Training Evaluation Plan - Essay Example

Training Evaluation Plan Performance has become the most important factor for every organization these days. But in order to perform, the employees need to be motivated and trained as per the requirement. However a training is successful unless and until it is measured. The report discusses an en evaluation plan for the training session that will be conducted for a hypothetical company and also shows us how the return on investment will be calculated in order to understand the response of the training. Background Every organization has the willingness to improve on its performance so that they can excel in this highly competitive environment. In order to get it done, the employees should constantly keep on improving their work output in order to perform better. One way of improving their performance is through proper training. However, giving the training is just not enough to be sure that the performance has improved. Rather, it needs to be evaluated properly so that one understand the shortcomings of the training to further improve upon it. This report is a training evaluation plan for a hypothetical organization called the Interactive Entertainment (IE) which deals with the manufacturing of toys to make the children intelligent. This point of view perspectives IC as an issue of three essential interrelated segments - interior capital, outside capital and human capital. Whereby inside capital alludes to all the brainpower epitomized in the structure and methodologies of a firm correspondingly, outer capital incorporates all the connections – market connections, power connections and participation – a firm has with outside stakeholders. Finally, human capital alludes to information, aptitude, capacities, experience, state of mind, duty and individual qualities of an associations workers. Consequently, IC alludes to a companys archive of all the discernment implanted in its authoritative structure, system connections and faculty (Choo & Bontis, 2002). Since the segments of IE act and associate with each other to make a definitive point of interest, they are viewed as indispensable for the survival and the achievement of advanced firms. Notwithstanding, it is worth calling attention to that human capital is seen rather more noteworthy than its partners. It is on the grounds that human capital is generatively elusive as well as uncommon and hard-to-impersonate and has generally more potential than different constituents of IC regarding impacting its partners. The accomplishment of satisfactory human capital is subsequently indicated to be integral to firm achievement in the current worldwide economy. It is then of most extreme critics that human capital achieves its potential through hierarchical improvement procedures that invigorate and enhance the abilities, learning and learning limits of the people that make up an association (Pfeffer, 1998). Since they are essentially a manufacturing company, it is important that the employees or the workers undergo proper training to further increase the work output or in this case, the production of the toys. Purpose of Evaluation There is an ample literature describing and proposing various models for the evaluation of a training program. However, it is important to note that every evaluation model has its own assumptions, purpose, rationale for inclusion and exclusion of variables and intended audience which not only differentiate it from others but confine its effectiveness to certain specific contexts. Wang and Wilcox (2006) for that reason heralded the identification of the right evaluation approach which can effectively correspond to the specific needs of the situation to be the core challenge for those theorists and HRD practitioners who plan to evaluate the training program. This paper aims to propose a training evaluation model for SMEs with this in mind. Apparently, the main objective for firms to undertake trainings is to bring positive change in the behavior by means of improving knowledge and skill levels of their employees. The learning of skills and knowledge, however, largely depends upon the conduciveness of a learning environment. Alvarez et al. (2004) hold that trainees’ satisfaction with the training program is not only positively correlated with their learning of skills and knowledge but also with their behavior at workplace. Keeping foregoing, in view, the basic premises set out for the development of the proposed evaluation model were to have a simple and less resource-intensive framework that could evaluate training in its existing shape. The model should be able to effectively assess the actual and desired accomplishments of a training program in groups of trainees’ satisfaction with the training, learning improvements and change in trainees’ work behaviors. However, if the training deviated at some points, then the model should not only detect those gaps, but also provides guidance for rectifying the identified issues. Key Questions The important questions that will be used to evaluate the training model are: 1. What factors were emphasised upon by the trainers? 2. What behaviors did the trainees plan to adopt in their workplace? 3. How did the trainees behave in the workplace? 