A session attendee at the Tech Conference said (I paraphrase): “In all the proposals I’ve received from AMS vendors, the amount of training proposed seems ridiculously low to me. Why do the vendors underbid on the training aspect of their product?”
I invite the vendors to respond here, but I think there are several things at play:
- The vendors know that if cuts are needed, training is always the first item to get cut from a budget. So rather than budget what should really be budgeted, they lowball it, in order to be competitive against other bids.
- Vendors may very realistically believe that their system is so intuitive that extensive training is not needed. This may or may not be true, but I always advise my clients to “over budget” for training, to be safe.
- Many vendors are providing recorded online training, which may be part of the reason they are proposing less “fee-based” training than they have in the past.
I’ve written in many places about how critical training is to long-term success of any AMS. And that training has to come not only from the vendor but from internal resources as well (since you know, or will know, your data and database better than anyone).
I think there may be one more thing Wes: under staffing of full time trainers by the vendor only allows them to commit limited hours to each client. How many vendors have a person in charge of training who is as important as the head of sales, project management director, or head developer? The “redheaded stepchild” will get less attention.
Good observation, David, though there seems to be a chicken-and-egg thing at play. Assuming trainers are getting paid, wouldn’t the vendors staff up on these positions? Which suggests to me that perhaps associations aren’t demanding enough training (or are unwilling to pay for said training).
I think the key thing is how many “trainers” get promoted to other positions in the firm? It is almost like teaching is considered a low status entry level job.
Oh wait, we are in America, right? Of course it is.