How much of training is really worthwhile? (and how can you tell?)

Training is an important component in ensuring that workers know how to do their jobs properly.

However:

• the timing has to be right
• the process in which the person is being trained needs to be stable
• the systems that the person uses after training need to be free of bugs.

The ideal timing for training is when the person is motivated to learn and as close as possible to when the training will be used. If the person doesn't see the point of the training then it will be an uphill battle for them to learn anything. If the gap in time is too great between the training and its use then the person may forget critical information in the meantime because they have not had the opportunity to use it and reinforce it. Training also needs to be targeted to the person's needs. A person is more likely to absorb information that they need than to absorb information peripheral to their needs.

The process needs to be stable, otherwise the training may be out-of-date as soon as the trainee walks out the door. And the computer systems need to be bug-free since otherwise the trainees will be unable to distinguish between system issues and their own mistakes. Buggy systems make for noisy feedback which undercuts learning.

Kirkpatrick's training evaluation model can be an invaluable tool for determining whether training has been worthwhile.

It has four levels:  

1. Reaction of student - what they thought and felt about the training
2. Learning - the resulting increase in knowledge or capability
3. Behavior - extent of behavior and capability improvement and implementation/application
4. Results - the effects on the business or environment resulting from the trainee's performance

The problem is that many training evaluations stop at the first level. I recall going to a training course on change management and there is no doubt that the trainer knew their subject, that it was interesting and informative and that most of those present enjoyed it and gave it good evaluations. Then they went back to their jobs and kept doing things the same way they had previously. The lesson is that the fact that trainees found the training enjoyable and interesting doesn't necessarily mean that it was worthwhile.

It used to be that when a person did training they were given pre-tests and post-tests, the theory being that the difference between their results on the two tests indicated an increase in knowledge. This seems to be out of fashion now, even though it at least had the advantage of showing that some learning had taken place. Without something comparable to this, it isn't clear that any of what was taught has stuck. Some options for measurement could include needing to complete some assessment tasks on the job and the plus in this is that it at least provides an indication of whether anything was remembered once the trainee left the training room. Plus it gets them integrating their learning into performance.

Which brings us to performance: is the person applying what they have learned? This is another area that seldom seems to be followed up except tangentially. In fact, the whole purpose of training in some instances is so that management can claim that the person was trained so that any subsequent deficit in performance is down to the employee not doing their job rather than them not having received the required training (however ill-timed or inadequate it might have been.)

Finally, if the worker did learn and apply what was covered in the training, what difference has this made to the organisation's performance: is work being done faster, more accurately, more effectively, with less waste or less downtime? If not, then the reason could be that the training wasn't properly matched to the organisation's needs and this is important feedback because it points to the need for better analysis before developing and rolling out training.

The bottom line is that training isn't about the trainees feeling good.

It is about the delivery of results and if it fails to deliver then it really wasn't worthwhile. Worse, it was a cost to the organisation without any commensurate benefit.

---

Resources

Official Site of the Kirkpatrick Model