企業(yè)培訓評估

1、企業(yè)培訓評估：一個利益相關者分析評價的需要馬可-古爾茲經(jīng)濟和工業(yè)工程一、摘要目的：近年來，文學上的項目評估審查了多方利益相關者的評價，但培訓評估 模型和做法一般不被考慮這個問題。本文的目的是為了填補這一空白。設計/方法/方式本研究之間的交叉：識別方法和途徑的參與性評價，以及技術 和評價工具通常用于訓練。研究的重點是了解評價需要的利益相關群體通常涉及 培訓計劃。培訓計劃的經(jīng)費由歐洲社會基金在意大利進行了研究，用定性和定量 方法（訪談和調查研究）。調查結果：第一，鑒定評價方面沒有考慮到在投資回報的培訓評估模型的培訓評估，但 這是重要的利益相關者的評價滿足需求；第二，確定收斂/發(fā)散利益相關群體之間的

2、評估需要；第三，確定潛在的變量和收斂/不同的屬性對他們的重要性之間的相關群體。研究限制/問題-的主要研究如下：第一，分析是基于一個單一的培訓計劃； 其次，本研究僅集中于先決條件，設計一個利益相關者的評價計劃；和第三，分 析認為歸屬的重要的利益相關者不考慮發(fā)展一致的和可靠的指標。實際影響這些結果表明，不同的利益相關群體有不同的評估需要，在業(yè)務方面認識的 趨同和分歧之間需要。創(chuàng)作/值-研究結果有助于確定：第一，評價要素，所有利益相關群體認為重 要的；其次，評價因素視為重要的一個或多個利益相關群體，但不是所有的人； 第三，潛在的變數(shù)，東方相關群體在培訓評估。關鍵詞培訓評價，利益相關者分 析紙張類型研

3、究。背景市場-是購買服務和技能的培訓提供者-曾經(jīng)使用的方法訓練系統(tǒng)公司建立 關系的群體。作者感謝布瑞恩博士布洛赫為他的綜合編輯的手稿境外公司。目前， 然而，公司也嘗試建立這種關系，通過參與公共項目通常受公共資助的機構，旨 在鼓勵和促進持續(xù)的培訓，這被認為是一個“集體利益”。在培訓過程在這種情況下，許多演員需要作出的決定可能影響性能的培訓倡 議。通常，這些利益相關者有不同的機構任務，和訓練的利益和目標可能是不同 的：如將其列入評價過程中創(chuàng)建和維護多樣性的利益相關者參與集團（遺囑， 1993；馬丟和格林尼，1997）。此外，“利益相關者可以幫助特別大時，審查評估 建議”修訂方案。建議計劃的人員普遍

4、預計將在評估報告（布蘭登，1999，363 頁）。這項研究的重點是培訓評估等多方利益相關者的情況下，和的目的是確定兩 國之間的交叉學科。首先是項目評估，正式的方法來研究的目標，過程，和影響 的項目，政策和計劃的實施在公共和私營部門。二是培訓與發(fā)展管理，特別是， 文學的評價模型和工具，用于評估培訓公司。這項研究的重點是連續(xù)培訓項目資 金由意大利公共權力，以突出評價需要的利益相關群體通常涉及這類訓練過程。 研究報告在這里進行了接觸后，利益相關者的規(guī)劃和執(zhí)行程序的培訓模塊，采用 定性和定量方法。特別是，研究過程包括最初的定性研究階段的關鍵線人，屬于 不同的利益群體，其次是定量研究整個人口。研究結果可

5、用于有益的各種不同的用途。首先，本研究確定的趨同和分歧之 間的評價需要的不同利益相關群體。其次，它確定了“準則”，東方的利益相關群 體在培訓評估。文獻分析文獻分析的重點是三個問題。首先，理論培訓評價分析，說明理論原因利益 相關者評價應用到培訓可以被認為是重要的。結果在文學上的訓練，然后提出利 益相關者為基礎的評價。最后一部分的調查關注的背景，公司培訓系統(tǒng)運作，并 表明實際意義的利益相關者培訓評估?？偟膩碚f，這部集錦知識差距和確定具體 的研究問題。培訓和教育是一項投資，該組織預計積極的回報；投資回報率（投資回報率） 的培訓和教育。為此，從層次評價模型柯克帕特里克（1998）和菲利普（1996）

