Applying Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Approach - Case Study Example

Case Scenario: Applying Kirkpatricks Four Levels of Approach al Affiliation: Case Scenario: Applying Kirkpatricks Four Levels of Approach Introduction This essay will apply the Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation to the sales training program of Borkeuf Company, which is a newly created organization providing independent contracting business services to European enterprises, particularly in Germany and Poland. Reportedly, the training covers basic topics, such as how to begin the sales discussion, how to ask the right questions, cultural orientation, and how to ask for a sale. The essay will provide insights on the application of the Kirkpatrick’s model, its limitation and areas of improvement to ascertain effective evaluation of the training program. The evaluation of training is a major constituent of a training activity. It grants the trainer with valuable information to develop further the training program and generate a feeling of completeness (Phillips, 2010). How to decide on the Aspects of Training the Evaluation will focus on Kirkpatrick’s evaluation approach engrosses four levels. The essay will examine the aspects of training to determine the motive or goals for the creation and provision of the training program; the cost-benefit analysis of the program and its effectiveness in achieving the company’s objectives. The first aspect is the reaction level that aims to determine satisfaction levels obtained by the trainees. The fundamental question to ask in this level is ‘Did the participants enjoy the training?’ in the second level, the learning level; it is to determine what the learners gained and the question to ask is ‘Did knowledge transfer from trainers to learners happen? For one to thoroughly evaluate the training, the third process is assessing the impact of the training by determining whether the participants’ behavior changed (Phillips, 2010). Change is important because it depicts the effectiveness of any program. The final aspect is to assess the outcome or results of the program as well as the return on investment. Kirkpatrick’s Model and Issues That Arise When Trying to Focus the Evaluation Prior to the application of the approach to evaluating the training programs, it is of importance to review the Kirkpatrick’s four levels of approach. Conventionally, the approach entails the reaction level as its primary level. The reaction levels typically measure the satisfaction degree acquired by the management of Borkeuf Company. Kumpikaitė (2007), states that one of the fundamental processes in this level is to establish whether the new sales personnel in the company were pleased with the program. This is vital because the effectiveness of the program on the participants can be determined by analyzing the sales personnel’s overall perception of the program. The probability of whether the participants will apply the knowledge gained in the training program is also appraised to know the satisfaction of the company employees (Schmalenback, 2005). Such knowledge in this context engrosses —how to ask for the sale, understanding of diversity in culture and recognizing the right questions to ask customers in the market. Additionally, level one will encompass one to solicit response about the training and also review whether participants of the program altered the numeric sales positively. Written comments on the impact of the program on the trainees’ form a solid foundation in the determining how effective the program was (Schmalenbach, 2005). As such, questionnaires can be administered on to the sales and marketing personnel, e.g. how much do you know about sales before and after taking part in the training program? The question will also provide insights on the efficiency of specific strategies in sales and marketing. The second level is the learning level that purely concentrates on what the sales and marketing personnel have discovered in the training workshop. Admittedly Praslova (2010) urges that the level would warrant developing particular learning objectives to be evaluated. The learning procedures should be purposeful and quantifiable. The scope to which the sales employees adjust attitudes, boost knowledge and skills in sales and marketing functions is also determined. An exam is to be administered on the trainees that are used to measure their gained skills and knowledge on handling prospective customers, persuading them and ultimately how to increase sales revenue. The third level is the behavior level, which details how the training has affected the performance of the sales and marketing trainees. Most organizations employ the first two levels forgetting of how imperative it is to employ the full approach. In this third process, Praslova (2010) illustrates that the applicability of the program is majorly evaluated. The degree to which transformation of behavior occurs is determined coupled with assessing if the knowledge gained in sales and marketing is transferred from the training venue to the real world situation, i.e. the marketplace. Change is realized when the sales personnel desire to change, understand what to do and are rewarded when they manifest change. However, the management of the company must state what their policy prescribes on training. Is it obligating employees to change or is it neutral or change is voluntary? Observation, interviewing, and performance benchmarks are used to assess the change in behavior of the sales personnel in the company. The last stage of Kirkpatrick’s four-level approaches is the results level. The overall effect or impact on the training program for the firm and society is of an equal essence. This is where the absolute outcome that occurred as a consequence of training is evaluated. In addition, the management has to calculate the return on investment (ROI) of the program. In order to arrive at ROI computations, the program’s success is measured on a cost-saving basis (Phillips and Phillips, 2007). . However, Borkeuf Company’s sales revenue will be analyzed to establish the extent of increases accomplished. The quality of performance of the sales worker is very crucial as well as appraising if their social conditions have improved. The fourth level also addresses the questions that arise on topics such as a societal contribution of the sales and marketing personnel and also their organizational contribution. The topics arise when the impact of the training is scrutinized both in the internal environment of the organization and the external environment. The results of the program are also assessed by considering the cost-benefit analysis of the fourth process of the Kirkpatrick’s model (Phillips, 2010). It should be