22nd Oct 2009 at 1:16 pm #41331
What are your findings re real results from training interventions. So many training service providers deliver programs without commitment to financial . If there are no improved financial results within a business after training interventions, are those interventions not worthless?
22nd Oct 2009 at 1:44 pm #41339
This seems to be the crux of the matter when it comes to Skills Development. How does it translate to tangible (monetary) return on investment. Having an obvious increase in your bottom-line after a training intervention would be first prize for a company. Reality is, that measuring ROI when it comes to development of your human capital is not always that cut and dry. (There may be people who disagree with me on this point 🙂 )
I consider training interventions invaluable when it addresses the performance management of my company HOLISTICALLY. In other words, not just the desired financial return on investment, but also the increased employee morale, a more structured and specific career path being facilitated by training interventions, increased favour by employees of my company as being THE company to work for based on the fact that my company takes interest in investing in the development of its employees both professionaly and personally.
I believe the value one places on the outcome of a training intervention stems from the the premise it was requested.
23rd Oct 2009 at 8:56 am #41338
Hi Inge! I enjoyed your response! Yes, any process involving us ‘humans’ needs to be holistic. It must develop the whole sentient being! In my experience as a trainer I have found that too many programs are delivered/presented with no specific measurable outcomes defined beforehand, and then seldom is there specific, accountable, detailed follow up, either by the trainer/service provider, or by the organisation. Many organisations are negaitve about training as they have not seen the promised outcomes. Within Excelebrate, my training company, we are now advertising that we guarantee results. We do not accept contracts that disallow our process because we know that our process guarantees positive change.
While motivation levels, positive self image, an holistic lifestyle, EQ, etc., cannot be measured in numbers, when it comes to functioning in a business, all of this holostic development must result in figures relative to the individual’s required key performance areas.
3rd Nov 2009 at 9:03 am #41337
You are raising a very interesting training issue regarding the Feedback or Return on Investment ROI of Technical and Vocational Education and Training TVET interventions.
One major constraint that TVET is facing, is the limited budget and this becomes the core issue as to why we cannot achieve an effective Demand & Quality Based TVET through employment of trained trainers, support them in updating and upgrading their skills, purchase most appropriate training facilities, aids and technology for practical training (On-the-Job Training JT) etc.
While every reasonable effort should be made to reduce per capital cost, there is a minimum below which effective TVET cannot be given, and if the basic courses and training programmes do not permit of this minimum of per capita cost, TVET will not be effective.
Application of the modern training methodologies implies budgets, which may not be constant along time. During the initial stage costs are high because the design, development, edition and validation of the full training and assessment matrix take time and effort and it is a costly project. Costs go down as the TVET Institutionds / Centres and Enterprises appropriate the methodologies and the models become consolidated. Another peak in costs occurs when the training materials and facilities have to be reproduced / upgraded. This is even more critical when there are high rates of workers / trainees turnover.
How can TVET Institutions and Centres manage costs? Traditionally, they have utilised cost per hour of instruction plus support material and teaching aids. The system is no longer valid for application of this methodology. If emphasis lies on training, assessment and verification with the assistance of external assessors and verifiers, costs are concentrated at both ends of the training matrix process i.e. in the development of curriculum and training materials and in the process of assessment and feedback for each participant.
Terms of reference for the link-up between the TVET Institutions and Centres and the Enterprises vary according to the parts of the methodology to be applied. The TVET Institutions and Centres and the Enterprises must jointly determine what products are to be considered. One enterprise may want first to obtain a competencies’ profile, another may wish to apply base line assessment guides immediately, a third one to start off with basic training. As opposed to traditional training, where the cost of supply (inputs) was taken into account, in modern training methodologies costs are related to the demand (results / deliverables / products).
TVET costs management is in no way obvious since many deliverables depend on the degree of worker / trainee involvement in the project pathway. It would be too demanding to work only on deliverables when not all aspects of the process are under control. We may consider a halfway alternative, like paying for a number of hours of programmed training services, with the commitment of reaching certain levels of deliverables for each specified stage.
TVET Institutions and Centres can play an important role in the reproduction / upgrading of the training materials and facilities to reduce the costs by applying virtual learning. The TVET Institutions and Centres can also reduce costs by negotiating the reproduction / upgrading package for several enterprises at a time, and get better prices from suppliers. Again, it is an investment that enterprises are not accustomed to, which may sometimes cause disproportionate and irrational reactions by management. That is the moment when TVET Institutions and Centres can submit arguments justifying the investment and suggest alternative solutions.
