This question is a joke, right?

The MBA/spreadsheet jockeys have this all figured out: Training increases expenses, which immediately and accurately measurable (and therefore easy to model in a spreadsheet).

By comparison, said training may or may not provide benefits to the company, and what benefits accrue are very difficult to measure (and therefore model in a spreadsheet).

THEREFORE, it is MUCH BETTER to take that training money, and give it to the MBA/spreadsheet jockeys as a BONUS for making those DIFFICULT decisions, like cutting training.

This stuff is so easy. I want one of those jobs.

I have to agree that the answer is easy at first glance. However, once you begin to examine it the answers begin to become more complex and none of it reflects well on the current state of IT.

The obvious answer is that training is one of those easily-dropped cost items. It sits on one line, it can be dropped as a line, it doesn't improve current earnings. If you need to save money quickly ... stop training.

However, the true answer lies in a combination of elements.

1. An extreme short-term focus. "What 5 year plan ... I don't need no 5 year plan!" seems to be the cattle call of the current executive. Of course, that's a normal human failing, but the executive's job is to not make that mistake.
2. A focus on "What's in it for me?", which is part of the reason for 1. As a CEO, my personal income is heavily focused on current company position. Since I'm not rewarded for tomorrow and I won't be around, why worry about it? Get today's income and share price up.
3. A loss in respect and interest in other people and their welfare, which is a current societal issue.
4. An attitude of "people are interchangeable and replaceable" and "our product is a commodity so our people are, too." By downgrading the value of retained knowledge/learning (a.k.a. experience), we're able to justify downsizing and cutting costs by losing people. After all we'll just hire different people back again if we turn around. No big loss.
5. A lack of understanding of IT and the people who work in it. Which leads to the next item:
6. A lack of respect for the functions that are grouped under the IT banner. (I don't understand them, I don't understand what they do ... therefore it can't be very important can it?)(This is why sales and accounting traditionally flip being in control of most large companies).

Mix it all together and you get an environment that cannot co-exist with the concept of personal growth within corporate growth. People are perceived as an expense rather than an asset. And training is perceived as an expense (rather than a restoration or improvement of an asset).

It's no wonder that training is one of the first expense items to go! And why we seem to be on a roller-coaster economy.

Glen Ford
TrainingNOW
http:www.trainingnow.ca

It is complicated. First of all you have management watching the budget. You have to have a manager that can drag the VPs into your corner to spend the money. When you do get the hard-fought-for dollars, you have IT staff too busy to take advantage of the training. I've often seen IT people avoid the training, choosing to learn on their own instead. This rarely works and you end up with a staff that is behind the times. You have to be careful to make them take the training.

Think wallstreet!...Think politicians!...

CxOs wanna keep up!...

Greed, corruption...greed and or did I mention greed!

CxOs need more money ...at any(body)(things) expense!!

Glen: I think what shows in your comments is a weakness in and failing of the IT sector in general. Overall, IT does a poor job of translating their value into terms that accounting and sales execs understand.

For example, if I could prove that for each $100 spent on training in IT would result in a savings of $75 and an increase in revenue of $75 (net benefit of $50 to company), training dollars would come in by the truck load.

When IT starts presenting itself using metrics of streamlined processes (savings) and new sources of revenue (earnings), it will have a seat at the table with accounting, sales and operations.

I think everyone here has it all wrong. Management sees technical folks in IT as technical. They don't see potential management. They think of technical skills as commodities. Why would they want to train someone or promote someone with technical skills and eliminate their use of those technical skills? The technical skills are what keep the organization's engines running, making them money.

Look at this way: how many CEO's, CFO's, or even CIO's actually work or worked in technical positions? From my experience, most came from sales, marketing and finance background, not technical ones. They train, hire, and promote their own kind and leave the technical geeks at the bottom to do the work. That is until they can't find a way to cut costs enough to support their huge bonuses and then they send those technical jobs overseas. Rarely do management jobs get cut or sent overseas.

