Validating e-learning investment?

One of the things to consider when you're comparing e-learning to other methods is that e-learning is just a medium. And as a medium, on average, it is no more or less effective than well designed training delivered using any other method. There are things e-learning does well just as there are things face to face does well.

http://clive-shepherd.blogspot.com/2012/06/is-e-learning-effective.html

Here's another link that describes some of the commonly held beliefs (some true, some false) about e-learning effectiveness:

http://www.moresteam.com/morenews/articles/art1-apr09.html

One of the bigger traps folks fall into with any method of training is the belief that training is a good method to transfer information from one point (a book or instructor's head) to another point (the "learner's" head). The problem with this is that it conflates information with knowledge and knowledge with skills. Resources are good for information. Training is good for skills development. 

The marker of a skill is a capability that requires practice to attain proficiency. If no practice required to get proficient OR proficiency isn't required for performance, training is quite likely a waste of time and resources. Additionally, a significant portion of our actions are driven from the neck up. e-learning is great for providing practice for "covert skills" and "cognitive tasks". This is one of the strengths of an e-learning solution. Decision practice and feedback can easily be offered by a self-paced / computer-based medium. More complex transformations (changing ways of thinking) may require peer interaction, facilitation, and conversation. Still attainable using e-learning methods, just using a slightly different mechanism.

The other trap folks fall into with training is "bundling" components and engineering (sometimes over-engineering) solutions in packages that can do more TO people than FOR people. This can be mediated by examining what we're actually doing to improve performance. Are we preparing someone to perform? Are we preparing someone for a specific challenge, certification, or assessment? Are we supporting performance? Are we providing an opportunity to practice (supporting an increase in proficiency)?

http://androidgogy.com/2012/05/04/design-formations-30/

As for ROI, e-learning should almost never be "the whole enchilada". It's a part of a system. Sometimes that's hard to isolate in reality even when a hard business case analysis might point to significant savings. I prefer value and efficiencies as measures to the typical hard calculation of ROI $$. Just about any strategy offers tangible (now) benefits in addition to intangible (long term / additive) benefits. Just measuring the tangible (now) is short sighted and potentially risky as the intangible (long term / additive) benefits could far outweigh the tangible in positive or detrimental ways. Where are we adding value (productivity, retention, satisfaction, time to market)? Where are we improving efficiency (time to competency, delivery time, costs)?

http://towardsmaturity.org/elements/uploads/toward_maturity_infographic_2013_results.jpg

e-learning has been around for awhile. It's an established part of most business' readiness toolkit. When designed and implemented well, e-learning strategies (just as with any strategy) can be very effective. When not designed and implemented well, any solution will be less than effective.