Training professionals need to move away from traditional evaluation methods, such as return on investment and measuring the value learning and development contributes to strategic business objectives, according to a study from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).
The report argues for a shift away from what it terms trainer-centred and return on investment models of evaluation, towards “return on expectation” models.
Martyn Sloman, CIPD learning, training and development adviser, said: “There seems to be too much focus on measuring what matters to us as trainers, or on how satisfied people are after a training course and not enough on what really matters to our organisational masters.
“The development of a new approach to valuing learning is long overdue. For 30 years we have regarded a hierarchical approach based on return on investment as the only way to approach the problem – it has become a holy grail for the profession. The world of learning has changed and new models are required.”
The study, Value and Evaluation: From return on investment to return on expectation, produced in conjunction with the University of Portsmouth Business School, is based on individual interviews with chief executives or other senior managers in 12 different organisations, and separate interviews with the most senior learning and development professionals in each of those organisations.
The research highlights how organisations are developing a range of different methods to assess and report on the value of learning.
One of the key conclusions of the report is that effective value and evaluation processes require practitioners to develop and use measures that are relevant to organisational stakeholders and the needs of the business. It says that measures of “return on expectation”, rather than return on investment are more likely to meet these needs.
Sloman said: “What our research has shown is that operational managers and learning and development professionals will gain most by focusing on measuring return on expectations. And the crucial first stage is to focus on establishing ‘up front’ the anticipated benefits of learning interventions.
“Trying to measure learning by figures and financial results is a bit like driving with your eyes fixed on the rear view mirror. Return on investment can be a valuable measure in some circumstances but it is not the answer on its own.”
One Response
Keep in context
My concerns are the continuing focus on justification and the lack of distinction between what needs to be measured and what needs to be reported.
I agree with views in that reporting is somewhat situation dependent whereas responsibility isn’t. We need to ensure that every aspect of the management, impact and value contribution is understood by the L&D management. To report we relate to the intention of programmes, approaches, mechanisms etc. and the language of debate should be agreed with management ahead of implementation. There will be occasions when ROI is relevant, others when ROE, Intended Impact Evaluation ( Foxon), Success Case ( Brinkerhoff) or HCM approaches of others (Fitz-enz or Bassi)will be relevant. These all consider effectiveness – within L&D we should also be concerned with alignment,integration, compliance to policy, efficiency and the sustainability of impact beyond immediate effectiveness. Thus a balanced approach is required to measurement and management and a selective approach to reporting where data presented is relevant and accurate for the receiving leader or participants.