General Manager
I want Altaius OS to help an L&D team answer the question that eventually reaches the finance meeting: what did the organisation get back for the money it spent?
The product gives us a place to observe people making decisions. That is valuable evidence. Turning it into a financial claim takes more work, and I think the buyer deserves to see that work.
Leadership training ROI compares the monetary benefit attributable to a programme with its full cost. A higher simulation score can support the evaluation, but it does not establish a financial return by itself.
The calculation is straightforward:
ROI (%) = ((attributable monetary benefit minus full programme cost) / full programme cost) x 100.
The difficult part is deciding what belongs in the numerator.
Suppose a commercial director wants managers to handle contract renewals more carefully. The concern is that people commit to concessions before understanding the customer's requirements or their own delivery constraints.
I would begin with a small set of observable actions. Does the manager check what the customer needs? Do they distinguish an authorised offer from something requiring approval? Do they test whether operations can fulfil the promise?
A simulation can create opportunities to practise those actions. The review can preserve the relevant conversation and explain how the response was assessed.
The next question is whether those actions appear in work. That might require reviewing a defined sample of renewal records and asking managers to document the commitments made, approvals obtained and delivery conditions agreed. The final business measure could be contribution margin on comparable renewals, adjusted for changes in the mix of contracts.
Each step answers a different question. Combining them into one score makes the explanation harder to inspect.
| Evidence | What it can support | What it cannot establish alone |
|---|---|---|
| Performance during a simulation | How a participant handled the practice situation | How they behave in every workplace situation |
| Observed application in work | Whether the practised actions are being used | Whether training caused the whole business improvement |
| A relevant business measure | Whether an outcome changed | How much of the change belongs to this programme |
| Attributed benefit and complete costs | An ROI estimate with stated assumptions | A guaranteed return for another organisation |
The Kirkpatrick Model distinguishes learning, behaviour and results. In particular, application on the job needs evidence from the job. I would not describe an improvement inside the simulation alone as proof of workplace transfer.
The figures below are invented to explain the calculation. They are not Altaius customer results or a forecast.
A programme costs SAR 60,000 in total. Over the agreed review period, contribution margin on the relevant work improves by SAR 200,000. The team investigates other changes, including pricing, staffing and contract mix.
For an initial scenario, assume half the improvement is attributable to the programme. That gives SAR 100,000 of attributable benefit.
The calculation is:
((100,000 - 60,000) / 60,000) x 100 = 66.7%.
If only a quarter of the improvement is attributable, the benefit falls to SAR 50,000 and ROI becomes minus 16.7%.
Nothing about the software changed between those calculations. The attribution assumption changed. That is why I would put the assumption beside the result, with the reason for using it and a sensitivity range. Choosing 50% because it produces a comfortable answer would not be evaluation.
Where feasible, a comparable group or a phased rollout can strengthen the analysis. Either still needs scrutiny. Groups may differ before the programme starts, and conditions can change during the review period. A simple before and after comparison is useful for description but weak evidence of causation on its own.
The invoice is only part of the cost. Include the time participants spend practising, manager review time, programme administration, integration work where needed, evaluation and any travel or facilitation expense.
Agree how staff time will be valued with finance. Use the same method across alternatives so that a workshop and a simulation are not judged on incompatible cost bases.
There are also benefits I would keep outside the financial calculation. A more constructive conversation, clearer preparation or a better understanding of a colleague may matter considerably. Until there is a defensible conversion to money, report those benefits separately.
The ROI Institute's methodology explicitly addresses isolating programme effects, using fully loaded costs and identifying intangible benefits. Those distinctions help prevent a useful development result becoming an inflated financial claim.
For a pilot, I would ask the sponsor to complete a short record:
If the outcome takes six months to appear, a two week demonstration cannot establish it. The early review can still answer whether the experience works, whether the reporting is understandable and whether a larger evaluation is justified.
Altaius OS is being built around detailed individual evidence, with visibility for authorised managers and programme sponsors. The measurement approach explains where that evidence fits. The financial conclusion still depends on the organisation's data and the evaluation design.
Before agreeing a pilot, I would put the business question, the cost basis and the proposed attribution method in front of the sponsor. If we cannot explain those choices, we are not ready to promise a percentage.