Why spend money training when you can just lean on your congressmen to increase H1Bs? These guys come over already trained, right? And talk about a savings to the bottom line -- what a bargain!

The sad trend in Corporate America is a bias toward only hiring people who come packaged with all the skills necessary to do the job. This translates to zero training costs and very little upward mobility, as workers are pigeonholed into the only jobs they came in equipped to do. If you want to spend the money to train yourself, companies welcome that, but no promises are made to grow your career.

As has been stated here, anything that does not increase the bottom line of management -- who are most often not well-versed in what goes on at the service- delivery level -- does not get past the budget cuts. This ensures management bonuses while sacrificing product quality, as without investment in training to improve and emphasize quality delivery, mediocre morale and a dearth of loyalty are propagated. Why give 110% when the company compensates you below your worth, refuses to invest in your development, and promises no kind of job security?

It's fear of not understanding what IT is all about. It's specialization of the workplace designed to keep people in control of only their specialized job. If you study the education system in this country, the government got scared (fear) in the 1960s and 70s. Ever since then it has been the dumbing down of America.

When IT came along, corporate America needed IT to be competitive. IT technicians and specialist were needed. After the executives felt comfortable and trusted their structure within their corporation they specialized the compartments again within IT.

They think they know everything that's important about IT within their company.

They still fear the unknown about IT -- that's why they outsource the jobs overseas. No one can advance in their own little specialized compartments. No $ for training. It's not needed.

Eventually those companies will be history when other companies design their infrastructure in an integrated design which encourages growth within, for the betterment of everyone.

I think it has more to do with the fact that out-and-out lying comes into play in a corporate environment that wants to get off as cheap as possible while not having to pay for it. With a dynamic global economy such as ours, employers have the option of paying for the lowest-pay worker who says one thing but actually isn't what they play themselves out to be. In my personal experience I've noticed that people will do or say anything to get a body in a seat while not actually out and out saying it. I've only been in one place that actually lived up to its word. Not only did this place send me to training; they paid for the plane tickets all over the country and it actually made me a much better person and worker. The reason for that is simple: the company didn't pull any crap. There was actually a policy that they followed religiously and they held themselves to a very high standard. Now throw in a bunch of accountants who know nothing about IT other than 1 + 1 = 2 (or in some cases like the scandal involving the big three accounting firms in the U.S. and abroad, 1+1=6 gazillion...that extra few gazillion was a bet on the future...;)) any tech person with a comp sci degree knows 1 + 1 = 2. Well, I say if you find yourself in a position that promises one thing and doesn't deliver because of a change in policy, LEAVE, and LEAVE FAST.

We in the tech industry can no longer have patience with companies that are looking for the cheap way out. Let them, I say. But when they come back to us because their cheap labor didn't do it right, well, as the saying goes, shoe's on the other foot now.

I worked at a place where rather than honor their promise, they brought in a consultant at $65/hour. Then they had to bring in another same price. I left and they brought in two more at $80+/hour. Hmmmmm, let's see ((65*2)+(80*2)). Now for you funny accountants that didn't go to prison with that debacle, 65*2=???130 + 160 = $290/hr. . Now that is just terrible, folks, but that is the state of our ignorant management mentality in this country.

If people like gates would STOP LYING to Congress about a labor shortage... There's no shortage. There is a greed factor here. So let them be greedy. They'll come back sooner or later. They always do in the end.

Glenn is right on!

A few more points for consideration:

1. The human phenomena of "what's in it for me?!" exists in probably 99+% of businesses today.

2. Why do people leave their employer after they've been fortunate enough to have gone to any sort or training? I think the answer might lie in "respect for the individual." Today, there is no respect or loyalty between businesses and their people. IBM was a huge proponent of and preached "respect for the individual" for many years. Then, in the late 1980's to early 1990's, when the economy began going south, "respect for the individual" went out the window when tens of thousands of people were, well, er uhh, to use a business term, terminated.

