Evaluating HRD Programs

1. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 1 Evaluating HRD Programs Chapter 9

2. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 2 Effectiveness The degree to which a training (or other HRD program) achieves its intended purpose. Measures are relative to some starting point. Measures how well the desired goal is achieved.

3. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 3 HRD Evaluation Textbook definition: �The systematic collection of descriptive and judgmental information necessary to make effective training decisions related to the selection, adoption, value, and modification of various instructional activities.�

4. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 4 In Other Words� Are we training: the right people the right �stuff� the right way with the right materials at the right time?

5. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 5 Evaluation Needs Descriptive and judgmental information needed. Objective and subjective data Information gathered according to a plan and in a desired format. Gathered to provide decision making information.

6. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 6 Purposes of Evaluation Determine whether the program is meeting the intended objectives. Identify strengths and weaknesses. Determine cost-benefit ratio. Identify who benefited most or least. Determine future participants. Provide information for improving HRD programs.

7. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 7 Purposes of Evaluation-2 Reinforce major points to be made. Gather marketing information. Determine if training program is appropriate. Establish management database.

8. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 8 Evaluation Bottom Line Is HRD a revenue contributor or a revenue user? Is HRD credible to line and upper-level managers? Are benefits of HRD readily evident to all?

9. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 9 How Often are HRD Evaluations Conducted? Not often enough!!! Frequently, only end-of-course participant reactions are collected. Transfer to the workplace is evaluated less frequently.

10. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 10 Why HRD Evaluations are Rare Reluctance to having HRD programs evaluated. Evaluation needs expertise and resources. Factors other than HRD cause performance improvements, e.g., Economy Equipment Policies, etc.

11. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 11 Need for HRD Evaluation Shows the value of HRD. Provides metrics for HRD efficiency. Demonstrates value-added approach for HRD. Demonstrates accountability for HRD activities. Everyone else has it� why not HRD?

12. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 12 Make or Buy Evaluation �I bought it, therefore it is good.� �Since it�s good, I don�t need to post-test.� Who says it�s: Appropriate? Effective? Timely? Transferable to the workplace?

13. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 13 Evolution of Evaluation Efforts Anecdotal approach: Talk to other users. Try before buy: Borrow and use samples. Analytical approach: Match research data to training needs. Holistic approach: Look at overall HRD process, as well as individual training.

14. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 14 Models and Frameworks of Evaluation Table 7-1 lists nine frameworks for evaluation. The most popular is that of D. Kirkpatrick: Reaction Learning Job Behavior Results

15. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 15 Kirkpatrick�s Four Levels Reaction Focus on trainee�s reactions Learning Did they learn what they were supposed to? Job Behavior Was it used on job? Results Did it improve the organization�s effectiveness?

16. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 16 Issues Concerning Kirkpatrick�s Framework Most organizations don�t evaluate at all four levels. Focuses only on post-training. Doesn�t treat inter-stage improvements. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? Most Most

17. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 17 Other Frameworks/Models � 1 CIPP: Context, Input, Process, Product CIRO: Context, Input, Reaction, Outcome Brinkerhoff: Goal setting Program design Program implementation Immediate outcomes Usage outcomes Impacts and worth

18. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 18 Other Frameworks/Models � 2 Kraiger, Ford, & Salas: Cognitive outcomes Skill-based outcomes Affective outcomes Phillips: Reaction Learning Applied learning on the job Business results ROI

19. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 19 A Suggested Framework � 1 Reaction Did trainees like the training? Did the training seem useful? Learning How much did they learn? Behavior What behavior change occurred?

20. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 20 Suggested Framework � 2 Results What were the tangible outcomes? What was the return on investment (ROI)? What was the contribution to the organization?

21. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 21 Data Collection for HRD Evaluation Possible methods: Interviews Questionnaires Direct observation Written tests Simulation/Performance tests Archival performance information

22. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 22 Interviews Advantages: Flexible Opportunity for clarification Depth possible Personal contact Limitations: High reactive effects High cost Face-to-face threat potential Labor intensive Trained observers needed

23. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 23 Questionnaires Advantages: Low cost to administer Honesty increased Anonymity possible Respondent sets the pace Variety of options Limitations: Possible inaccurate data Response conditions not controlled Respondents set varying paces Uncontrolled return rate

24. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 24 Direct Observation Advantages: Non-threatening Excellent way to measure behavior change Limitations: Possibly disruptive Reactive effects are possible May be unreliable Need trained observers

25. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 25 Written Tests Advantages: Low purchase cost Readily scored Quickly processed Easily administered Wide sampling possible Limitations: May be threatening Possibly no relation to job performance Measures only cognitive learning Relies on norms Concern for racial/ ethnic bias

26. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 26 Simulation/Performance Tests Advantages: Reliable Objective Close relation to job performance Includes cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains Limitations: Time consuming Simulations often difficult to create High costs to development and use

27. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 27 Archival Performance Data Advantages: Reliable Objective Job-based Easy to review Minimal reactive effects Limitations: Criteria for keeping/ discarding records Information system discrepancies Indirect Not always usable Records prepared for other purposes

28. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 28 Choosing Data Collection Methods Reliability Consistency of results, and freedom from collection method bias and error. Validity Does the device measure what we want to measure? Practicality Does it make sense in terms of the resources used to get the data?

29. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 29 Type of Data Used/Needed Individual performance System-wide performance Economic

30. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 30 Individual Performance Data Individual knowledge Individual behaviors Examples: Test scores Performance quantity, quality, and timeliness Attendance records Attitudes

31. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 31 System-Wide Performance Data Productivity Scrap/rework rates Customer satisfaction levels On-time performance levels Quality rates and improvement rates

32. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 32 Economic Data Profits Product liability claims Avoidance of penalties Market share Competitive position Return on Investment (ROI) Financial utility calculations

33. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 33 Use of Self-Report Data Most common method Pre-training and post-training data Problems: Mono-method bias Desire to be consistent between tests Socially desirable responses Response Shift Bias: Trainees adjust expectations to training

34. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 34 Research Design Specifies in advance: the expected results of the study. the methods of data collection to be used. how the data will be analyzed.

35. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 35 Research Design Issues Pretest and Posttest Shows trainee what training has accomplished. Helps eliminate pretest knowledge bias. Control Group Compares performance of group with training against the performance of a similar group without training.

36. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 36 Recommended Research Design Pretest and posttest with control group. Whenever possible: randomly assign individuals to the test group and the control group to minimize bias. Use �time-series� approach to data collection to verify performance improvement is due to training.

37. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 37 Ethical Issues Concerning Evaluation Research Confidentiality Informed consent Withholding training from control groups Use of deception Pressure to produce positive results

38. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 38 Assessing the Impact of HRD Money is the language of business. You MUST talk dollars, not HRD jargon. No one (except maybe you) cares about �the effectiveness of training interventions as measured by and analysis of formal pretest, posttest control group data.�

39. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 39 HRD Program Assessment HRD programs and training are investments. Line manager often see HR and HRD as costs, i.e., revenue users, not revenue producers. You must prove your worth to the organization � Or you�ll have to find another organization�.

40. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 40 Two Basic Methods for Assessing Financial Impact Evaluation of training costs Utility analysis

41. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 41 Evaluation of Training Costs Cost-benefit analysis Compares cost of training to benefits gained such as attitudes, reduction in accidents, reduction in employee sick-days, etc. Cost-effectiveness analysis Focuses on increases in quality, reduction in scrap/rework, productivity, etc.

42. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 42 Return on Investment Return on investment = Results/Costs

43. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 43 Types of Training Costs Direct costs Indirect costs Development costs Overhead costs Compensation for participants

44. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 44 Direct Costs Instructor Base pay Fringe benefits Travel and per diem Materials Classroom and audiovisual equipment Travel Food and refreshments

45. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 45 Indirect Costs Training management Clerical/Administrative Postal/shipping, telephone, computers, etc. Pre- and post-learning materials Other overhead costs

46. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 46 Development Costs Fee to purchase program Costs to tailor program to organization Instructor training costs

47. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 47 Overhead Costs General organization support Top management participation Utilities, facilities General and administrative costs, such as HRM

48. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 48 Compensation for Participants Participants� salary and benefits for time away from job Travel, lodging and per-diem costs

49. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 49 Measuring Benefits Change in quality per unit measured in dollars Reduction in scrap/rework measured in dollar cost of labor and materials Reduction in preventable accidents measured in dollars ROI = Benefits/Training costs

50. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 50 Utility Analysis Uses a statistical approach to support claims of training effectiveness: N = Number of trainees T = Length of time benefits are expected to last dt = True performance difference resulting from training SDy = Dollar value of untrained job performance (in standard deviation units) C = Cost of training ?U = (N)(T)(dt)(Sdy) � C

51. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 51 Critical Information for Utility Analysis dt = difference in units between trained/untrained, divided by standard deviation in units produced by trained. SDy = Standard deviation in dollars, or overall productivity of organization.

52. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 52 Ways to Improve HRD Assessment Walk the walk, talk the talk: MONEY. Involve HRD in strategic planning. Involve management in HRD planning and estimation efforts. Gain mutual ownership Use credible and conservative estimates. Share credit for successes and blame for failures.

53. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 53 HRD Evaluation Steps Analyze needs. Determine explicit evaluation strategy. Insist on specific and measurable training objectives. Obtain participant reactions. Develop criterion measures/instruments to measure results. Plan and execute evaluation strategy.

54. 3/23/2012 HRD3e Contributed by Wells Doty, Ed.D. Clemson Univ. 54 Summary Training results must be measured against costs. Training must contribute to the �bottom line.� HRD must justify itself repeatedly as a revenue enhancer, not a revenue waster.