Return on Training Investment;
What Managers Want to Know
By Donald W. Denier
The note you attached to the training report read, “Don’t remind me how much your training program costs my budget or the time my people are away from the job. Your numbers tell me how much I can save if we eliminated this burden. Is that what you had in mind?”
You excepted a report that showed how training improved your operations. What you received was a detailed report filled with useless statistics. Why did this happen?
Let’s look at the report. The report lists each course. It shows the hours to assess needs, design the course, develop lesson plans, and write tests. Then it lists how many times each class was given and the time required to prepare, deliver, and perform assessments of each class. These hours are multiplies by a standard labor rate.
They add the costs of facility use, CD-ROMs, videotapes, other visual aids, network system charges, printed manuals, and handouts. All of the training costs are captured.
These costs are divided by the number of people taking each course. This gives the average cost per trainee and cost per hour of training delivered. Finally, it summarizes the results of quizzes and exams (high scores, everyone passed) and participant evaluation forms (again high, they loved the course).
Added for good measure are charts for each topic. The charts show that the cost to provide training is steadily going down. Very efficient! A copy of this report is sent to every manager.
This is not a report for you; this is a report for the training manager. Specifically, it measures the use of the Instructional Systems Design model and results of a “Kirkpatrick” Level-1 classroom evaluation. It fails to address the effect the training had on meeting your objectives.
The measurement of return on investment for you is different than it will be for other managers. Cost may not be your first priority. The desired return for the production manager could be increased productivity, progress toward a goal, or establishment of some new capability. Another manager may care about proper material handling, maintaining production schedules, and reduction of operator errors.
Maintenance managers are concerned with equipment reliability and eliminating unplanned outages. Sales is interested in reliable delivery schedules, consistent product quality, and reducing customer complaints.
So, what should the training staff report? To answer this question correctly, go back to the beginning.
Who wanted the training in the first place? What specific problem was the training supposed to correct? What were the “objective” ? If there is more than one customer for this course, each customer’s objectives must be addressed. If several courses are required, each course should be tied to specific objectives.
Let’s say the operations manager wanted this training to correct a problem with product production. The report should say how the training improved product throughput and by how much. Was the manager’s concern units per hour or units per shift, units without rejects, units of specific colors, or something else? What was supposed to change and by how much?
The objectives of other managers may be to reduce on-the-job accidents, eliminate format errors in sales manuals, or improve equipment maintenance. Each objective would require a different measurement. In each case the measurements related to these objectives have to be agreed upon when designing the training.
Up-front in the course design, the customer identifies objectives, priorities, and measurements. If the course already exists, ask to review course objectives and content with the training staff. Using this information, results can then be measured in terms of meeting objectives.
Reports of progress also require benchmark data. What was the condition before training was provided, how much change was expected, and how much difference has the training made? Results can now be measured against expectations.
Donald Kirkpatrick, in his book, “Evaluating Training Programs; the Four Levels”, asks:
1. Did the trainee like the training?
2. Did the trainee learn anything?
3. Did the trainee use the information learned in their work?
4. Did use of the information yield the desired changes?
The report you received covers only Level 1. You want to know the results of levels 2, 3, and 4. What was learned, was the learning used on the job, and were the objectives achieved?
The Australian National Training (ANT) authority in their booklet, “Return on Training Investment”, takes a more rigorous approach. They measure training as part of an overall strategic plan. They use Kirkpatrick’s four levels and add two more. The ANT asks, was the training part of a corporate strategic plan, and did the training contribute to achieving a corporate strategic objective?
Creating a report that is useful requires a partnership between the manager and the training staff. The managers must clearly state the objectives and priorities to be covered in the training, the topics to be addressed in the report, and the measurements to be used. The training staff then designs the training — and the report — to address these objectives.
Reports based on objectives will be useful in determining whether your investment in training is paying off. They will also contribute to building a lasting alliance between the manager and the training staff.
The objectives of operations, maintenance and other managers differ. Still, their investment is the same cash and employee time. The return on their investment is found in the change caused by the training, enabling the achievement of their objectives. Most managers aren’t interested in the proper use of the Instructional Systems Design model or whether the participants like the training; they care about getting their job done.
Insist on a report that covers your objectives and priorities. If it isn’t important to you, it isn’t important.