6、提出了投資回報率的培訓評估模型，包括五個層次；每個調查不同層次：1級。反應：措施方案參與者的滿意度。2級。學習的重點是什么與會者學到在計劃。3級。應用和實施：決定是否參加申請什么他們學會工作。4級。業(yè)務影響：側重于實際取得的成果參加方案，他們成功地運用所學的。5級。投資回報：比較貨幣利益的方案，該方案的成本。該模型已作出了寶貴貢獻，培訓評估的理論和實踐，因為它強調必須考慮和 評估培訓在一個“視角”。然而，該模型至少有三個局限性。第一，該模型集中在限制設置的變量。事實上，這五個層次的評價，提出是 基于一個非常簡化的培訓效果。特別是，他們沒有考慮范圍廣泛的組織，個人， 網(wǎng)絡的訓練的設計和交付因素會

7、影響培訓效果（遺囑，1993；布拉姆利和基特森， 1994 ；卡儂-布魯茲等人。，1995 ；福特和卡瑞格，1995 ；薩拉斯和卡儂-布魯茲， 2001；坦南鮑姆和尤克爾，1992；）。二批評涉及因果之間的聯(lián)系在不同層次的培 訓成果。是的，這是不可能實現(xiàn)的積極成果在高層次上，如果這種情況并沒有出 現(xiàn)在較低的水平以及。研究（艾利格和贊拿克，大寶，1989； 1992；艾利格等人， 1997）在該領域在很大程度上未能證實這種因果聯(lián)系。三分之一個弱點的層次模型的評價是，它缺乏一個多角色的視角。事實上， 這個角度所承擔的模型是該公司的股東。事實上，該模型假定每個水平的評價提 供的數(shù)據(jù)，更翔實比去年（艾

8、利格和贊拿克，1989）。這個假設產(chǎn)生了“知覺在培 訓評估，建立四級的結果將提供最有用的信息，培訓計劃的有效性”（貝茨，2004, 342頁）。因此，評價需要利益相關者參與培訓過程中被忽視，這是特別限制在 背景的特點是存在一個多元化的演員。運用利益相關者評價培訓可能是有益的處 理這最后的批評，包括不同的觀點的利益相關群體的評價程序的設計和實施（布 拉姆利和基特森，1994；馬丟和格林尼）。這也可能影響的批評，因為設計的評 估程序的基礎上的利益相關者的評價需要需要延伸設置的變量被認為是投資回 報率的培訓評估模型。一些年來，文學課程評價已處理的主題的多方利益相關者的評價（格雷戈瑞， 2000；標記

9、等人，2000），但對這一問題的思考和實踐評價的訓練場，已不那么 明顯（路易斯，1996）。事實上，最著名的培訓評估模型是幾乎完全依據(jù)測量結 果的角度，一個演員。這個演員對應的主要公司的股東，視為主題，基金培訓計 劃。這必然導致評價系統(tǒng)集中的影響，在財務和業(yè)務方面的培訓，對公司績效的 影響，而不考慮其他利益相關者：利益相關者的評價是一種方法，確定是知情的特定的個人或團體。利益相關 者是不同的群體感興趣的評估結果，要么因為他們是直接的影響（或參與）計劃 的活動，或是因為他們必須做出決定的程序或一個類似的程序（米卡爾斯基和表 親，2000，213頁）。文獻中對利益相關者評價指出，評價是提高程序性能

10、，它 有一個工具的使用和結構必須作為一個系統(tǒng)，它支持的行動，和更是如此，決策 過程（弗林，1992）。為此，有必要知道的評價需要的行動者參與該項目的評價 系統(tǒng)在設計：工具使用，也許是最早使用類型的審查文學，是指利用評價結果為 基礎的行動。例子儀器使用包括消除程序證明是無效的，修改程序的評估基礎上， 針對一個程序的新觀眾，分配新的預算支出計劃和改變結構的組織在一個程序的 運行（約翰遜，1998, 94頁）。因此它是重要的利益相關者為基礎的評估過程， 涉及激活的演員。根據(jù)這一理論對參與性評價（堂兄弟和惠特莫爾，1998；米卡爾斯基和表親， 2000），這種列入可實用，當其目的是提高程序的性能或改變