The above consequences are not an exhaustive list and there are no doubt many more. The ones I included were only to help in the process of reorientation of TVET Institutions and Centres, making them more proactive to the learning processes required to achieve productivity and sustainable employment quality.
Eng. Moustafa Wahba
Competency Assurance & TVET Consultant
3rd Nov 2009 at 1:40 pm #41336
The other problem is the fact that knowledge and skill is not the only requirement for performance. The other ingredient to performance is the motivation of the individual. (Willingness to expend effort to achieve goals, tasks or objectives). Presuming one gets the knowledge and skills right, what about motivation, the environment, the organizational culture, the individual, the renumeration, and the management style/skill. Do you have control over these factors as a trainer? Training needs to be seen as a component in the performance management of human resources. A componenent. The responsibility for staff performance is that of the Line manager concerned. Training is most successfull when it is a co-ordinated component to a total strategy. Here training is seen as an essential ingredient to a total plan. Not measured in isolation. How many of us see enthusiasm after training and then back to same old same old. How often is it not a lack of skill that is the problem, but something else.Training and HR management can perform usefull roles in advising and determining needs and work profiles, but only as a service to the manager and organization who hopefully use the information and incorporates it into their performance strategy.
4th Nov 2009 at 6:52 am #41335
4th Nov 2009 at 2:06 pm #41334
4th Nov 2009 at 2:06 pm #43536
4th Nov 2009 at 2:06 pm #44559
4th Nov 2009 at 6:51 pm #41333
Peter Trollope is correct in stating that motivation is an important ingredient in order for a learner to want to be a part of the training process. I have a few steps that, I hope, will be simplified:
First of all, one has to investigate via Needs Analysis to determine what need you will be catering for i.e. Performance, Training, Work Environment and Business Need. If this is not done, it is likely that the training will be a tick-off (training for activity) rather than training for performance. There has to be buy-in from Unions, employees, management and, particularly the individual holding the purse strings. Many organisations have the belief that all its problems can be solved by training. This is not true and those companies’ training divisions that pursue this road find themselves being targetted when there are budget restraints because management are not seeing the benefits. Prof Dave Ulrich speaks of “Strategic Business Partnering” from an HR perspective (including training). The belief by many large corporations are that HR is, more often than not, is “not adding value to the business” (bottom line/revenue).
Secondly, I do believe strongly in Kirkpatricks’ Hierachy and Phillips ROI as evaluation methods – although the Nadler and Holton methods also exist. Just having the “did you enjoy the training?” questionnaires (often called “smile sheets”), carried out directly after training (i.e. REACTION) is not enough. The following level evaluations should also take place:
– Level II (assessments) done during and after training (LEARNING and COMPETENCY LEVELS);
– Level III – in the work situation (proving how the “training” has affected the employee’s attitude, behaviour, competency and organisational culture fit);
– Level IV – increased organisational effectiveness (RESULTS).
Then Philips ROI approach:
– Level V – return on invested capital:
One needs to convert HARD and SOFT data into monetary values. There is a particular table that one can use and a number of considerations that would be too much to share here.
When evaluating, there are five dimensions that need to be tested:
– Instructional Design and Development
– Training Delivery
– Transfer of Learning
– Impact on the Organisation
There should be at least 3 CRITERIA, for each of these dimensions, that you can use to measure the quality standards of each. This will measure if a good job has been done for the particular Dimension. It doesn’t end there. You then need to ask 3 or more EVALUATION QUESTIONS that measure the CRITERIA relevant to each of the DIMENSIONS – MUST be linked to criteria related to DIMENSION.
Hope this had added some value.
In closing, there is no exact way to prove ROI, no matter how many methods there are. It depends on what the organisation is expecting from training and how it will impact on the paying customer i.e. impacts on the bottom line and global competitiveness – after all, having skilled employees does give organisations the competitive edge!!
6th Nov 2009 at 7:01 am #41332
Hi Margie, my take on this matter is that training and development, has a lifelong learning approach. I agree with you that the best results needs to be seen in terms of the bottom line, but training takes time for a Company to see the desired results, especially training in the ITC Sector. Regards, Ivan.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.