Knowledge Resource Centre

Measuring Training to Build Success

Training is a positive and inspiring experience in itself, but how well does it translate into results back in the workplace? This Insight Article argues how organisations must focus on a measurable and results-oriented training strategy.

In the recent past, the singular plane of classroom based instruction and theory heavy training days has been transformed into practical applications both in and out of the training room. In addition, instead of only new hires, new promotions and new transfers undergoing training, all levels of employees are now often invited to engage in professional development.

In order to catch this new training trend wave without tumbling over, the goal of measuring value is the most important step a company could take.

High-commitment training is successful

According to a review conducted by Beaton Consulting (1), decision-makers in HR and departmental managers are faced with a discrepancy between the perceived value and the actual effectiveness of both high and low-commitment training initiatives.

Low-commitment initiatives (attendance at conferences or seminars, job assignments and reading literature) account for more than half of training expenditure. This investment would suggest that the perceived value of low-commitment initiatives is quite high. A report by the Learning Resources Network (2) seems to agree, noting that 80% of instruction is currently given by live teachers, with another 9% being on-the-job training or self study. This combination of investment and frequency suggests that companies highly value low-commitment initiatives and traditional training. 

The measured results, however, show that high-commitment initiatives (assessment of potential, executive coaching and internal tailored programmes) have a much higher success rate than low-commitment training. In fact, the Beaton report found that although less than 30% of companies regularly use high-commitment initiatives, 80% of companies valued such initiatives as highly effective in developing leadership and management capabilities.

Still, the effectiveness of an initiative does not marry its usage in organisations, and both effective and ineffective methods are highly used. The question is how to measure the real value of a particular method.

Four levels of training evaluation

Measuring in real terms is not the same as “happy” sheet ratings or feedback forms at the conclusion of a training session. Although useful, such tools are only reaction evaluations. According to Donald Kirkpatrick's well-known book Evaluating Training Programs (3), there are actually four levels of training evaluation.  Reaction evaluations, noted above, are the first and therefore the easiest to gather and analyse. 

The second level is learning, which measures an increase in knowledge before and after training. Although relatively simple to set up, only 35% of organisations conduct learning evaluations, according to Learning Resources Network. 

A smaller 15% evaluate behaviour and the extent of applied learning, i.e implementation back on the job. These measurements require cooperation throughout the company, as observations and interviews need to be acquired to assess change, relevance and sustainability of training outcomes.  

The final level measures results. It is the clearest level in relation to accountability and company-wide effectiveness, but also the most difficult to procure. This evaluation must highlight the effect the trainee has had on the business environment. For senior people in particular, annual appraisals and ongoing agreement of key business objectives are integral to measuring business results derived from training. In practical terms, level four evaluations would include a comprehensive management training system which aligned a trainee’s accountability with business goals, and the policing of such a system would be integral to its success.