quote:

Originally posted by Erick.T:
No, the levels do not need to be followed sequentally -- it is not practical or necessary to do so. It is better to measure what is imporant to the business, which usually is: 1) Was there an improvement in performance?

I am confused here. How would you show that a performance improvement did or did not occur due to the training, as opposed to some other intervention, change in conditions, or even chance? Seems like one would first have to prove that learning occurred, that behavior changed as a result of that learning, and that the behavior change resulted in performance improvement. (A behavior change and resultant performance improvement could change due to things other than learning.) To be valid you would have to tie the performance improvement back to learning wouldn't you? And to do that you have to prove that learning occurred. You could work backwards I suppose, but isn't that impractical? You could save yourself a lot of time if you discovered early on that no learning occurred in the first place.

There are many who do not find Kirpatrick's model compelling.

I have read several books recently that advocate a more business-oriented approach, specifically utilizing aspects of Six Sigma. These are two books I've found useful:

Developing and Measuring Training the Six Sigma Way: A Business Approach to Training and Development by Islam

Learning Paths: Increase Profits by Reducing the Time It Takes Employees to Get Up-to-Speed by Rosenbaum

Some thoughts I feel compelled to share...

1) Learning is not manufacturing. They are not the same in any way, shape or form.

2) Any type of evaluation that attempts to analyze the training *after* the "event" is complete isn't really measuring the training at all. It's measuring job performance and performance is a function of the performer and his/her manager, team, environment, etc. -- not really the training at all.

quote:

Originally posted by LoveLearning:
2) Any type of evaluation that attempts to analyze the training *after* the "event" is complete isn't really measuring the training at all. It's measuring job performance and performance is a function of the performer and his/her manager, team, environment, etc. -- not really the training at all.

Since it is almost always job performance that we are concerned about in the end, and if job performance is not a function of training, why on earth do we do training? I thought the whole point was to improve job performance.

When do you think training should be evaluated? Only during the event itself? How would you measure behavior change that follows learning - certainly not during the event. How would you measure performance following behavior change - during the event? That makes no sense either.

Maybe I'm just totally missing the point of what you are saying. I don't think that you are saying that training has nothing to do with job performance.

What type of evaluation practice or process suits your organization, that tells you what you need to know for organizational health ?

Nero