|
|
-
By Prakash Bebington
|
| |
What you can't measure, you can't manage. Yes, we all know that, but seldom are
able to translate this "knowledge" into "action"-especially when it comes to
measuring the effectiveness of our training programs. Now, why is this so
difficult, I wonder, when stalwarts such as Dr. Donald Kirkpatrick and Jack
Phillips have already shown us the step-by-step way to measuring learning
outcomes-three decades ago.
|
|
Hmmm ... let us see! To start with, if you were the
trainer, wouldn't you be interested in knowing if your learners LIKED the
training program? Kirkpatrick would say yes, and then defined this measurement
as Level 1. Next, he wondered whether it would be relevant to measure if the
learners LEARNED from the training program. That's Kirkpatrick Level 2 for you.
Then again, if you happened to be the line manager who set aside precious
production time to send the learners to learn, you may be quite keen to
demonstrate that your subordinates USED those learnings from the training
program on their jobs. Eureka! That's Level 3, said Kirkpatrick. Clearly,
Kirkpatrick was left with some unanswered questions for the top brass (who
happens to be looking over the shoulders of the line manager). Enter Level
4-Business Results-which answers the million-dollar question of the top boss,
"Did all these training programs impact the corporate bottom-line?" Kirkpatrick
was pleased with these four levels, and left at that.
Clearly, that wasn't enough for Dr. Jack Phillips, Kirkpatrick's student. With
increased focus on corporate governance and scrutiny of, for, and by the Board
of Directors, Phillips went for the jugular-Return on Investment!!! Topping the
Learning Analytics (LA) pyramid, Dr. Phillips averred that enumerating the
achievements of training programs at this level is the highest possible way to
justify future investments. The Board smiled, the line manager squirmed, ... and
the trainer went pale.
|
|
OK, thanks for this fantastic pyramid, Drs. Kirkpatrick and Phillips, but how
do we implement this on our training programs-you may ask. Worry not, and
follow this 1-2-3 approach:
(1)
PREPARE:
Plan for LA even before creating the training programs. Else, you will NOT be
able to measure beyond Level 1. Get your training programs "designed" by
professional instructional designers-not subject matter experts. Align the
employee's performance areas to the company's result areas.
(2) SELECT: Identify which courses you want to measure at what
level. Use the one-half rule-measure all courses at level 1, 50% of courses at
level 2, 25% of courses at level 3, 12.5% of courses at level 4, and 6.25% of
courses at level 5. This is because the higher you climb the LA pyramid, the
more expensive it gets; you may want to invest on your most strategic projects
for ROI measurement.
(3) IMPLEMENT: Measure at level 1 and 2 using in-house
resources. For level 1, just collate the post-training feedback forms. For
level 2, study the post-assessment results of your training program. At levels
3+, get an external consultant-this could save you from accusations of being
"unscientific", "biased", and "political", when the truth is found. In India,
few companies, such as the Mumbai-based Aptech, offer LA consultancy.
Last, but not the least, if and when you catch the LA-tiger by its tail, please
remember the MOST important premise: "Learning Analytics is NOT a fault-finding
exercise, but a learning business process improvement operation."
The author is a Learning Measurement Analyst from Aptech Limited
(www.aptechus.com). He can be reached at prakashb@aptech.ac.in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