3. People as commodities?! There's a foundational problem right there. People are NOT commodities. That type of thinking is bolstered by comments like: "Well, it's just business!" "It's nothing personal, but..." This thinking breaks the human spirit, or should I say that in the business world, the human spirit is already broken.

4. Look at us now! Bailing out banks?! These are the very entities that have a direct and adverse effect on the mix of humanism with business, rather like oil and water. These are the same entities that charge 36% interest on their credit cards, can change the credit contract terms on the fly at their whim, can charge $35 for an overdraft on a check, and on and on and on!

So, why should giving an employee training be any different? The chances are that depending on the relationship between the employer and employee, loyalty and respect factors, the human spirit factor, I'd say by today's standards... Yep, mmm hmmm, yeah... that person will most probably leave the company if the skill is marketable elsewhere.

We need to dig deeper into ourselves and root out the causes and dynamics of these occurences.

How can we fix these things when CxOs are being rewarded in the tens of millions of $ for losing control of his or her company, and they're having cows over a few training classes? Are there elements of this I'm missing? Greed, politics, stress in the workplace, offshoring your job, always having the feeling that you need to walk on eggshells at work??

We're talking about training right? Or lack thereof. This is a basic tenet of what companies have to commit to especially in IT.

Bottom line... I agree with Glenn that there is much more to this than meets eye!

@Doug -

Expanding on Doug's point. Resources are developed that increase the bottom line.

- Product Development/Marketing
- Sales
- Operations
- Finance

In a technology producing company, technologists create products and increase the top line. Hence, they are developed.

In non-technology companies, technologists are expenses to be minimized.

Flame away, but unless you can directly point to something on the top line or reduction of expense to the bottom line. That is the way it is going to be in corp IT.

Advice is to move somewhere where you are on the revenue side of the equation, not the expense side.

As a director of IT I know exactly why you don't get training. I have worked in this industry for 25 years and in the last 15 all companies look at employees this way. You don't get training because if they spend money to train you, most likely you will go to get another job with higher pay. Five years ago I spent $20,000 training two employees over a year period of time and both left their positions for higher pay.

Good luck getting company-paid training.

I can't understand this! What stops you, the directors, from making an additional contract with the employees that are sent to get some training? Say, they have to stay another 2 years to pay back the amount once they are leaving earlier?

Bill took the words right out of my mouth. Seems to me like companies could enforce some sort of binding "contract" with employees who get training, much like many firms do with workers who get tuition assistance for an advanced degree.

I imagine that Bill and I aren't the first to come up with this solution. So maybe some of the veterans out there can tell us if this is something companies consider...or why they've decided against it.

Brian: I owe two years to my company for assistance with my MBA (I am an IT guy). The division president congratulated me (said I was the most educated person in the division office now), my boss asked me if I was going to quit.

But no official recognition, no pay raise, no promotion. While I appreciate the assistance, I also understand how much my company values education and motivation (I earned my degree with a 3.9 in 16 months, working full time, with two preschool boys, one with autism).

Now I know exactly what my company thinks of education (and the motivation it takes). How should I respond to a company that really does prize this?

In our case this subject was brought up last year in an employee survey. One of the loudest complaints was that, even though we were required to take 24 hours of training per year, there was no money in the budget for anyone but a select half dozen to go to training. For example, in a department of 32 people, $24,000 was allotted for training for the entire group. We have lots of "feel-good" training (Writing Effective Emails, Holding Effective Meetings, Time Management) that's offered in-house, but if you want to attend a conference or train in the technology you use every day, there's "not enough money left in the training budget." So we complained.

This year there is no longer a 24-hour training requirement.

One of the main reasons, as I've heard it explained by management in these exact words: "IT people are like pool people. I don't care if you cut my grass in addition to cleaning my pool, but if there's someone out there cheaper, I'm going to hire him." According to this manager, the new guys coming out of college know everything about PCs, servers and Windows. Why keep you when we can hire them?

