Is Outbound Training Worth the Cost? Exploring Its Impact Compared to In-house Sessions

I am a trainer for Business Schools and Corporates in the area of Competency Development. My company deals with both in-house and outbound training. With my real-time experience, I have personally felt that Outbound Training is more effective than In-house training. However, most of the corporates are not willing to put their employees through Outbound Training due to the cost factor and reluctance to spare employees for 2-3 days from the workplace. Will the organization grow without individual development? Are there any views from experts that suggest In-house training is better than Outbound? If so, how?

Thanks & Regards, Premnath

Dear Premnath,

You mention that "I have personally felt that Outbound Training is more effective than the In-house training."

May I inquire about the premises on which your conclusion is based? Is it rooted in the Kirkpatrick Model? If so, could you please provide a bit more detail on this?

The objective of the training is to build competencies. Whether Outbound or In-house training is utilized, they are merely the means to an end. The achievement of goals depends on your comfort level.

Thanks,
Dinesh V Divekar

Hi Dinesh,

Thanks for the response. Well, it is not the exact Kirkpatrick Model, but it falls in line with it. The reaction and learning in the Outbound Model are far more positive than when compared to the In-house model. I came to this conclusion through some informal conversations with the participants. They feel drowsy and sleepy during the in-house sessions, but the participation and response are significant during the Outbound sessions.

As you mentioned, outcomes can be achieved depending on the comfort level. Here, I am trying to analyze what the comfort level is for the majority of the people. To me, the bottom line is that the training has to be effective.

Cheers! :icon1:

Hi Premnath,

Alright then, if what matters most to you is training effectiveness, then:

1. You need to follow the entire Kirkpatrick's model and make your findings on the level of training effectiveness and not just the first step of the KP model.

2. As far as the general feedback on how much the participants enjoyed, you can work it around even in an internal setup.

3. Study a bit more on how to make your programs more interactive and less of a download; this will even rev up the enjoyment quotient in your in-house trainings. But only an interactive or more enjoyable session may not prove to be the most effective at the end of the analysis.

4. You have to do a lot of hard work to learn to engage the crowd.

5. Study your target audience.

6. Decide what location will suit more based on the program.

7. What will always remain your focus is what you want to train them on and whether you are on the right track while designing the program.

8. In the Kirkpatrick's Model, if the result of the analysis does not say that the training was effective, then you are left with boasting of the good results of the other findings.

Your opinion may change, and as a matter of fact, you cannot say that all trainings are better done outside, or vice versa.

You have to work to make it a perfect mix of both enjoyment and effectiveness.

And do not worry, we all are learning to do just that.

Keep it up.

Regards,

Gagan

Hi Premnath,

Having been in the Army for 21 years, I have been through every kind of indoor and outdoor training. Thereafter, I have experienced corporate sector training for the last 2 years and have again experienced both kinds of training.

Outbound training does create a changed and positive environment for better absorption of ideas. A lot of activities involving physical movement can't be done indoors. A change in scene is always welcomed by the participants.

The regular training rooms may create monotony for the trainees because of being in the same everyday environment. Things like team building can be done in a very effective manner in outbound camps. In my last company, we had an outbound in Mussouri, and the bonding it created between people from different departments was unmatched. The company had a policy of having at least one outbound per year for every person.

I feel you can have a combination of indoor, outdoor - morning to evening, and outbound; and select the subjects as per the indoor versus outdoor requirement. However, the cost issue is definitely a factor that hampers people from opting for outbound.

Biologically, if we see, the human mind is genetically tuned to being in large open green spaces; hence, the mind tends to get cramped up when we sit in 6'x6' cubicles. An outbound triggers the creative mind once it gets back to natural surroundings. Even the sages leave the cities and rush to the mountains when they want to attain nirvana.

I stand by what I have said in my earlier post. Would you mind sharing the training effectiveness of outbound training? What measurable change did it bring about? I would be thankful if you could share some information.

Thanks,

Dinesh V Divekar

Hi,

When everything fails in this country, the Indian Army is called in. A bridge was constructed for CWG by the Army in 5 days flat.

Yes, we have a complete system of training which includes indoors/outdoors/camps/simulations...everything.

Whether it's a boy Prince in a Hole or floods or earthquake or War, the Army's training systems have withstood the test of time.

Corporate training can only train a guy for earning a few bucks more. The Army's training systems can push a guy to sacrifice everything, including his life, for a cause.

So this is the proof...

The Mumbai Dabbawallas may not follow Kirkpatrick model or indoor training, but they do deliver to perfection.

On the other hand, the biggest well-trained corporates like Enron or Lehman Brothers can collapse despite any number of models working for them.

So the point is simple - there is nothing wrong with indoor or outdoor training; they are a means to an end, but don't expect everyone to toe a particular line of thought as proposed by one single person. Each person is free to choose the model that works best for him, based on his experiences. It is better to avoid making pointed barbs against any individuals in such discussions.

For Blood Pressure - a Physician may prescribe a medicine - Ramdev would prescribe Yoga - A homeopath may prescribe some pills... So who is right and who is wrong?