You are on page 1of 9

Measuring Training & Development

M. Srimannarayana

Introduction
This study presents the measures
of training and development that Training and development continues
are considered extremely valuable to be a valued component in the modem
and those that are routinely used management of human resources.
by HR/training professionals Emerging research shows that invest-
Based on information collected ments in human capital, including train-
from 105 HR/training profession- ing, are positively related to organisational
als from different Indian organi- performance (Kraiger, McLinden &
zations it was found that the tra- Casper 2004). The scope of training and
ditional measures such as feed- development activities vary from one
back of the training programmes, organisation to another. The activities
number of employees trainee! in include employee, associate, technical,
various training programmes, operator, supervisor and management
training costs, and number of training and development programms.
training days are the more popu- Training and development professionals
lar measures when compared to manning the training departments carry
impact measures such as learning out the entire process of training and
during training, transfer of train- development that includes preparation of
ing, performance improvements budgets, needs assessment and analysis,
because of training, and cost and programme design, delivery, and evalua-
beneflt analysis of training and tion of training programmes.
development programmes. Having
made significant progress with Training Evaluation
respect to traditional measures of
training and development, it is the As the companies spend huge
time for focusing ori impact'mea- amounts on ti^aining and development,
sures. they expect results from the programmes.
The results can be measured through
evaluation of training programmes.
Kirkpatrick's (1994) four level hierarchy
M. Srimannarayana is Professor, XLRI, Jamshedpur is a classical model of evaluation for guid-
8310 001, Email: sriman@xlri.ac.in
ing evaluation practices. The first level

The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol. 47. No. 1. July 2011 117
M. Srimannarayana

is participants' reactions, the feedback of ment in organisations. As a part of HR


the participants that are collected during practice measures, Saratoga Institute
or at the end of the training programme. (1994) has identified the following train-
The second level measures leaming that ing and development measures: 1) num-
has taken place based on the inputs ber of fraining days and programs held per
gained during the training programme. year, 2) cost per trainee per hour, 3) per-
The third level measures changes in the cent of employees involved in training, 4)
behaviour because of the transfer of number of courses taught by subject, 5)
leaming to back on the job situation. The percent of employees with development
fourth level measures the business results plans, 6) number of courses taught by sub-
gained from the training programme. ject, 7) percent of payroll spent on frain-
Phillips (1997) added the fth level, re- ing, 8) payroll expense per employee, 9)
turn on investment that compares mon- comparison: who did and who did not at-
etary value of the benefits tO; the costs tend training, 10) Ratio of advanced to
of the training programme. But remedial education, 11) time for new
organisations still do not routinely mea- programme design, 12) percent of new
sure the impact,of training. Among programme material each year, and 13)
organisations participating in ASTD's efficiency of fraining regisfration.
Benchmarking Services, 75% measured
training reactions and 4 1 % measured Considering levels of fraining evalua-
leaming, but only 11 % nieasured business tion, Phillips (1999) has suggested train-
results (Sugrue 2003). Bersin (2006) has ing measures which relate to productivity,
identifled that 81% of the organisations quality, cost, time, and soft data. Produc-
routinely measure r.eactions; 35% mea- tivity measures are of two types. One is
sure leaming of the participants; 14% performance measures that are related
measure job inipact; 10% measure busi- directly to participant output in work units
ness impact; and 5% measure retum on produced or services provided and another
investment. . . one is process measures that include the
total number of ernployees trained, per-
centage of employees receiving a particu-
As the companies spend huge
lar training, and total hours of training per
amounts on training and develop-
employee. Quality measures include re-
ment, tliey expect fesuits from the
ject rates, scrap rates, rework, error rates,
programmes.
defects, and downtime. Phillips classified
cost measures also in two categories such
Training & Development Measures as performance measures and process
measures. Performance measures include
. There are some attempts to identify cost reductions achieved by participants,
measures of fraining and development that and application of cost control methods
are considered to assess the effectiveness leamed in the training and process mea-
of training and development as an inte- sures cover cost of training. Time mea-
gral function of human resource manage- sures also include both performance mea-