I don't remember the part about being an expert at "Doom" being essential to the job.

So, I guess in a nutshell, the management I've seen expects you to learn the technology on your own, on your own dime and on your own time and then graciously pass it on to your peers. Or your next employer.

Greg: Your case its a good one.
The company already paid your effort by supporting you. The companies DOESN'T pay for education but for the RESULTS of a higher education or training. So I hope they will see that you have new ideas and you are more efficient and then they will pay you. Otherwise they will lose you. It's clear.

For me is always a question how we, IT guys, are able to come up with a heart simulation but we are not able to produce some evidence that education/training give boost to companies!

I believe that this is an issue first and foremost of corporate culture. You either believe in investing in employees or you don’t. As part of an organization that invests in employees, part of the result is having IT employees that started in 1977 still with the firm.

I’ve worked in consulting and software firms that fit the profile described in this article and I’ve had the opportunity to see that concentrated plans that include employee development as massive payoff in the long run.

We ensure that training is available for all IT staff, but at the same time we would focus training by job description. We don’t send people to a conference as a “bonus” and tend to authorize conferences for technology leaders (by area), while training is distributed through IT’s internal units as appropriate – including providing advanced training to employees to continue their migration to the next level of their training plan.

This doesn’t mean that any employee can get whatever training they designate is necessary, but it does provide opportunities that are found to be mutually beneficial.

Companies that don’t maintain their existing talent will lose priceless legacy knowledge; at the same time it’s unrealistic to expect that every IT employee should be sent to MCSE boot camp as a reward for showing up for work.

From a budget perspective we allocate funds for the department, by unit and expect our PMO to account for training mandated by the acquisition of a new system. (Some PM’s “magically” miss this.)

Part of our focus is driven by existing in a highly regulated industry where we must prove continuing education for IS staff and part is out of experience from doing it the other way in the past.

Isaac, et al,

Reading through the posts, i realize the core issue is career progression. Is there a path from Helpdesk to CIO? Are there mechanisms in place to recognize and capitalize on talent? Is there a system in place for "commodity" positions (the employee is expected to move on after a couple years)?

As Isaac pointed out, these are issues of corporate culture. I imagine most firms that treat their IT departments personnel like commodities do the same to those in operations, accounting and sales. In other words, they would be unpleasant to work at in any department.

One strategy is to seek out a position with a firm that has a solid commitment to its people. Doing so while employed and not in need of employment gives the worker time to research, time to meet people, and time to wait for an appropriate opening.

A few years back, I read about how a conversation between the IT manager requesting training for his staff and the CFO could go....

IT manager: "It's important to get some of the staff trained on XXXX."

CFO: "Yes, but if we train them they might leave."

IT manager: "What if we don't train them and they STAY!!!"

Promises by employers are "flexible." This is a sad state of affairs in general. Now, our company has done much the same thing: promised training. We even "sell" our "trained and certified experts," but the only way those certs get passed is self study. There hasn't been a single training class in over two years. The last conference attended by someone other than the CEO was in 2006. The CEO is out of the office as much as in on various trips and training courses, seminars, etc... But for the rank and file, nothing. So, what does it mean? It is almost a Dilbert cartoon that talks about human capital. We want the best, but we won't pay for the best; we want our folks trained, but we won't train them; we want them to stay put, but we don't give them anything more than a paycheck to actually incentivize them to stay. And the execs sit in wonder about how people can't do the job to their satisfaction, and how we need to get the right people in here to do the work. As if the next guy we hire isn't going to be in the same spot a year from now. I patiently explained and backed up that for us, the average new hire costs about 12k to get where they are useful to our customers. I presented that we SAVE about 6k a year just getting our folks to training 2 weeks a year. I guess they sort of took it to heart: the CEO has done enough training that if everyone did participate, they'd all have about 2 weeks each training under their belt.

