Training Industry Magazine - November/December 2017 - 57

Both methods of training evaluation
include the smile-sheet surveys,
measuring satisfaction and reaction to
the training itself. The data collected at
these levels can be extremely beneficial
when your goal is to improve training
delivery and focus on what happens
within the classroom itself. Historically,
many L&D professionals have stopped
here,
checking
the "evaluation"
box as the necessary final part of
training provision.
Models such as Kirkpatrick's Four Levels
and Phillips's ROI Methodology advocate
the continuation of evaluation beyond
the classroom, to gather impact data
that indicates actual learned skills and
their subsequent application after the
training has ended. Phillips and Phillips
go one step beyond Kirkpatrick, in fact, to
provide a framework and methodology
for gathering tangible data, which,
when converted to monetary value, can
indicate significant financial impact of
training provision.
WHEN TO EVALUATE TRAINING
In addition to knowing what level of
data to collect, an L&D professional
must understand when to evaluate
training impact. This is where having
a clear plan for evaluation can prove
extremely useful. Project management
tools such as a Program Evaluation and
Review Technique (PERT), or the Gantt
Chart, are useful ways to track when
and how evaluation should occur. In
addition, administering both pre- and
post-training surveys and skills tests are
also great tools to determine if learning
and improvement has occurred.
Lastly, post-training surveys can require
participants to estimate their likelihood
of use and performance improvement,
directly related to the skills and
knowledge learned from the training

(Evaluation Levels 3 and 4 of both
models). These surveys can also include
key performance indicators, such as
business strategies or competencies, and
ask participants to estimate the impact
the training will have on these metrics.
They are followed up with another survey
60-90 days post-training asking the same
questions, but this time requesting actual
use and impact data. This approach
is another way for L&D professionals
to evaluate training, using the data
collected to present training impact in a
credible and quantifiable way.
But what if the data shows no significant
impact? What if, after all that effort to
evaluate the training, the level of onthe-job application and performance
improvement
data
indicates
no
justifiable ROI? Here lies one of the
biggest quandaries facing training
professionals today, and is perhaps one
of their biggest oversights - providing
training that is either unnecessary or
does not address an identified skills gap.
CONDUCTING
A NEEDS ANALYSIS
In early instructional design practices of
the 1950s and 1960s, practitioners such as
Thomas Gilbert and B.F. Skinner realized
that even the most well-designed
training programs can fail to have a
measurable impact on an organization's
or an individual's performance (if a
performance problem is not due to a
lack of skill or competence). Despite
this revelation, we still suggest training
as the preferred solution for many
performance problems, and then seem
surprised when it fails to hit the mark.
Best practice should include an
understanding that the right data must
be collected and analyzed long before
training is even suggested as a solution.
This data forms part of a comprehensive

and systematic needs assessment: a
strategic planning effort to identify
what an organization needs in order
to be successful now and in the future,
and analyze the organization's current
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats. This needs assessment data
could identify a workforce of skilled
and competent employees, making
the need for training unnecessary.
The potential for high performance
and/or production amongst these
employees may actually be hindered by
a lack of communicated expectations,
procedures, out-of-date tools and
resources, or other environmental
obstacles preventing success.
There are many great evaluation
methodologies available to us as L&D
professionals. If training has been
identified as a necessary and needed
performance solution, it is possible to
evaluate its impact by ensuring that
we define measurable and specific
objectives. We must also plan how we
will evaluate training impact, when it will
happen and what data will be important
to communicate to each stakeholder. We
must, however, be extremely diligent
in our use of training and be willing to
push back to those who request it as
the go-to solution to problems and/or
opportunities. Otherwise, the training
evaluation data we collect will be weak,
and its impact will be a shot-in-the-dark
rather than a targeted, intentional and
effective bullseye shot.
Lesley Ann Harrison is a first-year doctoral
student studying performance improvement
leadership at Capella University. As a
certified and experienced HR professional,
Lesley has worked in the field of training
and development for many years, and is
passionate about improving human capital
performance. Email Lesley.

T R A I N I N G I N DUSTR Y MA GAZ INE - BUSINESS OF LEARNING 20 1 7 I WWW. T RAI NINGINDU S T RY . C OM/ MAGAZ I NE

| 57

http://www.trainingindustry.com/ezine.aspx

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Training Industry Magazine - November/December 2017