Providing demonstrable return‐on‐investment for organisational learning and training

Abstract

Purpose -The aim of this paper is to present a holistic approach to training, that clearly demonstrates cost savings with improved effectiveness and efficiencies that are aligned to business objectives.Design/methodology/approach -Extending Kirkpatrick's evaluation framework with Phillips's return-on-investment (ROI) concepts, the paper conveys a number of successes; including trainee satisfaction and the capturing of improved knowledge and skills.Findings -The paper includes case studies of how, and to what extent this knowledge has been applied with examples of resulting efficiency savings. The paper shows that there is growing agreement that one of the primary drivers, if not the key driver of long-term organisational effectiveness, is the ability of an organisation to learn effectively. The methodology requires some additional assessment and course preparation to establish a basis from which to demonstrate learning effectiveness. The financial benefits of the applied learning are far greater than the additional preparatory costs.Practical implications -Learning organisations that anticipate, react to change and learn, are likely to maintain a competitive advantage. These organisations are constantly looking for more effective and efficient ways of training. Paradoxically, other organisations will often slash training budgets in times of hardship, as training departments are unable to demonstrate the effectiveness of their programmes.Originality/value -The paper presents a practical example of how training should be applied to truly demonstrate its value in the workplace

An Exploration of the Challenges Instructional Designers Encounter While Conducting Evaluations

“…Four instructional designers, three working in private industry, found that explaining the return on investment helped to persuade clients of the importance of evaluation. This supports the findings conveyed by Elliott et al (2009). One instructional designer working as an external consultant identified storytelling as effective in creating context; the designer described making an analogy about the importance of changing the oil in a new car.…”

“…Lack of stakeholder interest in measuring the effectiveness of training and preference for creating new instructional materials were also considered prevalent challenges concerning formative evaluation in government and military environments. This coincides with Elliott et al’s (2009) findings regarding the disconnect between how training departments and their clients or organizations perceive the value of evaluation. The challenges to conducting formative evaluation raised by instructional designers in private industry included creating tools to accurately assess mastery of a nebulous skill, lack of resources (i.e., people and funding), resistance of technical specialists to follow designer instructions, and faculty mistrust of instructional‐designer intent due to lack of understanding the instructional designer's role and expertise.…”

“…Several studies expand the Results phase of the Kirkpatrick model by integrating the Phillips ROI equation (Barnett & Mattox, 2010; Brauchle & Schmidt, 2004; Curado, & Teixeira, 2014). Elliott, Dawson, and Edwards (2009) used the Kirkpatrick evaluation model and Phillips' return‐on‐investment (ROI) concepts to demonstrate the effectiveness, efficiency, and return on investment of training through two case studies that focus on software development and software analysis. The results of their study identify the challenges, with training departments successfully demonstrating the effectiveness of their programs along with the implications this can have on organizations' valuing and contributing funds to support training initiatives.…”

Management development and co-production: myths and realities

“…Consistent with the comments of others, this interviewee suggested that the programme should set out at the outset what the measures of success are to be, for instance by adopting the CIRO approach. The CIRO methodology of evaluation -Context, Input, Reaction and Outcome -takes measurements prior to the intervention as well as afterwards (see Elliott et al, 2009). This should permit a "before" and "after" evaluation of programme impact.…”

An Exploration of the Research/Teaching Trade‐off in the Perception of Business Students

“…Trainees' reactions represent the first level of the Kirkpatrick's Hierarchical Model of Training Outcomes (1959a, 1959b, 1960a, 1960b, 1967, as well as of all models aiming at evaluating training (See for example: Warr et al, 1970;Hamblin, 1974;Cannon-Bowers et al, 1995;Kaufman et al, 1995;Cascio, 1999;Phillips, 2003;Pineda, 2010). BEIs have adopted this practice from companies, for which trainees' reactions remain the most (and for a large majority of them the only) used dimension of training evaluation (Long, Dubois and Faley, 2008;Elliott, Dawson and Edwards, 2009). Although extensively used in business education, the collection of students' course evaluations is often experienced as a mere administrative task, with little outcomes and implications.…”