When conditions are uncertain, the instinct is to wait for the picture to clear, but waiting isn’t free. It’s like sitting in a taxi stuck in traffic: you haven’t moved, but the meter is still running.
In capability investment, the meter starts earlier than most leaders realise. It starts with the brief.
A vague brief produces proposals you can’t compare, months of evaluation and a program that arrives late, if at all.
I’ve spent more than 15 years in corporate, executive and higher education, much of it on the provider side of these briefs. Here are six things to demand before you sign one off.
1. Ballpark budget
Not a fixed price, but an expected range.
Without one, you get a huge spread of proposals and no way to judge value. One large government department, which I’ll call Agency X, spent six months assessing proposals. It then ruled out every bid above an internal affordability ceiling that had never been communicated. Whatever the reason for keeping it confidential, the result was predictable. Providers couldn’t calibrate their offers, and the process consumed half a year without producing a workable shortlist.
The usual objection is that providers will bid to the ceiling. In my experience on the provider side, a known budget mostly does the opposite. On large, multi-year programs, providers work hard to fit their strongest offer within it, because being shortlisted matters. On smaller engagements, some will sharpen their pricing considerably to win. Either way, you get proposals you can actually compare.
2. Problem, not solution
The best briefs I responded to stated the challenge clearly, explained what had been tried and what was happening now, and stayed open about what should come next. That openness signalled how much appetite there was for new ideas. A brief that prescribes the answer gets back variations on the answer it already had.
3. Clear line to strategy
This is my non-negotiable. A brief should show how the program connects strategy, people and performance: where you choose to compete, and how you intend to win. The evaluation criteria should be watertight on this. If a proposal can score well without advancing the strategy, the criteria are measuring the wrong thing.
4. Impact measures linked to return
Define what will change, how you’ll measure it and by when. Then link it to return.
For a health client, we ran a program on clear communication and process for staff making screening calls in a day surgery unit. Calls became shorter and clearer for patients, and the unit reported improved patient flow. Under activity-based funding, flow is money, so operations and finance could see the program’s value in the same language. Other facilities soon adopted the approach.
For a national construction firm, negotiation and mediation training for project and commercial leaders was measured on time to completion, contract variations and disputes. The in-house counsel and CFO helped shape those measures, and the program was renewed and rolled out company-wide.
The lesson: bring finance into the brief, not just the evaluation.
5. A timeline that respects budget cycles
Organisations don’t all run on a July–June year. I’ve worked with clients on calendar years, April–March, and US-linked multinationals running October–September. Some of the best programs I’ve seen launched at the end of one year to use available budget. Others had to wait for the new year to procure at all.
Providers have their own cycles. Delivery is often planned around the academic calendar, while costs are shaped by enterprise agreements that can bring material, staged salary increases mid-contract. Those cycles rarely line up with the client’s.
Know when you want to deliver, and set milestones that are clear but flexible.
6. Contingency, built in
When floods hit Brisbane, delivery sites became inaccessible and staff were rightly pulled into community recovery, myself included. Because the program had a modular structure, we moved one module back by a month. A client and team who understood the pressure on everyone made the rest possible.
Flexibility isn’t a sign of a weak plan. It’s what keeps a good plan alive.
How Plexity Partners audits a brief
A Plexity audit assumes the budget and problem statement are in place, and if they aren’t, that’s the first step. From there, it analyses three things: strategic alignment, scope and impact. It draws on three sources:
Meta-analytic evidence on what makes training transfer into real work, including the role of the work environment[1] and leadership-program design[2]
De-identified patterns from comparable programs, from global business schools to local training providers, using a resource pool of curated, publicly available information
Practical delivery insight from shaping and running programs, including what worked and what didn’t
You receive a report of recommendations on what, if anything, to adapt before you go to market or launch in-house. The result is a sharper brief, faster decisions and impact sooner.
Stop the meter before it starts
The cheapest point to fix a learning investment is before anyone responds to it. A strong brief doesn’t slow you down; it’s how you get somewhere for the fare.
Preparing or approving a learning brief?
A short review can identify the gaps that will cost you time, money or impact later. Find out more at plexitypartners.com.au.
If you enjoyed this article, you’ll find more of my writing on the Plexity Partners blog at https://www.plexitypartners.com.au/blog
References
Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T. & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065–1105.
Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L. & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(12), 1686–1718.