The most upvoted question in L&D right now is: how do you know it worked?

There is a thread on r/instructionaldesign from the start of this month with a title that reads like a sigh: "Please use your critical thinking skills. I'm begging you." It has 180 upvotes and 33 comments, and it is not really about AI tools. It is about people in L&D believing claims that nobody has checked.

The top reply, at 107 upvotes, is a joke that barely qualifies as one: all these problems "can be easily addressed with my Candy Crush clone e-Learning app that converts your policies into little squares and they go boom." Further down, at 42 upvotes, someone is less cheerful about it: "I ask myself how much of it is just an AI circle jerk, and whether there's any humans even here anymore."

Six days later, Karl Kapp ran an AMA in the same community about gamification, AI and instructional design. The most upvoted question in that thread was not about tools either. It was this: what learning problem does gamification actually solve, and what evidence tells us the game elements improve learning rather than just incentivising activity?

Two threads, one question. Not which tool. What evidence.

Why the question is landing now

Money, mostly. In a salary thread in the same community, someone reacts to a low contract rate with a line that stuck with me: "For that money, all they are going to get are bad PowerPoints written by AI." That is 26 people upvoting a very specific fear. When production gets cheap, the buyer stops paying for production. What they are still willing to pay for is the part that changes something.

So the question arrives from two directions at once. Vendors are asked to prove their claims. And the people asking are, quietly, being asked the same thing about their own work.

That second half is where it gets uncomfortable. Training Industry's own research found that fewer than half of L&D professionals are effective at measuring impact, and that only 6% of organisations report actually following the Kirkpatrick model they all cite (Training Industry). The field demanding evidence is not good at producing it.

I do not think that is hypocrisy. I think measurement got treated as a reporting problem instead of a design problem, and it was bolted on after the session was already built. By then the only thing left to measure is whether people enjoyed it.

The question a sponsor is actually asking

When a client asks whether the workshop worked, they are almost never asking for a return on investment calculation. They are asking something narrower and more answerable: is anything different now.

That version of the question can be designed for. Here is what I do.

Name the observable thing before you design anything

Before the agenda, before the methods, one sentence: what will be true on Friday that is not true today?

Not a learning objective. Learning objectives are written so they cannot fail. "Participants will understand the new operating model" is unfalsifiable, which is exactly why it survives so many intake calls. Push for something you could walk in and observe. A decision that has been made and written down. A prioritised list with names against items. A document that did not exist on Monday. Three people who now have a conversation they were avoiding.

If the client cannot name one, that is worth knowing before you build a day around it. Sometimes the honest finding is that they want a good day out, and that is a legitimate thing to want. It is just a different brief, and it should be priced and designed as one.

Design the last hour first

Most sessions put the output at the end. Then the morning runs long, the discussion is going well, and the closing block gets compressed into fifteen minutes of "let's take this offline". The one part that would have produced evidence is the part that gets cut, every time, because it is last.

So build it first. Decide what the room walks out holding, work backwards from that, and let the earlier blocks earn their place by feeding it. This changes what you cut under time pressure. You cut a discussion, not the output.

Make the artifact the evidence

The strongest evidence a workshop can produce is a thing that exists afterwards and would not exist otherwise. A filled canvas. A decision log with the rejected options still visible. A commitment sheet with a name and a date next to each line. A one page brief the group wrote together and can send to someone who was not in the room.

These beat a feedback form for a simple reason. A feedback form measures the session. An artifact measures the work. And an artifact travels: the sponsor who was not there can read it, argue with it, and act on it. A satisfaction score gives them nothing to do.

Six weeks later there is a second, better test, and it costs one email: is the artifact still being used? Did the decisions hold? That question is unglamorous and it is worth more than any number you can put in a deck.

What this does not do

It does not prove causation. It will not survive a finance director who wants a euro figure attached to behaviour change, and I would be careful of anyone who claims their method does. Learning is not the only thing acting on a team between Monday and December.

What it does is separate activity from result at the point where you can still do something about it, which is during design. That is not a measurement framework. It is a habit.

The r/instructionaldesign thread was not asking for better tools. It was asking for people who can tell the difference between something happening and something changing. That distinction has always been the actual craft. It is just that for a while it was possible to hide the absence of it behind good-looking output, and this is the month that stopped working.

---

Marco van Hout is a facilitator and the founder of Metodic, a design tool for people who run workshops and training sessions.