Many organizations are quick to slash training budgets when looking for savings in these challenging times. But that can be a critical – and possibly fatal mistake. Without proper training of its personnel, your organization will not maximize productivity or get results. What’s worse, your training department may be downsized or eliminated altogether!
So what can you do to convince your company that the hours employees spend in training and the dollars it invests in its people are time and money well spent? Start by evaluating your training programs! I’m not talking about the Level 1 “smile sheets” you hand out at the end of your trainings. I’m talking about the deeper levels of evaluation that increase your department’s credibility and justify your worth to the “powers that be.” These evaluation tools can save your department.
The Kirkpatrick Model gives us 4 levels at which to evaluate the effectiveness of our training programs. This article will explore levels 3 and 4; what they are and when to use them. In my next post, I will outline the “how-to’s” (guidelines for designing evaluation instruments) for both levels.
Level 3:
What happens when employees leave the classroom and return to their jobs? How much of what they learned in training actually transfers to the job site? In other words, what change in job behavior occurred because people attended a training program? This is what a level 3 evaluation attempts to evaluate. One of the more common ways to conduct a level 3 evaluation is observation. An observation involves either a Manager or Trainer observing employees perform the tasks (just trained on) according to standard or performance checklist (a performance checklist ensures objectivity on behalf of the observer). The challenge with this method is getting management’s support and commitment to implement it or do the observation themselves. Many managers feel it’s disruptive and/or don’t have time to observe their employees. Creating a partnership with managers and communicating the benefits (of employees performing to standard) is crucial to getting buy-in and cooperation.
Level 4:
This is the most important and perhaps the most difficult of all the levels – what final results occurred because the employees attended a training program. Results can include increased production, improved quality, decreased costs, reduced frequency and/or severity of accidents, or increased sales. Consider the following 5 guidelines when conducting a level 4 evaluation.
Assemble a control group if practical (a control group refers to a group of employees that does not receive the training. The group that receives the training is an experimental group). Any difference between the control group and the experimental group can be explained by the results achieved because of the training program. I liken it to using a placebo group in drug trials/testing.
- Allow time for results to be achieved. Time has to elapse before the evaluation can be done. Each situation is different, so timing depends on the skills taught in training.
- Measure both before and after the program, if practical. Fairly easy to do at this level, as records are usually available to determine the situation before the training program took place.
- Repeat the measurement at appropriate times. Each organization must decide how often and when to evaluate.
- Consider cost vs. benefits. Generally, it isn’t nearly as costly to evaluate at this level as it is other levels.
Implementing a level 4 evaluation provides the greatest challenge to training professionals as some training programs show tangible results, some don’t.
In summary, most of us are concerned with our department’s and our own credibility. We want to be accepted, trusted, and respected by senior executives. When we’re accepted and respected, lots of wonderful things happen – not to mention you sleep better, worry less, and enjoy life more. The best way to earn this trust and respect is by evaluating and reporting the worth of our training – now more than ever! Be sure to watch for my next posting on how to design traditional and alternative evaluation instruments.
Melissa
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Comments RSS