4. What behavioral objectives are desired by the organization? Evaluation Design A three step method was adopted for the formulation of the evaluation of the training program. Step 1: Selecting the most suitable evaluation approach from different accessible methodologies - developmental, summative, confirmative and meta-evaluation. Step 2: Identifying a scope of potential appraisals of the proposed model in the wake of surveying the propriety of evaluations proposed in a percentage of the well known training evaluation models. Step 3: Comparing the shortlisted appraisals to choose the most suitable ones and collecting course evaluations into a solitary implementable training evaluation model. The renouncing concise portrayals of the four expansive evaluation methodologies uncover that three of them - developmental, confirmative and meta-evaluation are incongruent with the primary goals of the model. Developmental evaluation and in addition meta-evaluation are truly unpredictable in nature, furthermore oblige a lot of assets for their applications. Additionally, developmental evaluation requests obstruction with the usage of the training project and meta-evaluation requires past evaluation studies for its utilization. The extent that confirmative evaluation is concerned, in spite of the fact that it is moderately basic and not one or the other does oblige intruding with the mediation nor does it require past evaluation studies for its execution yet it does additionally require generous assets regarding work and time. Accordingly, all the three evaluation methodologies neglect to be utilized as measuring sticks to discriminating assess the propriety of individual appraisal levels of different evaluation models. Summative evaluations dissimilar to its partners consummately match the prerequisites of this study. Accordingly, it is utilized as an issue standard alongside the other assumed points of the model to evaluate the suitability of every appraisal proposed in different chose training evaluation models. In this step a portion of the well known and successful training evaluation models is haphazardly chosen. Each one stage of the chose model is evaluated for its evaluation approach and planned evaluation targets. Those appraisals are shortlisted for the detailing of the model that are utilizing the significant evaluation approach – the summative methodology - and whose goals match any of the targets set for the preferred framework. Data Collection Procedure The data will be collective with the help of questionnaires which will be given to all the employees have taken the training session. The questionnaire will consist of quantitative questions mainly designed to understand their gain in knowledge after the training and what difference has it made in their understanding. The advantage of using a quantitative questionnaire is the fact that it becomes easier to gather the answers given by them and then use them as the data for the statistical analysis. We will be using the SAS (Statistical Analyticaal System) for getting of the study and based on the reports, the recommendation will be prepared. Return on Investment The training program is incomplete if we are unable to comment of the return on investments for the training session. To put it simply, it will give us a highlight as how are we getting back in return from what we had invested. These will include the salary of training coordinator who has departed the training, the salary of the employees who were taking the training session, the materials used for the training and the cost for the venue where the training was conducted. Before calculating all these, the earlier performance of the employees needs to be measured in order to compare it with the current results. A table has been given below which notes down all the calculations that have been done to bring out the return on investment for the training. Please note that all the numbers are hypothetical and should not taken as real data. Table 1 Benefits of the Program       Productivity prior to training 30,000 units per week Productivity after training 35,000 units per week Increase in productivity 5000 units per week Gross profit per unit produced $50.00 Increase in gross profit $25,000 Frequency of injuries prior to training 10 injuries per 6 months Frequency of injuries after training 2 injuries per 6 months Decrease in injuries after training 80% Costs to the organization per injury (average) $100 Decrease in injury related costs per year $1,200 Total Annual Benefits $23,800 Table 2   Cost Summary       Facility costs for training $2,500 Program materials $800 Meals/Refreshments (1 meal per employee) $4,000 Participant salaries $7,500 Training/Evaluation of Results $3,500 Total Costs $18,300 The Cost benefit ratio is – Total Benefits/Total Costs which is equal to (23,800/18,300) – 1.3:1 Now based on the above calculation the Return on Investment will be calculated by: Reference Alvarez, K., Salas, E. and Garofano, C.M. (2004), “An Integrated model of training evaluation and effectiveness”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 385-416. Choo, C., & Bontis, N. (2002). The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wang, G., & Wilcox, D. (2006). Training Evaluation: Knowing More Than Is Practiced. Advances In Developing Human Resources, 8(4), 528-539. doi:10.1177/1523422306293007 Read More