June 2008 – SPECIAL ISSUE: EVALUATION

Are you measuring the right thing?

There is an increasing drumbeat by the companies I have observed to improve how they measure and evaluate the results of their training programs. What surprises me is the fact that many are still using rudimentary methods. Basically the “smiley sheet” remains the predominant form of measurement and only achieves the first Kirkpatrick Level. As a result, many training departments are struggling to attain Level Two and Levels Three and Four are only pipedreams. Read more…

Benchmarking Kirkpatrick

Since its creation in 1959, the Kirkpatrick Model has been the most widely used approach to evaluate training. As long as this model has been around, you would think that companies would have learned long ago how to achieve, measure and evaluate training on all four levels. Yet, nearly half a century later, many fail to reach beyond Level Two. Read more…

Do you really know?

I am constantly surprised by the difficulty I have observed within companies that are struggling to measure and evaluate the impact of their learning and development programs. One prime suspect of this problem is the use and application of common training industry terms. I would like to examine three of these common terms: Learning, Training and Education. Read more…

Kirkpatrick’s Column
The struggle of tying training efforts to results

A number of years ago, Jack Jenness, a friend of mine at Consolidated Edison in New York, was asked by his boss to show results in terms of dollars and cents from an expensive program on leadership that they were giving to middle and upper-level managers. The company had hired consultants from St. Louis at a very high fee to conduct the program. I told Jack, “There is no way it can be done!” He said, “That’s what I told my boss.” Read more…