. Truth is, this is one of the poorest measures out there. There is no meaningful correlation between number trained and dollars saved.

I have asked many organizations, “great, you have 100 green belts, how much has this translated into benefits on any of the typical financial models (cost savings, cost avoidance, revenue generation, revenue protection, risk avoidance),” and the answer is a long, long pause.

We need to get back to the basics and look at the financial picture, and stop with the “we have X many heads trained.” Because unless they are tied to revenue-reward against a process context, then it really matters little.