11、，當它的目的是解 放弱勢群體社會/文化群體在該計劃的目標是。這種分類是一致的更一般的理論， 利益相關者的管理，這是利益相關者理論管理工具，基于的假設是，組織的建立 與利益相關者的關系，基于信任與合作將有競爭優(yōu)勢與企業(yè)相比，沒有這樣的關 系。競爭優(yōu)勢來源于這樣一個事實關系基礎上的相互信任與合作方便快捷協(xié)議， 減少交易成本（弗里德曼和英里，2006）；和道德規(guī)范的利益相關者理論認為， 管理，規(guī)范的理論基礎，包括確定道德或哲學為經(jīng)營準則，公司管理”為核心 的利益相關者理論（杜納爾迪和普萊斯頓，1995, P71）?；谶@種考慮，各種研究討論的話題，利益相關者培訓評估采用的概念，實 際參與評價，它本身

12、是在更一般的理論，利益相關者的管理工具。因此，本研究 定義了一個利益相關者作為一個學科能夠影響性能的訓練過程，因為她/他要求 作出決定的過程中。它還認為，評價系統(tǒng)作為一個“工具”的利益相關者提供必 要的信息來驗證他們的決定要求作出。Training evaluation: an analysis of the stakeholders evaluation needsAbstractPurpose - In recent years, the literature on program evaluation has examined multi-stakeholder evaluation,

13、but training evaluation models and practices have not generally taken this problem into account. The aim of this paper is to fill this gap. Design/methodology/approach - This study identifies intersections between methodologies and approaches of participatory evaluation, and techniques and evaluatio

14、n tools typically used for training. The study focuses on understanding the evaluation needs of the stakeholder groups typically involved in training programs. A training program financed by the European Social Fund in Italy is studied, using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies (in-depth

15、 interviews and survey research). Findings - The findings are as follows: first, identification of evaluation dimensions not taken into account in the return on investment training evaluation model of training evaluation, but which are important for satisfying stakeholders5 evaluation needs; second,

16、 identification of convergences/divergences between stakeholder groups evaluation needs; and third, identification of latent variables and convergences/divergences in the attribution of importance to them among stakeholders groups.Researchlimitations/implications - The main limitations of the resear

17、ch are the following: first, the analysis was based on a single training program; second, the study focused only on the pre-conditions for designing a stakeholder-based evaluation plan; third, the analysis considered the attribution of importance by the stakeholders without considering the developme

18、nt of consistent and reliable indicators.Practical implications - These results suggest that different stakeholder groups have different evaluation needs and, in operational terms are aware of the convergence and divergence between those needs. Originality/value - The results of the research are use

19、ful in identifying: first, the evaluation elements that all stakeholder groups consider important; second, evaluation elements considered important by one or more stakeholder groups, but not by all of them; and third, latent variables which orient stakeholders groups in training evaluation.Introduct

20、ionThe market - that is, buying skills and services from training providers - was once the approach used by company training systems to establish relationships with groups .The authors are grateful to Dr Brian Bloch for his comprehensive editing of the manuscript. outside the firm. Presently, howeve

21、r, companies also try to establish such relationships through participation in public programs typically financed by public bodies and intended to encourage and stimulate continuous training, which is considered to be a “collective good”.In training processes delivered in such contexts, many actors

22、are required to make decisions which may have an impact on the performance of the training initiative. Typically, these stakeholders have different institutional missions, and their training interests and objectives may be different as well: their inclusion in the evaluation process creates and main

23、tains diversity within the participating stakeholder group (Wills, 1993; Mathie and Greene, 1997). Furthermore, “stakeholders can be particularly helpful when reviewing evaluators recommendations for program revisions. Recommendations to program personnel are commonly expected in evaluation reports

24、(Brandon, 1999, p. 363).This study focuses on training evaluation in such multi-stakeholder contexts, and the aim is to identify intersections between two different disciplines. The first is program evaluation, a formalized approach to the study of the goals, processes, and impacts of projects, poli

25、cies and programs implemented in public and private sectors. The second is training and development management, and in particular, the literature on the evaluation models and tools used to evaluate training within companies.This study focuses on a continuous training project financed by an Italian p

26、ublic authority, in order to highlight the evaluation needs of the stakeholder groups typically involved in this kind of training process. In the research reported here, stakeholders were contacted after the planning and delivery of the programs training modules, using qualitative and quantitative m

27、ethods.In particular, the research process consisted of an initial qualitative research phase of key informants belonging to the different stakeholder groups, followed by quantitative research on the entire population.The results of the research can be applied usefully to various different purposes.

