We Talk Outcomes. We Contract Outputs. Here’s the Real Gap in L&D.

I’ve seen this pattern too often — and I’m curious if you have too.

In vendor evaluations, the conversation is all about impact. Stakeholders ask the right questions: How will you measure behavior change? What’s your approach to tying learning to business results? How do we know this will actually work?

We align on goals/ OKRs, success metrics, what “done” really looks like. Everyone’s energized about an outcome-focused partnership.

Then procurement steps in. And the contract that gets signed? Time and materials. Or fixed-cost deliverables. Modules. Hours. Assets.

The outcome conversation doesn’t survive the SOW.

This isn’t anyone’s fault. It’s structural.

Procurement manages risk with models built for buying things —  defined outputs, clear specs. But outcomes are uncertain, iterative, and depend on factors neither party fully controls.

How do you contract for “15% sales uplift” when it hinges on manager reinforcement, CRM adoption, and pipeline quality? How do you scope “fewer compliance violations” without knowing which behaviors are driving the risk?

The honest answer: most of us don’t. We pitch outcomes but paper outputs. Then wonder why work drifts back to production metrics.

The sticking points I keep running into:

• Risk sharing: Fixed-cost and T&M push risk entirely to one side. What does genuine shared accountability actually look like in a contract?
• Measurement: No baselines means no way to pay for outcomes. Does the infrastructure need to come first?
• Iteration vs. scope: Outcome-aligned work is inherently iterative — you learn, adjust, learn again. But contracts want fixed scope and certainty.
• Timeline mismatch: Business outcomes often take 6-12 months to materialize. Budget cycles and vendor reviews move faster. How do you create accountability for results you can’t yet see?

I assumed this was a contracting problem. It might not be.

Consulting is further along here. We see commercial models from them now ties about 25% of its fees to measurable client outcomes. The typical structure: hybrid contracts with a base fee covering costs, plus variable compensation linked to defined results. Gain-sharing arrangements where both parties share financially in the value created — but also share the risk.

Here’s what makes that work: agreed baselines upfront, clear attribution models, and measurement infrastructure already in place. Consulting also tends to target narrow, isolable outcomes — cost reduction in one function, revenue uplift from a specific initiative. The variables are containable.

Learning impact is messier. Too many variables sit between training and business results. L&D rarely owns the full implementation. Managers may or may not reinforce. Systems may or may not support the new behaviors. And most organizations don’t have the measurement systems to track outcomes even if they wanted to contract for them.

Maybe the contract model isn’t the root issue.

The reason outcome-aligned contracts are rare in L&D isn’t just procurement risk aversion or vendor reluctance. It’s that we don’t have the infrastructure to make those contracts even possible.

No baselines. No attribution models. No shared data between learning systems and business systems. The contract model follows the measurement capability. Not the other way around.

So what might actually work?

I’ve been looking at what’s emerging — both in L&D and adjacent fields. A few approaches seem promising, each with different trade-offs:

1. Hybrid contracts with outcome bonuses: A base fee covers core delivery costs — because vendors can’t absorb unlimited risk. But a meaningful portion of the fee is tied to defined outcomes. This requires agreeing upfront on what metrics matter, what baselines exist, and what “success” actually looks like.

The challenge: you need measurement capability before you can even structure this. And you need honest conversations about which outcomes L&D can realistically influence versus which depend on factors outside anyone’s control.

2. Phased approaches: A fixed-cost diagnostic phase to establish baselines, identify root causes, and define measurable outcomes. Followed by an outcome-linked delivery phase where compensation is tied to results.

This separates the “figuring out what to measure” work from the “delivering against it” work. It’s more realistic about where most organizations actually are — without measurement infrastructure, you can’t jump straight to outcome contracts.

3. Embedded partnerships: This one sidesteps the contract problem differently. Longer-term relationships where the vendor is essentially part of the team, with success tied to the same KPIs as internal staff. Not project-based. Not transactional. Shared accountability by design.

When it works, it works well. The vendor has context. They understand the business. They’re not optimizing for deliverables — they’re optimizing for results alongside everyone else.

The challenge? This requires a level of trust that most procurement processes aren’t designed to build. Vendor selection typically optimizes for competitive bidding, risk transfer, and clear boundaries — not for finding a partner you’ll be tethered to for years. So even when embedded models succeed, they often happen despite procurement, not because of it.

4. Building measurement infrastructure first: Maybe the most honest approach: accept that outcome-based contracts aren’t possible today, and invest in the infrastructure that would make them viable tomorrow.

That means connecting learning data to performance data. Building attribution models that can isolate L&D’s contribution. Creating shared dashboards between L&D and the business. Establishing baselines before interventions, not after.

It’s slower. It’s less exciting than signing an outcome-based deal. But it might be the prerequisite for everything else.

The Next-Gen L&D Operating Model: Strategy, Skills, and Systems in Sync

Know More

Where does that leave us?

If we want outcome-based partnerships to become the norm rather than the exception, we might need to stop asking “how do we change the contract?” and start asking different questions:

• What would it take to build the measurement infrastructure that makes outcome contracts viable?
• How do we create the conditions for embedded partnerships — where trust and shared KPIs replace transactional scoping?
• Can we redesign procurement processes to select for long-term partners, not just lowest-risk vendors?

None of these are quick fixes. But they feel closer to the real leverage point than renegotiating SOW language.

We’ve spent years trying to shift L&D’s mindset toward outcomes. Maybe the bigger unlock is shifting the systems — commercial, operational, and technical — that govern how the work actually gets done.

This is what we’re working toward at Infopro Learning, Inc — embedded partnerships, shared KPIs, and hybrid models that tie our success to actual business outcomes. We don’t have it all figured out. But we’re committed to closing this gap. Curious who else is experimenting here.

Sriraj Mallick, CEO of Infopro Learning, is a distinguished leader with deep expertise at the intersection of learning, talent development, and technology. Guided by his core purpose of unlocking potential, he fosters transparent, authentic, and growth-oriented cultures. His work centers on workforce transformation, human-AI enablement, and shaping modern learning and talent strategies that prepare organizations for the future of work.