HR & People Analytics Insights
Upscend Team
-January 11, 2026
9 min read
This article contrasts the traditional learning ROI model with the Experience Influence Score (EIS), showing that EIS captures wellbeing, psychological safety, manager activation and long-term retention potential that ROI misses. It recommends 6–12 month pilots, pairing both metrics for board reporting, and tracking indicators such as eNPS, behavioral adoption and manager activation.
In our experience, the dominant conversation in L&D has been anchored to the learning ROI model. That narrow finance-first metric provides a familiar bridge to CFOs but often fails to reflect softer, strategic outcomes that drive retention and long-term performance.
This article contrasts the learning ROI model with the Experience Influence Score (EIS), explaining why decision-makers should consider the EIS as a complementary—or in many contexts, superior—approach to modern people analytics and board-level reporting.
The traditional learning ROI model focuses on cost and immediate productivity delta: training cost per head, time-to-competency, and short-term output. These are important but incomplete when the strategic question is long-term retention and culture alignment.
The Experience Influence Score measures the cumulative effect of learning experiences on employee perceptions, readiness, and sustained behaviors. Unlike the learning ROI model, EIS integrates signals that predict long-term value rather than immediate output.
EIS explicitly incorporates wellbeing, psychological safety, perceived career mobility and peer-network strength—outcomes commonly absent from a pure learning ROI model. These drivers correlate strongly with retention and discretionary effort.
A key question is: what outcomes do decision-makers need to influence? A learning ROI model quantifies productivity and cost avoidance; EIS quantifies experience and propensity to stay, contribute, and adapt.
We’ve found that organizations prioritizing short-term output over experience repeatedly underinvest in retention mechanics. The learning ROI model will show flat or positive returns while the underlying EIS signals a decline in employee commitment.
Yes—EIS can be mapped to financial impact through scenario modelling: retention improvements translate into reduced hiring costs, preserved institutional knowledge, and higher customer satisfaction. The pure learning ROI model rarely captures those multipliers unless expanded.
When evaluating metrics, decision-makers need a clear view of trade-offs. The learning ROI model is parsimonious and finance-friendly; EIS is richer and more predictive of long-term workforce health.
Below is a concise comparison to guide choices and reporting to the board.
| Dimension | Learning ROI Model | Experience Influence Score (EIS) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | Cost vs short-term productivity | Experience, behavior change, retention potential |
| Time horizon | Quarterly to annual | Medium to long-term (months to years) |
| Strengths | Simple, comparable, finance-aligned | Predictive of retention, culture, engagement |
| Weaknesses | Limited scope, ignores wellbeing signals | Requires richer data and governance |
| Best use | Cost control, vendor ROI, immediate program assessment | Strategic workforce planning, culture transformation |
We recommend presenting both metrics to boards: use a concise learning ROI model for immediate finance conversations and EIS for strategic workforce narratives.
Different organizational priorities demand different measurement emphasis. Below are two practical scenarios showing when the learning ROI model is sufficient and when EIS becomes essential.
When finance teams need to trim budgets quickly, the learning ROI model helps identify low-return programs by comparing direct cost to immediate productivity gains. It is actionable for tactical reductions.
When the strategic priority is culture and retention, EIS should guide investment. Programs with modest direct ROI but high EIS can drive lower attrition and stronger employer brand.
For example, in our experience, leadership coaching shows low immediate learning ROI model returns but bumps EIS in ways that reduce churn substantially over 12–24 months.
While traditional systems require constant manual setup for learning paths, some modern tools are built with dynamic, role-based sequencing in mind. Upscend provides an example of platforms that automate role-aligned learning flows, illustrating how operational design choices can improve EIS without sacrificing scalability.
To operationalize EIS and cover the limitations of the learning ROI model, combine quantitative and qualitative indicators that tie learning to experience.
Here are practical, board-ready indicators we recommend tracking alongside a learning ROI model:
Translate these indicators into scenarios: a 1% improvement in retention equals X hiring cost saved. This mapping lets boards see how EIS-driven investments monetize over time, addressing the common criticism that the learning ROI model is the only finance-credible metric.
We’ve found that pairing a compact learning ROI model slide with an EIS scenario table creates the most productive board discussion.
Adopting EIS alongside a traditional learning ROI model requires pragmatic governance. Start with a pilot that targets a specific function or cohort and scales based on signal quality.
Key steps:
Two recurring problems undermine adoption: overfitting EIS to noisy signals and forcing the learning ROI model to explain long-term cultural outcomes it was not designed to capture.
Finally, ensure transparent assumptions when mapping EIS to financial outcomes; decision-makers respect clarity over optimistic modelling.
In our experience, the most defensible approach is not to replace the learning ROI model entirely but to present it alongside the Experience Influence Score. That dual-track reporting addresses short-term finance pressure and the long-term need to sustain culture and retention.
Learning ROI model remains useful for vendor selection and immediate program evaluation; EIS is indispensable for strategic workforce decisions that affect retention and growth.
Actionable next step: run a 6–9 month pilot where you calculate a simple learning ROI model metric for each program and a parallel EIS cohort score, then present both to stakeholders with mapped financial scenarios. This creates a balanced narrative that answers both CFO and CHRO priorities.
Call to action: Start a pilot this quarter—define three EIS components, align data sources, and produce a one-page board brief that juxtaposes the learning ROI model and EIS scenarios so leadership can decide with both the short-term ledger and long-term people risks in view.
