JAY CROSS - What Andrew would do
I can’t muster the energy to respond to the opening statement by Jim Cass. But I would like to reply to Phil Pryce’s comment: “The ROI (£) in training is notoriously difficult (nigh impossible) to prove but what about the other benefits in doing a job better for example.”
I agree that other alternative data to financial impacts of training might be preferred by some clients but it is straightforward enough to determine financial impacts provided an effective TNA is undertaken, clear metrics are agreed up front and the process is not as an after thought.
And the issue of correlation; cause and effect is addressed perfectly by Jay Cross in his recent book called ‘What Would Andrew Do’. He looks closely at the process of evaluation and proving the alignment of development and learning in organisation. He comes to pretty much the same conclusion as me on this issue. Here’s a quote. Great minds think alike or all fools think the same depending on your position.
'“Proof is a figment” Otherwise brilliant people assure me that it’s impossible to isolate the impact of training. You can never tell whether some concurrent event has contaminated the results and negated their value as scientific evidence of training’s impact. To which I reply, “Baloney!” (Not an exact quote.) All quests for certainty in our uncertain world are futile. Business decisions are made with less-than-perfect information; it comes with the territory. Management is not conducting a science class – it’s looking for results.
So the question is not: How do we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a given training program produced a given result? The question is: What will our sponsor accept as persuasive evidence that the program produced the result? Working with strong probabilities, we proceed to make our case logically – linking learning to business results. Establish a causal link between a particular skill deficiency and a particular business outcome. If the owner of the problem buys into this logic and the way you will measure it after training, that’s all the proof you need.'
Book details here:http://www.lulu.com/content/7196453
And to finish, one final quote from Arriffin Mansor:
'Training is a social science, it is obviously impossible to evaluate the effects of training with laboratory and test tube precision. Just like any other business decision, we have to live with assumptions and informed analysis, not absolute examination and medical scientific rigour. If we accept ROI in general business terms, how could we not accept ROI in training?'
Just a different view.
- 1 read
The Value of Training - well value to whom?
The training profession spends huge amounts of time and energy looking in minute detail at the training event ( classroom, online - whatever), and minimal amounts of time trying to understand what the training is actually for. That is, what will be different in the organisation once the training is complete. IF ( and its a big if) TNA actually analyses the organisational need for which training may be part or all of the solution, then its worth its weight in gold, and will help the whole organisation understand better what it needs to do to achieve a result. Mostly TNA picks up a set of 'skill requirements' that may have been generated by a competency list produced by an unknown person some time ago, or the perceived skill needs dictated by a line manager without close analysis of the problem. (You know the sort - any possible hint that their team isn't performing, and it must be due to lack of training).
The same applies to evaluation - IF it actually evaluates the difference between before and after ( even allowing for some other non-training effects to have an impact) then it is a valuable, and value adding activity. If it helps you IMPROVE the difference between before and after, thats even better. If it only looks at the training event, then once you have reached a minimum quality standard, it adds little value.
To sum up: For training to be valuable to an organisation we have to have SOME idea of what difference the training has made. Jim is right, that much of what passes for TNA and evaluation is really inward looking to the L&D profession and meaningless to the rest of the organisation. Simply getting people to tell us they had a good experience ( hopefully true) and that they learnt a lot ( infact, unlikely to be true - most evidence shows that people consistently over estimate how much they have learned) is indeed poor science.
But its not all doom and gloom! Just starting to think about what difference the training might make ( creating a LIne of Sight between training and organisational goals for instance) can start to make a real difference both to the content and the impact of a training programme.
Please note the approach that I have advocated in training needs analysis. I have also shown some calculation on ROI training somewhere in this forum.
ReplyDelete