If a business wants to see ROI in training, they MUST allow for the same level of analysis and development put into any other business expense. Why is it okay for R&D to carefully survey markets and analyze customer needs to create products/services, but training is expected to churn out "solutions" that are cost effective and valuable to the company without any analysis whatsoever?? More importantly, why do so many people in our field continue to roll over and take these orders instead of standing up and demonstrating for what's TRULY best for the company??

Laura has several valid points: We are order takers because it keeps us busy and employed. When we're "lucky" and have argued successfully for some evaluation efforts, we get to show that the training will be, is, or was successful. And I like all 3 approaches, or at least will use any of the 3 that I can and when I can. AND all the pre-measurement work makes sense when we have existing products and services and/or current employees who go through the training. But what abt. brand new products/services? Or brand new employees?

Laura,

I am afraid our profession by virture of its actions and outlook, conveniently provides
the "cutting edge "of the next downsizing.

Nero

quote:

Originally posted by bruce wertheimer:
But what abt. brand new products/services? Or brand new employees?

A very good question and one avoided by both Kirkpatrick and Phillips. I deal with this issue by categorising training according to 3 boxes. Box 1 = must have, Box 2 = added value and Box 3 = 'nice to have'.

Induction, new product knowledge, mandatory training goes into Box 1 - no argument and no discretion. But also no pre-measurement available - all you can do is set a standard. Box 2 is the only box amenable to evaluation/ROI because you can have a before and after picture (how much do we sell now/how much after?. Anything that doesn't qualify for Boxes 1 or 2 falls into Box 3 by default. Typical Box 3's include corporate universities, leadership development or anything regarded as 'intangible'- i.e. the ineffective trainer's escape clause - so no one bothers to measure or set a standard and no one takes it seriously.

Paul – I like your classifications (Box 1 = must have, Box 2 = added value, and Box 3 = 'nice to have') and I’m relieved that you think both Kirkpatrick and Phillips have sidestepped this issue because the alternative was that I forgot. While “Induction, new product knowledge, mandatory training” may mean “no argument and no discretion,” I also have no choice but to figure out how to measure it. (Hey it should look great, the pre measure was 0 and the post measure will be much higher.) Basically our new VP says measure it and my director says figure it out. The VP is new to training; my director understands training evaluation and the dilemma but isn’t going to “save” me. Any advice?

I take exception to your inference (or did I just imply it) that “corporate universities, leadership development or anything regarded as 'intangible' … no one bothers to measure or set a standard and no one takes it seriously.” Maybe I’m an idealist but I believe that leadership development is critical for the long-term viability of the corporation, at least my corporation. Maybe this is a philosophical difference between the British and the Americans? The rumor is that we believe much more in participative leadership, teams and all that, while on the other side of the pond, you don’t and have a much more dictatorial notion of corporate leadership? (I’m not trying to start a war or anything, just exploring ideas. Please keep sending your tourists and their money to Florida – yours are the most polite ones we get down here.)