To Frank's point, I might be off target with this, but: You spent 20k training them, then they left for a better job. Is that always the case, or a one-off in your experience? In my experience (managing IT for 8 years), I see folks that we have grown from entry level into very competent techs; we invested training dollars in the early days and put them in positions to grow. We really screwed up by not paying these folks what they were worth after a time. As you probably know, in IT, the best way to get a raise is to take another job. If you start out making 30k, it is very hard for that same company to turn around and pay you 60k two years later. They miss the point that you started on the desk, but now administer the SQL servers, email, infrastructure...whatever that is actually a 60k job. So, that guy says, 'well, I'm underpaid, and the other guys will pay me market value so...' I've watched it happen probably 6 or 7 times here -- we have a guy doing job x for x amount of pay, but he leaves; then his replacement, every single time, gets paid at least 25% more than the last guy doing the same job. That is why most IT folks are mercenary, because if they want to get paid what they are worth in the market, they have to job hop because employers still think of you as x, even though you've progressed from y to z. That is an IT marketing problem. An HR clerk promoted to HR manager makes sense to the CxO's to give a raise; the help desk to server admin, well, that all sounds like geeks in the basement, we pay them all the same, right?

There are elements of "truth" in all the comments entered in this post. The plethora of reasons (and excuses) depend on the culture of a company and the ability and desire of a CIO to influence other CxOs to support the IT department.

IT must align itself with the business side of the house and provide ROI through partnered projects -- the problem is, it's not easy! We must go to our customers and say, "We will not do any projects until you help us assign a measurable ROI to the project" -- and then measure and promote the contribution to the business, eventually IT will get the respect, support and training necessary.

Every business has a corporate culture supported by the CxOs. If the culture does not value people, GET OUT! If, in the mission statement, people are valued, then IT needs to learn how to develop/promote projects that include aspects of the corporate mission. Develop people and training that support the corporate mission!

Too often, IT wants to be "technical" and are so proud of this fact, that they cannot think "business!" It is IT MANAGEMENT's RESPONSIBILITY to take that technical bent and convert it into a powerful force of change, supporting the business goals within a company. We, as corporations, cannot stay in the "same old ruts" and hope to continue to compete on a global basis. We, IT, have to compete for the $$ within a company and must do so in the language and culture of the company.

IT must also develop employees' ability to partner and speak the language of the business units. As individuals work on projects that are tied to the goals of the BUs, these individuals will be valued -- their expertise and skills will be supported and rewarded. But we most promote the successes and contributions to the bottom line that our projects and people develop! This means a measurable ROI!!!

In conclusion, I don't believe it is "lack of training" that is the problem, but IT's inability to communicate, grow and partner with the business units. It should be the CIO's responsibility to get CxOs to view IT as a "strategic corporate asset" and fund it appropriately. The preceding should be stated by the CEO and pushed down to every level of the organization.

As head of the IT Leadership Program at Santa Clara University, a program now in its 10th year, I might suggest a few things.

1. Any training should be part of an individual's development plan. As a former senior manager, I would sit with each of my reports and discuss the knowledge or skill the individual needed to perform in the job, as well as to further their career. When they came to me with a training request, it had to fit somehow within those guidelines. No more, no less. Therefore, make sure you have a development plan that you and your manager agree to.

2. There is always the fear an employee will leave after the training, but again, if an employee left, I always felt it was my fault. The research bears this out and indicates that most people leave because of their immediate manager.

I see several problems and solutions:

1) Consultants

If companies need special skills they will call on consultants rather than train their own workers. Very often consultants are not receiving training either, so generally the shortage of specialized skills increases. The solution is to properly identify which skill is a short-term need, for which a consultant is suited, and which is a long-term need that employees should be trained to provide.

