How can you measure the impact of a meeting facilitator on productivity?

I would be careful locking down the purpose too soon. Sometimes the client will jump to a conclusion about what is needed. I like to ask the client what the problems are (in terms of actual concrete symptoms) to uncover why their key needs are. It's easy to come up with SMART criteria that are simple to measure and achieve but don't actually result in the desired change. It may be that only one or two things need addressing to eliminate/fix others.

Employ the "SMARTER" criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound, Evaluated, Reviewed) to set more dynamic and responsive objectives for the meeting. This approach not only provides clear targets but also incorporates a feedback loop for continuous improvement. Additionally, integrate the "SMEAC" framework from military planning into the meeting's structure. This framework ensures a comprehensive understanding of the context (Situation), clear articulation of the meeting's objectives (Mission), detailed planning of activities and roles (Execution), consideration of resources and support required (Administration/Logistics), and clarity on communication protocols (Command/Signal).

Beyond traditional feedback methods, introduce "360-degree feedback" mechanisms where facilitators, participants, and even external observers provide insights into the meeting's effectiveness. Utilize interactive feedback tools like real-time polling apps during the meeting to gauge ongoing engagement and satisfaction. Analyze feedback trends over time to identify any recurring issues or areas for improvement in facilitation.

If you have a small group I I have found that a short call with each of the participants is easier and more insightful that polls or surveys. This is because of the inherent biases you introduce by asking set questions. I love to ask open ended questions instead in response to what the attendee focuses on during the conversation. This does two things (1) you listen to what the attendee took away, (2) you get to hear what stuck and what didn't, both rationally and emotionally. Sometimes the output of a workshop is less about the results than the shift of perspective it leaves the attendees with. This is tough to measure quantitatively but you get a sense of it through conversations.

Leverage project management software to track the progress of action items post-meeting, assessing how effectively decisions are implemented and contribute to project milestones. Introduce "Outcome-Based Evaluation" to measure the meeting's impact on achieving specific, intended results, focusing on the tangible changes or benefits that arise from the meeting's decisions and discussions.

Use "A/B testing" in meetings by alternating meetings with and without a professional facilitator, or by varying facilitation techniques, to empirically assess differences in outcomes. Consider the "Balanced Scorecard" approach to evaluate meetings from multiple perspectives, including participant engagement, process efficiency, learning and growth, and financial impact (if applicable).

When calculating ROI, include both direct and indirect benefits. Direct benefits might include the timely completion of projects or the initiation of new revenue-generating ideas. Indirect benefits could encompass enhanced team cohesion or increased creative output. Employ "Cost-Benefit Analysis" to weigh the qualitative and quantitative aspects of meeting outcomes against the facilitation costs, providing a more nuanced view of the facilitator's value.