COMPANY TRAINING FROM THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS POINT OF VIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2012.050102Keywords:
Company training, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Responsibility, Management, EvaluationAbstract
The paper concentrates on the topic of efficiency and effectiveness of company training. This work has set research goals that were solved using the interrogation method, questionnaire technique and free interview. Goal No. 1 was to investigate the situation in the company training from the motivation aspect and stimulating education system requirements. Goal No. 2 was to determine the use of educational methods, forms of training from the point of view of their efficiency. Goal No. 3 was to investigate into the attitude toward company training evaluation and exploitation of the individual levels of educational process efficiency evaluation. As a resource for the training efficiency evaluation the authors used Kirkpatrick’s 4-level Learning Evaluation Model extended with the ROI method. The research group consisted of a) HR managers / managers from the SME sectors, b) participants of these companies’ training programmes. The most important requirements for an efficient stimulating educational system involve the conformity with the needs and goals of the company, linking with the performance system and accord with the needs of an individual. The research has shown that in certain educational methods and forms there occurs conformity between the frequency of their usage in practice and apprehension of their efficiency, e.g. the controlled discussion method and the direct group education form. In others, such as the practical example method and individual consultation form, their usage in practice is minimal, but there is a high apprehension rate of their efficiency. The efficiency evaluation is implemented mostly only on the 1st and 2nd level (the reaction level and learning level). However, in a responsible approach to the efficient use of financial means invested into the training process also a shift of evaluation on the 3rd and 4th level (transfer to the work-place level and business result level) and ROI are necessary.
References
Alvarez, K., Salas, E.m Garofano, C.M. (2004) ‘An Integrated Model of Training Evaluation and Effectiveness’, Human Resources Development Review, vol. 3, pp. 358-416.
Bennett, W. et al. (2003) ‘Expanding the training evaluation criterion space’, Military Psychology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 59-76.
Chapmann, A. (2009) ‘Kirpatrick´s Training Evaluation Model – the Four Levels of Learning Evaluation’ [online], Available: http://www.businessballs.com/kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm.
Drucker, P.F. (2008) The Essential Drucker: The Best of Sixty Years of Peter Drucker´s Essential Writings of Management, HarperCollins Publishers, New York.
Goldstein, I., Ford, J. (2002) Training in organizations (4nd ed.), Wandsworth, Belmont.
Hroník, F. (2007) Rozvoj a vzdělávání pracovníků, Grada Publishing, Praha, 240 p.
Islam, K.A. (2006) Developing and Measuring Training the Six Sigma Way, Pfeiffer, San Francisco.
Kelly, H.F., Ponton, M.K., Rovai, A.P. (2007) ‘A comparasion of student evaluations of teaching between online and face-to-face courses’, The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 89-101.
Kirkpatrick, D.L., Kirkpatrick, J.D. (2006) Transfering Learning to Behaviour: Using the Four Levels to Improve Performance, Berrett-Koehler Publ., San Fransico.
Kirkpatrick, J.D., Kirkpatrick, W.K. (2010) Training on Trial: How Workplace Learning Must Reinvent Itself by Remain Relevant, AMACOM, New York.
Marsh, H.W., Roche, L.A. (2000) ‘Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students´evaluations of teaching: Popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders?’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 92. no. 1, pp. 202-228.
Maslow, A.H. (2011) Hierarchy of Needs: A Theory of Human Motivation [online], Available: www.all-about-psychology.com.
Müller, M., Myllyntaus, T. (eds.) (2008) Globalisation, management education and management practice. Pathbreakers. Wien, pp. 477–504.
Rae, L. (1999) Using Evaluation in Training and Development, Kogan Page, London.
Sullivan, J. (2008) Measuring Training Effectiveness/Impact [online], Available: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/pp15js18.htm.
Stoughton J. W. et al. (2011) ‘Measurement invariance in training evaluation: Old question, new context’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 2005-2010.
Theall, M., Franklin, J. (2001) ‘Looking for bias in all the wrong places: A search for truth or a witch hunt in student ratings of instructions’, New directions for institutional research, no. 109, pp. 45-56.
Tureckiová, M. (2007) Klíč k účinnému vedení lidí, Prague: Grada Publishing.
Urban, J. (2003) Řízení lidí v organizaci, Prague: ASPI Publishing.
Wang, G.G., Wilcox, D. (2006) ‘Training Evaluation: Knowing More Than Is Practiced’, Advances in Developing Human Resources, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 528-559.
Witzany, J. (2002) Příspěvek k diskusi o kvalitě studia [on-line], Česká konference rektorů, Available: http://crc.muni.cz/documents/witzany.html.
Wolf, P., Hill, A., Evers, F. (2006). Handbook for curriculum assessment. Guelph, Ontario, Canada: University of Guelpho.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors declare with this manuscript intended for publication to ERIES Journal that:
- all co-authors agree with the publication of the manuscript even after amendments arising from peer review;
- all co-authors agree with the posting of the full text of this work on the web page of ERIES Journal and to the inclusion of references in databases accessible on the internet;
- no results of other researchers were used in the submitted manuscript without their consent, proper citation, or acknowledgement of their cooperation or material provided;
- the results (or any part of them) used in the manuscript have not been sent for publication to any other journal nor have they already been published (or if so, that the relevant works are cited in this manuscript);
- submission of the manuscript for publication was completed in accordance with the publishing regulations pertaining to place of work;
- experiments performed comply with current laws and written consent of the Scientific Ethics Committee / National Animal Care Authority (as is mentioned in the manuscript submitted);
- grant holders confirm that they have been informed of the submitted manuscript and they agree to its publication.
Authors retain copyright and grant ERIES Journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the published work with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in ERIES Journal. Moreover, authors are able to post the published work in an institutional repository with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in ERIES Journal. In addition, authors are permitted and encouraged to post the published work online (e.g. institutional repositories or on their website) as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
