Here are a few facts to get us started.

The UK:

• Is facing a major skills shortfall
• Spends less on training than the major EU countries
• Has spent less on training every year for the past decade

 

Of course, it’s possible that UK organisations are taking advantage of resources online, but if that’s the case, then why is the country running out of people who have the skills needed to do their work?

In all likelihood, it’s because training has been ignored.

 

Why is that?

Some would argue that it’s due to the sluggishness of the economy. Ever since the Great Recession, there has been less money for almost everything.

If only the UK experienced that economic downturn, then that might be a good reason; but the thing is that the entire world went through it, and yet it’s Britain that has slid almost all the way to the bottom of the training investment league table.

And it’s also the one with a major skills shortage.

A more likely reason is that employers haven’t been able to see the connection between training and productivity or profitability. In other words, training is perceived as a luxury for when times are good; not a necessity when they aren’t.

The purpose of this article is to help you to find the best trainer available for your organisation.

 

Received wisdom

If you look online for guidance on how to choose a trainer, then you’ll see all manner of what appears to be logical criteria.

• Do they have a track record in your industry?
• Have they shown an interest in developing a relationship?
• Do they think “outside the box”?
• Are they flexible?
• Do they give value for money?

All these things have their place, but they also miss that which is most important.

 

Measurement Myth

The first thing that you need to realise is that, contrary to what many people will tell you, training outcomes can be measured. It’s a telltale sign that you’re dealing with an amateur if you’re told that they can’t be. It may not be cost-effective to do so, but that’s a far cry from saying that it can’t be done.

So, what you should do Mr. or Ms. Manager is ask prospective trainers how they intend to measure the results. If they say it can’t be done, then thank them for their time, stand up, and conclude the meeting.

They can’t help you.

 

What difference will the training make?

In the face of such a question, the best trainers will ask you this question: What will people be able to do differently or better as a result of this training? And if you don’t have a good answer, then they can’t help you either.

The thing is that if you don’t know what people should be able to do differently, then you won’t know if the trainers you contract have done their jobs or not.

If you work in the HR office and are asked to find trainers for people in other parts of the organisation, then make sure the managers in those sections can give you a good answer to this question. It’s a waste of your time and the organisation’s resources if you look for a trainer without knowing this first.

And here’s something you’d do well to remember: If you choose one that doesn’t produce the results that the manager wants, you’ll be blamed for it. So, make sure that you know in advance what specific behaviours need to be corrected.

 

This leads us to the gold standard for evaluating training.

 

Kirkpatrick Model

The gold standard for training evaluation is referred to as the Kirkpatrick Model. It will help you to decide what your outcomes will be. There are four levels or outcomes.

 

Reaction

It could be that all you’re looking for is a reaction. Presenters will sometimes hand out feedback forms that ask you if the hotel was easy to find, if there was parking, if you had enough pencils, or if you liked the biscuits.

Where the training is included in the evaluation, participants might be asked if they liked it, if they were able to stay awake, or if it had anything to do with their jobs. This may seem a little facetious, but many a person has attended training only to be told on the job that none of it applied, or that things were going to stay the same. The extent to which delegates participated is also evaluated. You see, that’s a reaction, too.

“No” or “very little” means they were bored.

 

Learning

The next level is learning. This is a bit more difficult to measure.

That’s because instead of looking for a reaction, you’re also looking for evidence that they acquired the knowledge and skills that they were supposed to. In other words, you’re expecting to see a difference between what they knew and did before the training compared to what they know and do afterwards. And the only way you can do that is if you or the trainer devises some means of quantifying that in advance.

Normally, this would be done in the training itself, or at an agreed interval afterwards. Perhaps the trainer would have some pre-designed assessment tools. These could be in the form of written, oral, or hands-on tests. At this level, participants would be able to appreciate the relevance of the training they received and have the confidence to try it out when they got back.

 

Behaviour

The next level is even harder to measure. Here you’re looking for a change in the behaviour of participants on the job – after the training. That means knowing what behaviours you want to see more or of less of post-training before you start

To measure that properly, you need to know how to construct reliable and valid assessment, and to ensure you are promoting and measuring something that is simple to observe or find evidence for, such as how to use ladders correctly.

You can’t skimp on thinking about this beforehand.

Not only will improperly constructed plans and assessments give you erroneous results, they can also mislead you into thinking that one thing is true when in reality it’s one or more other things.

 

Results

This level should probably be called something else because you’re always looking for results in all four of the levels; but for this one, the business outcomes extend beyond a change in behaviour on the job.  You are assessing the degree of success that participants and the business experience post-training.

And you won’t be surprised to know that constructing projects pre-training that will be used to assess the business improvement gained by the application of learning requires a fair amount of thought.

 

A 5th level

Jack Phillips added a 5^th level of assessment to the Kirkpatrick Model, called Return on Investment (ROI). Here the previous four levels are collated along with the financial information on costs and improvements or savings in order to calculate the ROI.

 

What ROI results can be expected?

One survey of some 200 e-learning implementation across a range of different sized companies saw ROI ranging from -20% (waste of time) to +200%. The companies which got best ROI had planned sound learning application projects and assessments, used good off-the-shelf content and over-communicated the key messages from the training initiative post-training to support the implementation.

 

 

Why training is unfunded

There are at least three reasons why training is left unfunded.

One is that managers believe that one measurement method is appropriate for all types of training.

They may not say it like this, but when there’s no a priori questionnaire against which post-training can be evaluated, and only reaction sheets are used, then it shouldn’t surprise you when they fail to predict the success of participants a few months from now. You must use the most appropriate evaluation method for the outcome that you want.

 

A second reason is that organisations are unwilling to spend the time and / or the money that’s needed to create the pre and post assessments or plan the required implementation projects that are required to make a valid judgement on the training itself.

 

A third reason is that it takes time away from the business for people to complete the questionnaires or measure the business improvement from learning application projects while on the job, and as a result the entire exercise looks more like an unnecessary expense than a vital necessity.

 

Conclusion

A 2016 Great Place to Work survey found that, on average, companies in the Fortune 100 spent 73 hours training employees, compared to the 38 training hours spent by companies outside that elite group. The Fortune 100 companies also had individualised professional development programs and succession planning. It does not seem like a coincidence that their 2-year growth rate was five times the average and that their revenue growth was 22% more than the average. Training does work when well planned and executed.

 

The Kirkpatrick Model, +/- Jack Phillips ROI Methodology, is the gold standard for trainers. It defines the essential outcomes that are possible from any training that your staff are given.

The key is to decide in advance what outcome you want, design the training so that those results can be measured, and then create one or more assessment tools or learning application projects, that will enable you to do that.

All that has to be done before the first person enters the training programme. To do otherwise is to waste your time and money. The best trainers know how to deliver results across all outcome groups – not just happy sheets.

 

The best question you can ask yourself is “What will people be able to do differently as a result of this training”?

If you don’t know, then don’t need a trainer.

Instead, you need to figure out why your staff need training at all.

That, however, is for another article.

 

 

Want to make your training more effective – click or tab here