118 The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 47, No. 1, July 2011
Measuring Training & Development

sures such as improvements in time The study has concluded that the current
brought by some training programmes and state of measurement is almost inverse
process measures that cover the time to the perceptions of value.
needed for training. Finally soft data in-
cludes participants' feedback, their learn- The Present Study
ing, measures that include skill application.
Organisations in India are committing
more resources, in the forms of both time
Most organisations focus on mea-
and money, towards training and devel-
suring standard course operations:
opment of employees aiming at improv-
enrolment, and completion of the
ing their competencies. Training and de-
course.
velopment has evolved and matured to a
substantial degree in India (Rao, Rao &
Bersin (2006) has conducted a study Yadav 2001). Organisations are increas-
among senior professionals associated ing training budgets year after year
with training and development in North (Srimannarayana 2006). But to what ex-
America. It is focused on finding the tent measurement of training and devel-
measures of training and development opment has evolved and matured in In-
that are extremely valuable as perceived dia? Prompted by the study undertaken
by the training professionals and the mea- by Bersin, the present study is carried
sures that are really used routinely in the out to find out value of measures of train-
respective organisations. Based on his ing and development as perceived by the
research study, Bersin has identified the HR/ training professionals in India and
following training measures: 1) enrolment the extent of using them routinely in their
to the programmes, 2) compliance, 3) respective organisations to assess train-
course completion, 4) student hours, 5) ing and development function.
students' satisfaction, 6) managers' sat-
isfaction, 7) leaming scores, 8) cost to A questionnaire has been developed
develop, 9) cost to deliver, 10) cost per incorporating the following measures of
student, 11) total cost, 12) job impact, 13) training and development after consider-
business impact, 14) actual business im- ing various possible measures of training
pact, and 15) retum on investment. The and development function that have been
study has indicated that most identified in literature and earlier research
organisations focus on measuring stan- survey to assess this function:
dard course operations: enrolment, and
completion of the course. Reaction level 1) Number of employees trained in
evaluation surveys are very widely used. training programmes
A very small number of organisations
routinely measure retum on investment, 2) Number of training days
business impact or job impact. Another
3) Training costs
interesting finding of the study is that only
one-third organisations measure cost. 4) Percent of amount spent on training
in payroll

The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 47, No. 1, July 2011 119
M Srimannarayana

5) Feedback of participants The respondent HR/training profes-


sionals were asked two questions.
6) Leaming of the participants during
training
1. What do you consider extremely
7) Transfer of leaming on-the-job valuable measures of training and de-
velopment among the measures men-
8) Performance improvements made tioned in the list?
because of training received
2. What do you actually measure in
9) Cost and benefit analysis of training training and development among the
10) Satisfaction of line managers on measures mentioned in the list?
training Their responses have formed the
These measures may be classified basis for this study.
into two categories for the purpose of this
study. One is the traditional measures that Results & Findings
are easy to develop and measure and
another is the impact measures that add Three-fourths of the respondents
value to employees and organisations. have considered that performance
Traditional measures include number of improvement made because of
employees trained per year, number of training is the extremely valuable
training days, training costs, percent of measure of training.
amount spent on training, feedback of
participants, and satisfaction of line man-
agers. Impact measures include leam- The Measures that are considered
ing of the participants during training, extremely valuable: Fig. 1 presents the
transfer of leaming on the job, perfor- percentage of HR/training professionals
mance improvements made because of who have perceived the measures of
training received, and cost and benefit training and development as extremely
analysis of training. valuable. Interestingly, about three-
fourths of the respondents have consid-
ered that performance improvement
The questionnaire has been adminis-
made because of training is the ex-
tered among 105 HR/training profession-
tremely valuable measure of training.
als working in different sectors of em-
This is followed by transfer of leaming
ployment in India during May-June 2009.
inputs on the job (70.48%). More than
The respondents work in manufacturing,
half (53.33%) of the respondents have
IT/ITES and service sectors with a mini-
viewed cost and benefit analysis as ex-
mum experience of three years in their
tremely valuable. It is significant to note
respective organisations in the functional
that nearly same percentage (51.43%) of
area of training and development. They
the respondents have considered train-
have represented private, joint venture
ing costs as extremely valuable. Nearly
and public sector organisations across
the same riumber of respondents (49.
India.

120 The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 47, No. 1, July 2011
Measuring Training & Development

52%) has considered line managers' sat- able. Interestingly, only 42. 86 % of the
isfaction as extremely valuable a mea- respondents have considered feedback of
sure. Leaming of participants during the participants as an extremely valuable
training and number of training days are measure and only 40% of them have
extremely valuable to 47. 62% of the re- viewed number of employees trained in
spondents. 45.7% of the respondents training programmes as an extremely
have considered percent of amount spent valuable measure.
on training in payroll is extremely valu-

Fig. 1 : What Training & Development Measures are Considered Extremely Valuable

Number of employees trained D.1%


Number of training days 1347.62%
Training costs 351.43%
Percent of amount spent on training '-.| 45.7%
Feedback ji>] 42.86%

Leaming of the participants


Transfer of learning 370.48%
Performance improvements made ^w5176.19%
Cost and benefit analysis ^ti 53.33%
Satisfaction of line managers SMI 49.52%