2) Poorly Targeted Training

Most often training is handed out to employees as a reward. Typically this reward is training that the employee doesn't really need or is not likely to use in the near future. Targeted skills should be identified and the employee trained just before the skill is needed.

3) Worker Retention

If a worker becomes better trained and their position and compensation doesn't change, why shouldn't they look for a better job?

Associated with training should be compensation that reflects the added value of the employee. The employee should be quickly given the tasks, title and pay that the skill infers.

In some cases, it would be wise to make an employee sign an agreement that they pay back training costs if they leave within 6 months or one year of receiving an expensive training course.

Isaac, Greg and Bill all make some excellent points. I work on the business side and have a strong IT background. EVERY organization is experiencing a need for more training. Computer technology tends to change slightly faster than some of the other fields, but they are all competing for money from the same pool for training. From a higher perspective, is the money we spend on IT training worth more, or less, to the company than the advanced training that the engineering organization needs?

Advanced training is a problem that confronts all technical specialties. The secret is to be able to make a logical, reasonable case to management that the training will add value to the company. This can be a direct benefit in specialty skills, or indirectly in the form of personal development that would convince someone to stay with the company.

The problem that I see most often is that the department manager's request for funding for additional training is not well justified or thought out, and so the funding request has less chance for being approved. Work with your manager to develop a good story for why the training is important and you will have much greater success.

The prior posts have many excellent points. I have a different take on IT training.

I'm not certain there are well defined "career paths" regardless of what HR tells you. If you don't have a clear career path, how can you have training? It is great to train your app dev or infrastructure staff on this or that technology, but how do you get your database guru through the first steps of leading?

I watched and coached many young people through their first leadership roles through the top ranks of middle management. Two things: there is no script for bringing people up the management food chain, and we have busily fired most of middle management, causing us to lose that knowledge base. We are great at the concrete stuff and less great at the soft stuff.

I recall seeing in a prior post words to the effect that training is just a line item on a spreadsheet. It is our responsiblity to explain the value of training.

Generally speaking I've not had a problem getting people trained from a budgeting point of view. I've had problems training people because they prefer to do work. At that point the leader has to insist that staff take the time. There will always be deadlines.

Glen Ford's comments are interesting: much of the points are all that is responsible for the recent financial tsunami. I think this is a reflection of the mentality of CxOs in big firms, especially financial ones. A short-term view and loss of respect interest in other people's welfare, a commoditizing attitude to PEOPLE are characteristics of corporate today. What's wrong the MBA education today?

I agree with CxO point about people not taking training that is offered. I worked at a large corporation that offer tons of free training. HR told me that fewer than 10% of employees took advantage of the perk. My division's management made everyone in the group go through a specific course every 6 months so we all would develop shared skills and vocabulary.

Most IT training is necessitated by an underlying need of the business to move to a new technology. The sellers of the new technology tend to throw in "value-add" training in exchange for licenses and revenue. Then the training does not address all the problems associated with adoption of a new technology which underlying that is almost always a requirement for a change in business process and workflow. Siloed organizations will only look at what the people in their silo need if the organization purchases the technology. Forward-thinking leaders understand the value of strategic planning and change management -- strategic planning utilizing a repeatable process accelerates the successful implementation and adoption of the new technology. Some organizations get it and others keep making the same mistakes over and over.

There's an underlying assumption in all of this discussion, and it's wrong.

The assumption is that organizations have a special obligation to provide training for their IT staff, and the lack of it is a problem to be solved.

Question: Does this apply to all organizations or only to those over a certain size or revenue?

Some companies make professional development a priority. Others even offer competitive salaries to keep the people they've trained. This philosophy might make them more competitive than their less-enlightened competition (which, if I were a shareholder, I would insist be demonstrated).

In over forty years, I've had some great jobs with great companies. None of them ever offered to train me and I never expected it. They treated me like a big boy and expected me to take care of my own professional development; which I did. And when performance review time came around, I had an extra card to play. My career is my problem, no one else's.

