This year's conference is promising to be the best ever. The line up of speakers and topics looks to be the very fount of wisdom, and my only regret as a Track Chair is that I can be only in one place at a time. It's fortunate that the place I'll be at 2 o' clock on Thursday is in Track 2.
The big theme of track 2 is Learning Strategy, and throughout the day the discussions will be about such issues as how you reach dispersed or reluctant learners and other stakeholders, how you break down cultural and linguistic boundaries, how you plan for measurable success, and how you prove a return on investment.
At 11.30, Andrew McNeill's going to share with us how The Fugro Group brought people together so that highly specialised SMEs all around the World collaborated willingly to create excellent training, and to hand on best practice, in sophisticated geotechnical and environmental work.
Then, just before lunch, Steve Coe will describe how the retailer, Boots, encouraged a very large and mixed audience, not only to start, but more importantly to complete an e-learning programme and so contribute to volumes of sales and measures of customer satisfaction.
In the afternoon from 2.00 p.m. on Thursday, an interesting and discursive session will take place.
The proper approach to evaluation and ROI has been a "holy grail" for almost everyone since the "Dawn of Learning and Development".
We believed it existed, we knew it was precious, but we didn't know quite where it was or what it looked like.
Now you have the chance to join in the questioning of three esteemed practitioners from public and private backgrounds as they share their respective approaches to ensuring and measuring value from the training that happens on their turf.
David Beckett will be making confident claims that a complex training programme set and met (or exceeded) clearly measurable success criteria and performance outcomes for The Identity and Passport Service.
Kenny Henderson will indicate how three critical measures proved to Sky that the money it was spending on its new e-learning induction programme, was money wisely spent.
Ken Ingram's going to tell us that National School of Government can judge a training programme to have added value, even when there are no hard measures of impact.
So shall we be witnessing blind faith, or something more scientific?
It's open to you to ask the questions and exchange experiences that will probe these assertions.
As the claims stand up to our scrutiny, we can all take away invaluable insights into how organisations can ensure training adds, and is seen to add value.
Don't miss it.