posted 29 June 1998 04:28 PM               

It depends upon the training. On the job training versus (for example) managers training. You have to look at the training. Some OJT is a matter of observation by the trainer. Some OJT (particularly for 'hi-tech' jobs) is verified by certification testing.

I suggest you check out the following from the 'old' forum:

A Short Relevant Thread

and

A *Better* Relevant Thread - Do read this one!

posted 15 July 1998 04:24 AM               

I would like to share with you one of my approaches for measuring Training effectiveness. As such, measuring training effectiveness is highly subjective but some sort of approach can be followed as follows:

1. One week after the completion of the training programme, a feedback should be obtained from the students/participants on how much of knowledge they had gained during training are they retaining. We all know, that we tend to forget things if not implemented immediately. This feedback is only to check whether they have got sufficient knowledge for implementation. People generally forget 70% of things they learnt within one week.

2. After 3 months, a feedback should be obtained for the effective implementation of the training got. This is to check how they are using what they have learnt. Whether any additional training has to be given or some sort of help is required.

3. After 6 months, the training effectiveness should be monitored using Performance Appraisal by the respective Department Managers. The effectivenss of the training they have got should be linked to their appraisal system, because I feel that then only the training will be very effective.

posted 17 September 1999 04:04 AM               

Can anybody tell me what it is all about?. Is it a software package, or a questionnaire that tests employees on what they have learnt from the training.?

Regards

posted 19 March 2000 06:32 PM               

On 3/13 Anil writes:

<< I would be very thankful if you could give your views on these points:

How is training effectiveness measured?

Is it done through a questionnaire? or by the boss on the performance?

After what time frame this is to be done?

Any standard/Guideline available to control this .>>

Several years ago Kirkpatrick identified four levels of measures of training
effectiveness that are widely used in business training. Although I'm not
restating them exactly, you'll get the picture.

Level 1: student opinion--collected in end-of-course student questionnaires

Level 2: student learning--test data collected by performance tests at the end ofthe course or by activities during the course

Level 3: impact on the job--follow up survey/test/study is done to determine how well the skills are applied on the job

Level 4: impact on the business--study is done to see how the skills contributed to the business growth/profitability/customer service/etc.

Each level gives you more important information, but each level is usually harder (read: more time consuming and expensive) to collect and interpret. If this looks useful to you, I'll dig out the original reference and/or some of the recent articles written on his approach.

posted 19 March 2000 06:57 PM               

From: Don Arbuckle iso9kda@doitnow.com

Without trying to present a seminar on training and training evaluation, let me see if I can help here. The first step in evaluation training is to establish what the outcome is supposed to be. This is done by defining objectives for the training itself, whether they are knowledge or behavioral based. With objectives defined, then the measurement and metrics can be established to determine if the training had the desired effect. All of this can sound very time consuming until you apply it realistically to real business.

Typically training is offered as a method for change. If the change happened, then the training was effective. For example, the change is to enable the employee to operate the equipment according to procedure(s) XYZ001 (and XYZ003...XYZ005). When the training is completed, the trainer, or other authorized personnel, evaluates if the employee can perform the operation as required by the document. Whether the training was classroom or OJT, the verification is the same...the evaluator reviews performance and determines if it is done correctly. If so, then the training was effective. If not, then the training was not effective and needs modification (time for a CAR?).

For those of you familiar with the Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation of Training, we are really talking about a level four evaluation. (1=reaction; 2=learning; 3=behavior; 4=results). While Kirkpatrick goes into more detail than I would ever suggest to any of you, it is a good model to follow. For more detail please feel free to contact me.

Don Arbuckle
iso9kda@doitnow.com

--------------snippo----------------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:43:50 -0600
Subject: Re: ISO 9000- Training Effectiveness /../Kiely/Humphries

From: Edwin Humphries edwin@e-quality.com.au

> From: GKiely@kanzakiusa.com
>
> At a recent ISO 9001:2000 Transition Seminar that I attended the issue of
> "effectiveness" was a hot topic of discussion. This seminar was attended by
> quality management professionals from all levels as well as by Auditors
> from our assessing body. When asked, the Auditor's stated that they would
> by definition be looking for some type of "quantifiable" measure to
> illustrate what the Organization (formerly called the supplier) considers
> "effective"...

Why am I generally unsurprised? ISO does NOT specify quantifiable measures ANYWHERE; but I'm sure you're right: auditors will take it on themselves to define how their clients must interpret the Standard. I guess it's up to us (still) to defend the territory of "reasonableness".

> The Auditors stopped just short of saying that a test score would suffice...

I would hope so (although what other type of quantifiable measure is there?). Can you imagine running tests in every aspect of training?

> I believe the more pressing issue however will be with how
> our individual assessing bodies interpret the words "competent" and
> "competency" (hopefully these words will be dropped from the final draft).

I have less problems with these: the world is heading towards using these concepts, and they have a value if implemented reasonably (that word again!).