noted that the financial strength of the firm plays a key role in deciding the extent of evaluation processes, as a small organization may have inadequate funds to dedicate on evaluation processes. The payback period of the training workshop should also be assessed and the shorter, the better. Sales revenues are supposed to escalate within a short period if the program was effective and efficient. Limitations of the Kirkpatrick Approach and What Could Be Done To Make the Approach Be More Useful, Relevant, and Effective Kirkpatrick’s model has limitations that have repercussions for the capacity of training assessors to deliver benefits and promote the interests of organizational customers. The limitations hinder the effectiveness of the evaluation practices discussed in this paper. One such limitation is the incompleteness of the approach as it offers an oversimplified perspective of training efficiency. The incompleteness does not reflect on individual or relative influences in the assessment of training. Training efficiency in a firm is affected by a broad range of factors that include organizational, personal and training blueprint factors (Nickols, 2005). All of them manipulate the effectiveness of the workshop during, after and even before training occurs. The factors are also vital as they consider the distinctiveness of the company and job environment and personality of the particular trainee as critical input factors. For instance, relative factors such as the learning morals of the company, organizational objectives, and principles, the nature of interpersonal support in the place of work for proficiency acquirement and behavior modification are key input factors. They should be incorporated in the factors that are used to evaluate training concurrently in Kirkpatrick’s model to make it more useful and effective. Nonetheless, Kirkpatrick’s four levels approach presumes that assessment of these factors is not necessary for successful evaluation (Galloway, 2005). This is implicitly wrong as the factors, as seen earlier in this paper also affect the effectiveness of the evaluation. Another limitation of the Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluation is the assumption of casualty. Bates (2004) suggests that Kirkpatrick’s model presupposes that the levels of criteria signify a causal series such that affirmative reactions result in better learning, which creates better transfer and consequently more encouraging organizational outcomes. Even though Kirkpatrick is indistinct about the defined nature of the causal relationships involving training results, his scholarly works do mean that an easy causal correlation exists between the stages of evaluation. In one of Kirkpatrick’s latest periodical, he illustrated that if training is going to be efficient, it is significant that trainees respond positively (Praslova, 2010). He also reiterated that devoid of learning, no alteration in behavior will happen. Research, nevertheless, has failed to substantiate such causal relationships. Two meta-analyses of training assessment lessons using Kirkpatrick’s structure have established diminutive verification either of significant relationships between measures at diverse outcome level or proof of the linear causality suggested by Kirkpatrick (Arthur, et al, 2003). The other limitation of Kirkpatrick’s model is the assumption of increasing magnitude of information as the levels of outcomes are mounted. The incremental importance of information Kirkpatrick’s approach presumes that each level of appraisal presents data that is more enlightening than the previous. This assumption has engendered the perception among training assessors that instituting level four outcomes will offer the most practical information about the training course efficiency. In application, on the other hand, the feeble theoretical relationships intrinsic to the model and consequential data it produces do not offer a sufficient basis for this assumption. Kumpikaitė (2007) states that the model to be more effective should be applied in full, i.e. all the levels must be applied when evaluating without leaving even one level. What Kirkpatrick’s Model is Missing? Another consideration that the approach does not cover keenly is the reliability of self-report surveys such as questionnaires as they provide unreliable performance data. What people say they executed or will accomplish is regularly not what transpires. As such the sales and marketing staff of Borkeuf Company may convey information about how much they have learned during the training program that cannot be substantiated. In order that inaccurate information is not entirely taken when evaluating the training program, the management has to deduce findings very carefully (Schmalenbach, 2005). Conclusion The Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluating training offers various advantages that contribute to efficient evaluation. Borkeuf Company will use the model to examine the effectiveness of training its sales people and how the training workshop impact on individual and organizational performance. However, caution should be exercised in the process of evaluation as the Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model has limitations such as failing to consider other relevant factors or omitting important principles. There are suggestions imminent that offer solutions to the limitations of the Kirkpatrick’s model such as gathering employee information objectively. \ References Arthur Jr, W., Bennett Jr, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: a meta-analysis of design and evaluation features.Journal of Applied psychology, 88(2), 234. Bates, R. (2004). A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Evaluation and program planning, 27(3), 341-347. Galloway, D. L. (2005). Evaluating distance delivery and e‐learning is kirkpatricks model relevant?. Performance Improvement, 44(4), 21-27. Kumpikaitė, V. (2007). Human resource training evaluation. Engineering economics, (5 (55), 29-36. Nickols, F. W. (2005). Why a stakeholder approach to evaluating training.Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(1), 121-134. Phillips, P. P. (2010). Converting Measures to Monetary Value. ASTD Handbook for Measuring and Evaluating Training, 189. Phillips, P. P. (Ed.). (2010). ASTD Handbook for Measuring and Evaluating Training. American Society for Training and Development. Phillips, P. P., & Phillips, J. J. (2007). Return on investment (pp. 823-846). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. Praslova, L. (2010). Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in higher education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(3), 215-225. Schmalenbach, M. (2005) Training evaluation–what’s it all about?. Read More