Feedback of the participants training in payroll. Less than half


(95.24%) is a very widely used (42.86%) of the respondents have men-
measure of training and develop- tioned that they routinely measure leam-
ment programmes. ing of participants during training. Only
35.24% of the respondents have stated
that they measure transfer of training on
The Measures that are actually the job. In case of measuring perfor-
used: As shown in fig. 2, feedback of mance improvements made by the par-
the participants (95.24%) is a very ticipants, nearly one-fourth of the re-
widely used measure of training and de- spondents mentioned that they measure
velopment programmes. Another inter- it. Another significant finding is that
esting finding is that number of employ- though training costs are measured on a
ees trained in various training routine basis, cost and benefit analysis
programmes (84.76%) is very popular of the training programmes does not take
among the training and development place in a great majority of the
measures. This is followed by training organisations. Surprisingly, satisfaction
costs ((79. 05%) and number of train- of line managers who nominate employ-
ing days (77.14%). More than half of ees for training and development
the respondents have mentioned that programmes is also not measured in
they measure percent of amount on these organisations.

The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 47, No. 1, July 2011 121
M. Srimannarayana

Fig. 2: What do you Measure Routinely in Training & Development

Number of employees frained rt1^fl4 7R%


Number of training days 177.14%
Training costs ^ 79.05%
Percent of amount spent on training I fifi 19%
Feedback
Leaming of the participants I49fi%
Transfer of leaming 135 24%

' Performance improvements made fv^=-fe-i.",wl 22.86%

Cost and benefit analysisEE38.57%


Satisfaction of line managers m W ] 16.19%

Comparison: More than three-fourth in their respective organisations in mea-


of respondents have believed that perfor- suring training and development. Almost
mance improvements made because of all (95.24%) respondents have mentioned
training is an extremely valuable measure. that they collect feedback of the partici-
But actually less than one-fourth of re- pants after completion of training
spondents use it routinely to measure train- programme routinely. But surprisingly, less
ing and development. A great majority than half (42.86%) of the respondents
(70.48%) have believed that transfer of have considered it as an extremely impor-
leaming is extremely important. But only tant measure. An overwhelming majority
35.24% of them use this measure routinely (84. 76%) of the respondents routinely

Fig. 3: Traditional and Impact Measures

TisiiJition.il Measiirs

Number of employees trained ;; !


. ' 184.76%

Number of training days m 77 14%


Training costs / \ ^ %^ 179.05%

Percent of amount spent on training .156 19%


Feedback I. ;
-'^ I %*.':! 9'

Satisfaction of line managers Z Z Z D 42.86%


Impact Maasuis

Learning of the participants 122 . 8 6 %


Transfer of learning le 57%

Performance improvements made 1 16 19%


Cost and benefit analysis II]8.57

122 The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 47, No. 1. July 2011
Meastiring Training & Development

measure number of employees trained in ing such as performance improvements,


training programmes. But only 40.1% of training transfer, and cost and benefit
the respondents have believed that this is analysis, which really indicate the impact
an extremely important measure of train- of training. But they do not make attempts
ing. While 53.33% of the respondents to measure these aspects. What would
have believed that cost and benefit analy- be the reason behind this current state
sis is extremely valuable, only 8. 57% re- of measurement? This situation might be
spondents have mentioned that they ac- because of a combination of factors that
tually measure it. Only 47.62% of the re- crept into the entire training process. In-
spondents have considered number of adequate needs assessment and improper
training days as a valuable measure, but nominations make training professionals
77. 14% of the respondents have men- frustrated to go ahead with the use of
tioned that they use this measure routinely impact measures. If the nominations are
in measuring training efforts. not proper, impact of the training cannot
be seen on the job. Subsequently cost
Traditional and Impact Measures: and benefit analysis would become a fu-
As indicated in fig. 3, traditional measures tile exercise. Another combination of fac-
such as feedback of participants, num- tors might be training design and deliv-
ber of employees trained, number of ery. If the training is not designed based
training days, training costs, and percent on the training needs of the participants
of amount spent on training in payroll ap- and delivery is not carried out with ap-
pear to be more popular measures in use propriate methodology incorporating iden-
than the impact measures such as leam- tical elements or at least general prin-
ing, transfer of leaming, performance im- ciples, transfer of training would not be
provements, and cost and benefit analy- possible, even though the participants are
sis of training and development happy with the programme. Having
programmes. known this fact, the HR/ Training pro-
fessionals might not venture to measure
Discussion training impact.

