In my experience, training can only be evaluated over a long period, unless the training was a simple process e.g. how to perform certain simple tasks. In the case of MSc and PhD students as example, evaluation takes the form of certain measurables, such as published paper output, contributions to projects, the development of insight and the ability to build on the initial training. The ROI in the end varies to a large extent on individual skills and abilities, which may or not have been enhanced by the training component. The training certainly has an influence on any individual, no matter what their potential is, and aids in extracting and developing an individuals' potential. So, in my case, I mentally build up an evaluation, through interaction, participation and monitoring, so I have a subjective ROI figure in my head, based on my perceptions and real measurables such as number of publications.

Unfortunately, I do not think there is a realistic 'bean counter' approach to ROI after long-term training such as ticking off little blocks on a piece of paper. It is the total value and contribution of an individual that in the end is a measure of ROI.

Dear Ludwig,

thank you for your reply!

I agree that is very complicated to measure ROI, there are lot of variables included, directly or indirectly. Evaluation, during the training process and at the end of the training, gives input about the value of the training.

My concern is the perspective of the manager (or the one who is paying for the training)-how much they will get for the money invested? How to measure the investment and proof the effect of the training?!

Bets regards,

Angelina

Dear Angelina, yes that is difficult, unless the training has some very specific objectives, which can the be tested per individual to see whether the training has met expected objectives. In this case I would test trainees beforehand and score their pre-training knowledge, train them, and test again.

Definitively that is the best way!!! We'll see what differences there are before and after training. And, then these measurement will be presented next time we conduct the same training.

Hi Angelina, Ludwig

Interesting topic !

I agree that adopting a pre- and post- test approach would be a useful way to measure 'learning'. However, I also think we need to consider the application and transfer of any 'learning' to the workplace (or other setting). As you probably know, there are many barriers to 'training transfer', including lack of opportunity to use new skills and lack of managerial support.

I guess we could also think about using a control group in your case, who do not receive the training.....assuming that it would be ethical and possible to do so ! We could then compare the post-training 'performance' of both groups in an evaluation of learning, behavioural change and the impact of the training on the organisation/ company as a whole, including ROI.

Good luck with this ! Fascinating work ! Let me know if you need anything else. Happy to help !

Best wishes

Nathan

Wales, UK

Dear Nathan,

thank you for the support! We will in touch and hopefully soon we can compare results!

Best regards,

ANgelina

Hard skills are measurable. Training of soft skills seems self-defeating because these skills can not be measured. After soft skills are realized, then they can be developed, shaped, and fostered, after which enhanced. If a potential employee was grossly deficient in soft skills awareness, then that person is probably not suited for "customer service". All learners should have opportunities to attain, apply, and practice soft skills early in their education. Not all learners are geniuses or academically-minded. With this in mind, basic social soft skills are important and should be more emphasized in school.   

Hello, to measure ROI another criterion could be applied: Growing Pains, proposed by prof. Eric Flamholtz (Anderson, UCLA) that found to be directly related to EBIT. More training - better skills - lower Growing Pains - higher EBIT. RGDS, Vladimir