28、First, the study identifies convergences and divergences between the evaluation needs of the different stakeholder groups. Second, it identifies the “guidelines which orient stakeholder groups in training evaluation.Literature analysisThe literature analysis focuses on three issues. First, the theor

29、y on training evaluation is analyzed, indicating the theoretical reasons why the stakeholder-based evaluation applied to training can be considered important. The findings in the literature on training stakeholder-based evaluation are then presented. The final part of the survey concerns the context

30、s in which company training systems operate, and demonstrates the practical importance of stakeholder-based training evaluation. Overall, this section highlights knowledge gaps and defines specific research questions.Training and education are an investment from which the organisation expects a posi

31、tive return; that is, a return on investment (ROI) from training and education. For this reason, starting from the hierarchical evaluation model of Kirkpatrick (1998) and Phillips (1996) proposes a ROI training evaluation model which comprises five levels; each investigating different elements:.Leve

32、l 1. Reactions: measures programme participant satisfaction.Level 2. Learning: focuses on what participants have learned during the programme.Level 3. Application and implementation: determines whether participants apply what they learned on the job.Level 4. Business impact: focuses on the actual re

33、sults achieved by the programme participants, as they successfully apply what they have learned.Level 5. ROI: compares the monetary benefits from the programme with the programmes costs.This model has made valuable contributions to training evaluation theory and practice, because it stresses the imp

34、ortance of thinking about and assessing training within a “business perspective”. Nevertheless, the model has at least three limitations.First, the model concentrates on a restricted set of variables. In fact, the five levels of evaluation, which it proposes are based on an extremely simplified view

35、 of training effectiveness. In particular, they do not consider a wide range of organisational, individual, training-design and delivery factors that may influence training effectiveness (Wills, 1993; Bramley and Kitson, 1994; Cannon-Bowers , 1995; Ford and Kraiger, 1995; Salas and Cannon-Bowers, 20

36、01; Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992; Kontoghiorghes, 2001). The second criticism concerns the causal linkages among training outcomes at different levels. That is, it is not possible to achieve positive results at top levels, if this did not occur at the lower levels as well. Research (Alliger and Janak,

37、1989; Talbot, 1992; Alliger, 1997) in the field has largely failed to confirm such causal linkages.A third weakness of the hierarchical model of evaluation is that it lacks a multi-actor perspective. In fact, the point of view assumed by the model is that of the companys shareholders. Indeed, the mo

38、del assumes that each level of evaluation provides data that is more informative than the last (Alliger and Janak, 1989). This assumption has generated “the perception among training evaluators that establishing level four results will provide the most useful information about training program effec

39、tiveness” (Bates, 2004, p. 342). As a consequence, the evaluation needs of the stakeholders involved in the training process are neglected, and this is particularly restrictive in contexts characterized by the presence of a plurality of actors.Applying stakeholder-based evaluation to training may be

40、 useful in dealing with this final criticism by including the different points of view of the stakeholder groups in the evaluation programs design and implementation (Bramley and Kitson, 1994; Mathie and Greene, 1997; Mark et al., 2000; Holte-McKenzie et al., 2006). This could also impact on the fir

41、st criticism, because designing the evaluation program on the basis of stakeholder evaluation needs entails extending the set of variables considered by the ROI training evaluation model.For some years, the literature on program evaluation has dealt with the topic of multi-stakeholder evaluation (Gr

42、egory, 2000; Mark et al., 2000), although reflection on the issue and practical evaluation in the training field have been less evident (Lewis, 1996). In fact, the best-known model of training evaluation is based almost exclusively on measuring results from the perspective of one single actor. This

43、actor corresponds largely to the companys shareholders, considered as the subjects that fund training programs. This inevitably induces the evaluation system to focus on the impact, in financial or operational terms, of training on company performance, without considering the effects on other stakeh

44、olders: Stakeholder-based evaluation is an approach that identifies, and is informed by, particular individuals or groups. Stakeholders are the distinct groups interested in the results of an evaluation, either because they are directly affected by (or involved in) program activities, or because they must make a decision about the program or about a similar program (Michalski and Cousins, 2000, p. 2