Training or draining resources?

Journal of European Industrial Training

ISSN: 0309-0590

Article publication date: 1 November 2000

130

Keywords

Citation

(2000), "Training or draining resources?", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24 No. 8. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeit.2000.00324hab.010

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2000, MCB UP Limited


Training or draining resources?

Training or draining resources?

Keywords: Training, Education

New research launched by The Industrial Society reveals two out of three UK companies (63 per cent) have increased their commitment to training evaluation techniques in the past two years in order to increase efficiency.

Training Evaluation, the latest report in the "Managing best practice" series, reveals companies are increasing their commitment to evaluation for three key reasons – in order to:

  1. 1.

    establish links between training and business strategy;

  2. 2.

    develop improvements in training methods; and

  3. 3.

    establish future training needs.

The survey of 487 human resource and personnel specialists revealed that management training is more likely to be evaluated systematically than any other area. The top five training areas evaluated are:

  1. 1.

    management training;

  2. 2.

    IT/computer training;

  3. 3.

    technical training;

  4. 4.

    induction training; and

  5. 5.

    communication skills training.

Training courses, both internal and external are the methods most likely to be evaluated. Eighty-six per cent of respondents evaluate internal training courses and 74 per cent evaluate external courses. Computer-based training packages and training to acquire qualifications are also evaluated by over one-third (34 per cent of respondents).

Almost half of the respondents (46 per cent) quantify the results of training in terms of quality measures, and 36 per cent quantify the results in terms of customer satisfaction. The other major quantifiable results can be seen in terms of financial benefits (29 per cent) and time saved (20 per cent).

Where respondents have made a financial calculation of the benefits of training to the organisation (99 of the organisations included in the survey), it is likely to be a considerable one. Fifty-six per cent of respondents state the benefit is over £300 per person per year and, for a considerable portion, the benefit is over $750.

Commenting on the survey findings, Andrew Forrest, Director of Learning and Development at the Industrial Society, said:

The most effective organisations do not just see evaluation as an important but "tacked on" activity. They see it as an indispensable part of the training cycle around which all training activity should be planned and designed.

Hopefully, the predicted growth in commitment to evaluation, combined with the fact that many companies increasingly realise the direct link between training and business efficiency, show that this attitude is developing.

Training Evaluation is number 70 in The Industrial Society's "Managing best practice" series. The report is available, price £60.00 plus postage and packing by telephoning +44 (0) 870 400 1000. An annual subscription to the "Managing best practice" series costs £450.

Related articles