Fehlentscheidungen bei Trainerbesetzung und Reisepolitik durch fehlende Transparenz

Definition

In many Australian training and coaching businesses, there is no consolidated view of trainer calendars, travel distances, actual travel spend and engagement profitability. Management may agree to deliver on‑site training in remote or interstate locations at standard rates without seeing the full travel impact on margin, or allocate senior trainers to high‑travel, low‑fee clients while junior trainers sit under‑utilised locally. This situation is analogous to what Australian club and class‑management platforms seek to solve by providing reporting and analytics on class occupancy, trainer usage and revenue per session, allowing better decisions on scheduling and pricing.[3][4][6] Logic based on professional services margin structures suggests that mis‑priced, travel‑intensive engagements and poor trainer mix can easily erode 2–5 percentage points of EBITDA. For a provider with AUD 3–8 million in revenue and 15–20% targeted EBITDA, this corresponds to approximately AUD 60,000–400,000 of annual profit lost due to information‑poor decisions about where and how to deploy trainers and accept work.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Without integrated visibility, Australian training companies routinely accept low‑margin, travel‑heavy engagements that erode 2–5 percentage points of EBITDA. Consolidating trainer scheduling, travel cost data and profitability analytics can redirect effort to higher‑margin work worth AUD 100,000–400,000 annually for mid‑sized providers.

Affected Stakeholders

Managing Director, CFO/Finance Manager, Head of Training/Delivery, Resource Planning Manager, Sales and Bid Teams

Related Business Risks