Why are trainings designed poorly?

Lets face it. Most trainings are badly designed. Indeed, training design, as opposed to instructional design is a field that generally lacks thinking.

Pick any vendor you engage. Or any training you have attended.

There are exceptions, but mostly these are tightly designed activities or simulations. Some trainings that are high on activity also appear well designed, but they score more on the engagement side rather than on the learning side.

What may be the reason?

It could range from bad diagnosis to bad execution. It could range from boredom to objectives not understood. Or the lack of engagement from the leader. Or a tick in the box approach. Or too much of subjectivity. Or too much objectivity. Trying to do too much. Too little. Too soon. Too slow.

But is there a single one way to design a training?

I think there is not, but I personally feel that there is a lot of laziness in training design. And that trainings are not meant to be just designed, but crafted, with passion.

Like a curator, you go through the problem, consider the audience, the objective and craft a training that allows you to navigate everyone of those aspects. Curate and design the activity. Curate and design the engagement. And bring it all together. As a process. Not an event.

Work-in-progress...developing thoughts!