Cost/benefit analysis of training: A foundation for change

Head, Glenn E.; Buchanan, Charles C.

doi:10.1002/pfi.4150200913

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The models from Mirabal (1978) and Head and Buchanan (1981) are comparable. Both include student costs borne by the firm (salary, travel, per diem); instructor costs (salary, travel, per diem); facilities costs (utilities, space, maintenance, rent, and so on); and instructional development costs (salaries, consultant fees, materials, evaluation).…”

Section: Mosiermentioning

confidence: 81%

“…In general, more has been written about costs than about returns. If one looks at the continuum from models to methods to technologies, several authors (see, for example, Cullen, Sawzin, Sisson, and Swanson, 1978;Head and Buchanan, 1981;Kearsley and Compton, 1981;Mirabal, 1978;Swanson and Gradous, 1988) have provided models or classification schemes for costs, and many (Head, 1985;Kearsley, 1982;Mirabal, 1978;Roden, 1984) have developed methods to accompany these models. However, as mentioned before, neither the models nor the methods are complete.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Financial analysis: The methods and their application to employee training

Mosier

1990

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Training and development is big business; therefore it should be evaluated in the same way as other large investments, in terms of costs and benefits. In this context, training becomes another tool for a firm's survival. According to Nancy Mosier, although training directors recognize the importance of cost considerations, many still use intuitive methods rather than collecting and analyzing hard numbers to justify their programs. Managers can now take heart because Mosier describes some basic and useful techniques to get the cost‐returns analysis rolling. The same applications as are used to justify capital, land, or other resources can be used to justify training and development. Mosier reviews common capital budgeting techniques; for example, payback time, average rate of return, present value or present worth, internal rate of return, and cost‐benefit ratio, and contrasts these techniques with those now being used in training and development. Much of what is available in training focuses on costs and advocates making decisions only on the basis of costs. Her message is clear—financial analysis in training and development must be made on the basis of both costs and returns for the like of the project, and this article helps training directors to look at the complete picture.

show abstract

Section: Mosiermentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial analysis: The methods and their application to employee training

Mosier

1990

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cost indicators are defined by several authors[e.g. 13,[15][16][17][18], and the same can be said about effectiveness indicators [ll,19].…”

Section: The Relation Between Cost and Effectiveness Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The cost factors differentiated in Tables II and III are not exactly identical. Actual costs and savings were computed with a formula published by Head and Buchanan [15], which was adapted to this specific situation. To yield an economic analysis of the CBT project that would be as realistic as possible, all relevant cost factors were included in Table III including such additional factors as trainers' costs and managerial costs.…”

Section: The Cost-reduction Of the Training Programmementioning

confidence: 99%