I would however be interested to hear your view on evaluating the "effectiveness of training". e.g. say 100 people had gone through a training program - how do we evaluate how good that program is?
If everybody passes (competent) is it a good program?
Interesting question. To me, it depends on what you mean by 'good'. Ideally, I think one would clearly identify what the 'success criteria' are before the training is done, so that you can then assess against those predefined criteria.
My opinion is that we have a typical - input - output situation. If the Input is poor (delegate) then this will effect the output.
It is my opinion that pre-selection for training is often deficient -The base requirements for the employee "to become competent" forms a major part of ensuring overall employee competence.
Here you've put your finger on an important element and one that is debated long and hard by almost anyone with an interest in education and training! People are not just 'all the same'. You can't measure and preselect as rigidly as you can, say, raw materials for a manufacturing process.
In my experience, although not everyone does it this way, the sequence should be:-
Define 'competence'
Evaluate competence
Identify action to improve competence, e.g training
Deliver training
Evaluate competence
If the person going into the training wasn't competent is some way, before training, they should - if the training was effective - be able to demonstrate competence after the training!
Simples!
Sounds simple in theory, but doesn't always quite work out that way in practice.
Another variable is: people learn in different ways. What's an excellent training course for some people may not be for others. Some learn by doing, some learn by listening, others infinitely prefer instructor-led models, etc etc.
And yet another is the actual course content. Now, while I agree that some fairly mechanistic or skill-based competencies can be fairly easily delivered and measured (eg, basic computer skill such as "can they now create a basic Excel spreadsheet?" or the use of a particular cutting tool perhaps, not every competency one wishes to impart can be either defined or assessed as simply. Higher level, knowledge intensive tasks (eg, those dealing with abstraction, and uncertainty/recognising patterns of behaviour/problem-solving) are much harder.
Finally, I'm not comfortable with the idea that the
only person whose opinion matters in assessing whether a course was effective is their supervisor. This completely ignores the people learning and essentially treats them as little passive jugs to be filled with competency! how would you like to be thought of like that? I'd much rather get feedback from the learners themselves as to how effective it was.
A personal story to illustrate: I did a 5 day lead auditor course twice, with 2 different CBs, some years apart. Same course, same supposed content and desired outcomes.
Yet my belief is that only
one of those courses was really effective. Brilliant - I learned heaps. The other... frankly, a waste of time in which I learned almost nothing.
But if you'd simply 'asked my supervisor to obvserve me' you wouldn't have got that information.
) supervisor/manager is in my opinion a very good way to assess competency. 