There is a gap between the mea- HR/ training professionals do not


sures that are valued and tiie mea- have controi over data that is re-
sures tiiat are used actually in as- i quired for measuring training and
sessing training and deveiopment. deveiopment using impact mea-
sures.
The findings indicate thatthere is a
gap between the measures that are val- Assume that the needs assessment
ued and the measures that are used ac- is adequate; nominations are proper; and
tually in assessing training and develop- training design and delivery are appro-
ment. HR/training professionals are priate to participants and their needs.
aware of the valuable measures of train- HR/training professionals are aware of

The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 47, No. 1, July 2011 123
M. Srimannarayana

what are the valuable measures of train- sequent to all these factors, training and
ing. Even then they do not use the valu- development measurement now in India
able measures to assess training impact is confined to traditional measures such
because of a different combination of as feedback, number of employees
factors. One cannot say that they do not trained, training costs, and training days
believe in impact measures as a majority that are simple and easy to measure. HR/
of the respondent HR/ training profes- training professionals have most control
sionals could identify the impact mea- over the information required for using
sures as valuable for the organisations in these measures to assess training func-
this study. Therefore, there might be dif- tion.
ferent factors associated with this situa-
tion. One would be HR/training profes- Conclusions & Recommendations
sionals might lack the knowledge, skills,
and abilities, and the orientation required
for assessing training and development Adequate needs assessment,
using impact measures though various I proper nominations, appropriate
models and methods are available on training design, and deiivery are
training measurement for impact. Sec- prerequisites for measuring im- I
ond would be that the HR/training pro- pact of training and development.
fessionals might be more concemed with
the negative consequences of the results The study concludes that measuring
of their training measurement.Third training and development has not matured
would be the belief that the measuring to a substantial level in India. It confines
impact of training is time consuming and to traditional measures such as collect-
expensive. Fourth would be the limita- ing feedback from the participants, mea-
tions and difficulties in the available mea- suring number of employees trained per
surement models. They might be looking year, training costs, training days, and
for the models that are simple and easy percent of amount spent on training, but
to measure. Finally, would be the coop- not impact measures. HR/ training pro-
eration requiredfromparticipants and line fessionals are aware of the impact mea-
managers. HR/training professionals sures. They consider them as valuable
have to get inputs required for measur- measures of training, but do not venture
ing training and development using im- to use these measures in training evalu-
pact measuresfromparticipants and their ation. There are multiple factors respon-
managers. HR/ training professionals do sible for this situation. Having achieved
not have control over data that is required satisfactory progress with respect to tra-
for measuring training and development ditional measures, it is now imperative on
using impact measures. If the HR/train- the part of HR/training professional to
ing professionals believe that they do not focus on what actually they wanted to
get enough cooperation from the line focus in measuring training and develop-
nianagers, they might not go for assess- ment. That is, impact measures. Ad-
ing training using impact measures. Sub- equate needs assessment, proper nomi-

124 The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 47, No. 1, July 2011
Measuring Training & Development

nations, appropriate training design, and Kraiger, K., McLinden, D & Casper, W. J. (2004),
"Collaborative Planning for Training Im-
delivery are prerequisites for measuring pact", Human Resource Management,
impact of training and development. This 43(4): 337-51.
should be supplemented with adequate
knowledge, skills, and orientation of HR/ Phillips, J. J. (1997;, Handbook of Training
Evaluation and Measurement Methods.
training professionals on measuring train- Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
ing and development using impact mea-
sures: If training is expected to show its Phillips J J (1999), Accountability in Human
Resource Management, Houston, TX:
impact, HR/ training professionals have Butterworth-Heinemann
to master the training measurement
methodologies using impact measures. Rao,TV, Rao, Raju & Yadav, Taru (2001), "A
Study of HRD Concepts, Structure of HRD
Departments, and HRD practices in India",
References Vikalpa, 26(1): 49-60

Bersin, J. (2008), The Training Measurement Srimannarayana, M. (2006) "Training Trends in


Book: Best Practices, Proven Methodolo- India", Indian Journal of Training and De-
gies, and Practical Approaches, San Fran- velopment, XXXWI {2): 4 \-57.
cisco: John Wiley & Sons. Sugrue, B. (2003), State of Industry: ASTD's
Fitz-Enz, J. (1994), SHRM/ Saratoga Institute Annual Review of U.S. and international
Human Resource Effectiveness Survey, Trends in Workplace Leaming and Perfor-
CA: Saratoga Institute mance, Alexandria, VA: ASTD.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994), Evaluating Training Yeung, A. K. (1997), "Measuring Human resource


Programs: The Four levels. San Francisco: Effectiveness and Impact", Human Re-
Berret-Koehler source Management, 36 (3): 299.

The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 47, No. 1, July 2011 125

You might also like