Are training costs getting out of hand? Can they be justified?

[Andrew Friedemann]

There are a lot of variables that impact the cost of training, and unfortunatly the more specialised the training, the more it will cost – not because the training is particularly more expensive, but numbers are going to be much lower but the cost of jumping through all the hoops of the SETAS still adds tremendously to the cost.

For example I am busy submitting another program for approval for which I will probably only have 50 – 100 learners over the next 5 years. the actual training and materials I need for this program have ben in existence formany years, but the extras needed by the SETA have meant 89 hours cumulative computer work and 349 pages of ‘stuff’ which had to be generated for the application. This is where our costs come from…

Whatever happenned to keeping it simple which was the buzzwords back in 2000/2001

I find no acceptable excuse for “Common” high volume unit standards having high training costs – this is inexcusable.

[Khumbro.Com]

Tjo, ok. I’m also not happy with these “ïncetives” being given. It’s daylight bribery! The cost for those things is already included and those guys buying do not see that, anywhere I think the trend is going down. They only need to be reported to the Competition commission because Corporate Governance is not adhered to!

[Khumbro.Com]

True that

[Veronica Stephens]

We are in the habit of offering Companies both accredited or soft skills options to maintain affordability as we are very concerned that if the Client cannot afford to train their staff at all that this will have a long term impact on not only skills development but also on service delivery within organisations.  Part of developing our staff is to support long term succession planning – without training and development this could become a problem in overall performance of Employees.

 

Agreeably accredited training is more expensive because of the standards set and the resources needed to complete learning programmes. 

[Zerelde Uys]

I support the opinions of Irene and Andrew. Would like to add the issue of learner numbers as well. Because of the break-even principle per group, one are often forced to provide for the fact that numbers booked are not necessarily numbers attending. And I have tried all the measures – quotes and deposits up front, order nrs, etc. Somehow there always are some reason to manipulate the provider into taking the punch in terms of economics. I have also had quotes asked for 80 learners, negotiated a reasonable price, and then after 2 sessions of 14 learners each, the programme gets terminated. (And not because of inferior delivery…they used us again the next year).

I often wonder about the cost of refreshments included in training budgets, though….where the lunch menu seems to take priority over the outcomes to be accomplished…?

[Author]

Posts