January 2008

Measurement
You are what you measure

According to the study, Best Practices in Training Measurement (Bersin and Associates 2006), chief learning officers and heads of the learning and development function identified some of the most valuable and meaningful measures of training performance as follows:

• Job Impact – Level 3 (76%)
• Business Impact – Level 4 (72%)
• Business Metrics (65%)
• Total Cost (47%)

Yet, when asked what is actually measured, there is a completely different story. The same respondents will state that they measure:

• Completion (88%)
• Enrollment (86%)
• Satisfaction – Level 1 (81%)
• Student Hours (63%)

Clearly there is a distinct disparity between what they indicated as meaningful and what is actually measured. This supports the contention by many heads of learning and development that gaining management support for training is problematic and understandably so when you review the data.

The learning and development function is an operating business unit that serves its internal customer, the company that supports it. In many large organizations millions of dollars are allocated to its existence. Senior managers are dealing with structural changes in their industries, global competition and the ever-increasing pace of change and hyper-competitive pressures. Is it little wonder why they fail to fund learning and development initiatives when the justification for training is reporting how many people showed up, stayed and enjoyed the experience.

That’s like saying you hired someone to do some work on your house who wanted to get paid for only showing up and standing around. You’re not paying people to show up, but to perform the job you hired them for in a competent and efficient manner. Senior managers are no different. They want to see results, and when they don’t, they’re reluctant to pay more for what is perceived to be poor or indifferent performance.

Unfortunately, the transition to performance-based learning and effective measurements is slow. Internal resistance from trainers and facilitators who are being forced outside of their comfort zones is one reason. The other is the existence of many traditional courses and programs that have yet to be aligned with the company’s business goals, objectives and outcomes. In addition, the design of many current programs prohibits effective measurement and in many cases the improvement of performance was not even considered when these courses were initially introduced.

In many instances companies must evaluate each course, program and delivery style to see if they measure up to the new realities of performance-based training and alignment of training to business goals and objectives. The evaluation criteria must include business impact, improvement in individual job performance, and the return on training investment.

The programs that don’t measure up should be eliminated or redesigned to support the new metrics. The starting point for designing new courses and programs is what you want to measure: performance and impact. If you fail to start here, you are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over again.

Many heads of learning are making these transitions and structural changes to focus on the development of new performance-based programs. They are also ignoring the existing base of outdated training, courses and programs that they were providing. Until these structural changes are made, problems and resistance will continue.

When training professionals can report with confidence to senior management the business impact, improvement in individual job performance, and meaningful return on training investment received, resistance to employee improvement efforts will drastically diminish. Senior executives will see what they are getting for their investment in quantifiable terms that they can understand—results and value received against dollars spent.