To those who think they're owed a career: Grow up.

From the management point of view, nothing keeps good people like a competitive salary. The idea that "I trained you so you should stay here at a sub-market salary" is insane. Any manager who takes that attitude will quickly lose her best people. You keep people by paying them well and giving them interesting work to do. You train people to get better results, and you should be prepared to pay for better results.

Training is the first to go in IT because IT is still seen as an expense rather than a producer of value, and all associated are expense items, including the people. As an experienced manager, I have learned that the only training in a department budget should be what you are willing to have cut. The real training (both technical and professional) should be integrated into project budgets, program budgets, service costs, operating expenses and upgrade costs. This removes it from the quick-hit savings and, more importantly, propogates training as a necessary and integrated component of IT programs and services.

These days numbers are a daily thing, not monthly as in the past. Upper management makes the call which projects are high priority etc, as the priority changes monies get moved around by the financial folk. Training and personnel adds or replacements are always on the top of the line; after the January 1st budget goes "BUST" on January 31 -- panic sets in. Also, 5-year plans look nice on the spreadsheet but in today's world going past 2 years is a pipe dream.

IBM and other firms in the 90s substantially invested in employee training: around 50% of salary. Management required their staff to sign 2-year commitments so staff would not leave IBM and management could block them from internal job transferees to superior departments, or the employee would have to repay a pro-rated amount for their training.

What happened to this simple and effective approach?

Now, in 2009, there is no authentic internal-facing strategic oversight or training; and IT “planning” is a non-sequitur.

While being a very small part of the people who have been lucky enough to reap the benefits of a company assist for education, I can also say that the company has done little else for me. I achieved my schooling in my own time, while doing my job and the jobs of several others who were "globally resourced." -- meaning four people in the states were let go and one person in an emerging country was employed. I've been pushed to put additional training in my yearly "review" and, although it is noted, 1) there isn't any time once a person works 62+ hours a week, 2) the company cuts off all eduction spending when they near the end of a quarter/year, 3) the company is not about people, but about the shareholders and executives, and 4) with offshoring being a continually hot item, there are very few jobs to be found without picking up and moving across the country -- not something that most people have the money to do.

I've read all of the other comments and I agree for the most part with all of them. But one thing that hasn't been touch on is 1.) the cost of IT classes and 2.) the poor quality of said classes. As a person who has been in the IT game for 13 years, for the most part I'm generally self-taught when it comes to learning new software/hardware. At first I did the IT classes thing but I was disappointed in the lack of knowledge the instructor(s) possessed. Most of these instructors basically read straight from the class materials and if any questions were not in the book, they had no clue. A lot of these instructors were full-time with little or no real-world experience. Then looking at the cost of these classes being anywhere from 1500.00 to 2400.00 per class the cost quickly gets out of hand. Now you times this by multiple employees and it will quickly eat up any training budget.

Now let's look at the average worker outside IT. They usually come in with their degree and for the most, other than in-house training, don't pursue any additional education unless they are pursuing an upper-management position. Of course there are exceptions like doctors, lawyers, accountants, tax attorneys, etc., because just like IT professionals, information about their jobs changes regularly. And even people pursuing their MBAs for the most part pay out their own pockets.
So most companies are not use to continuing to pay or create a budget to keep their IT personal updated on the latest technologies. They might send someone to Windows 2003 class if they are getting ready to migrate to Windows 2003 but that's about it.

And don't get me start on the certification racket. I found for myself that having a good foundation and understanding of technology goes further that IT classes, anyway. If you have a good foundation, it's easy to pick up on the changes made from release to release. Plus, a lot of the fundamentals carry over from product to product--for example, firewalls tend to work on the same underlying premise, so all you have to do is find out how you accomplish want I need to in their interface/language.

As IT leaders, our job is to attract and retain the best.

As IT professionals, our job is to be the most competitive alternative, available, anywhere. We must invest in ourselves.