Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Training Evaluation Model is popular and widely used, there are a number of considerations that need to be taken into account when using the model.
One issue is that it can be time-consuming and expensive to use levels 3 or 4 of the model, so it's not practical for all organizations and situations. This is especially the case for organizations that don't have a dedicated training or human resource department, or for one-off training sessions or programs.
In a similar way, it can be expensive and resource intensive to "wire up an organization" to collect data with the sole purpose of evaluating training at levels 3 and 4. (Whether or not this is practical depends on the systems already in place within the organization.)
The model also assumes that each level's importance is greater than the last level, and that all levels are linked. For instance, it implies that Reaction is less important, ultimately, than Results, and that reactions must be positive for learning to take place. In practice, this may not be the case.
Most importantly, organizations change in many ways, and behaviors and results change depending on these, as well as on training. For example, measurable improvements in areas like retention and productivity could result from the arrival of a new boss or from a new computer system, rather than from training.
Kirkpatrick's model is great for trying to evaluate training in a "scientific" way, however, so many variables can be changing in fast-changing organizations that analysis at level 4 can be limited in usefulness.
No comments:
Post a Comment