4. C u s t o m e r R e q u i r e m e n t s C u s t o m e r S a t i s f a c t i o n CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT OF THE UNIFIED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Product realization Product Output Input Quality Management System Model Management responsibility Resource management Measurement, analysis, improvement
5.
6.
7.
8. Paragraph 6.2 Words, "affecting product quality" changed to "affecting conformity to product requirements” Paragraph 6.2.2 Sub-clause (b) -"provide training or take other actions to satisfy these needs" changed to "where applicable training needs to be provided to achieve the necessary competence". Sub-clause (c) – obligation to ensure that the staff attained the expected competence. Changes in ISO-9001-2008
9.
10.
11. Effectiveness Extent to which planned activities are realized and planned results achieved. ISO 9000:2000 3.2.14 ISO 9001 specifies requirements for a quality management system that can be used for internal application by organizations, or for certification, or for contractual purposes. It focuses on the effectiveness of the quality management system in meeting customer requirements. ISO 9001: 2000 0.3
22. Factor How Factor Influences Type of Evaluation Design Change potential Can program be modified? Importance Does ineffective training affect customer service, product development, or relationships between employees? Scale How many trainees are involved? Purpose of training Is training conducted for learning, results, or both? Organization culture Is demonstrating results part of company norms and expectations? Time frame When do we need the information?
26. DONALD KIRKPATRICK'S 4 LEVELS OF EVALUATING TRAINING Levels Description Comments Level 1 Reaction Trainee reaction to the course. Does the trainee like the course? Usually in the form of evaluation forms, sometimes called "smile sheets". Most primitive and widely-used method of evaluation. It is easy, quick, and inexpensive to administer. Negative indicators could mean difficultly learning in the course. Level 2 Learning Did trainees learn what was based on the course objectives? Learning can be measured by pre- and post tests, either through written test or through performance tests. Level 3 Behavior Trainee behavior changes on the job - are the learners applying what they learned? Difficult to do. Follow-up questionnaire or observations after training class has occurred. Telephone interviews can also be conducted. Level 4 Results Ties training to the company's bottom line. Generally applies to training that seeks to overcome a business problem caused by lack of knowledge or skill. Examples include reductions in costs, turnover, absenteeism and grievances. May be difficult to tie directly to training.
Additional Speaker Notes: Bring the discussion close to home by asking the audience of trainers to think about the questions they have as a training course concludes. Share these important questions and ask if / how they find out the answers. While we may walk away with a “feeling” about how things went, it is important (for the reasons on the prior slides) to be able to validate these feelings. However, how do we go about validated these feelings and finding concrete answers? What answers can we draw from in the training community?
Additional Speaker Notes: Kirkpatrick’s 4 Levels of Evaluation provides a possible framework to answer the key questions we face as a training session concludes. Developed in 1952 by Donald Kirkpatrick, it is widely cited and viewed by most as the first evaluation model for corporate training (Pershing & Gilmore, 2004)
Additional Speaker Notes: Given that Kirkpatrick’s framework touches on important areas to assess, as well as its wide citation within the profession, it is easy to understand the broad appeal within the industry. However, as we will see in the next slide, this wide appeal has not translated to wide use . . .
Additional Speaker Notes: While Kirkpatrick is widely known, all levels are not widely used in practice. As cited in Pershing and Gilmore (2004), an ASTD study found only Level 1 was regularly used. This reflects important potential problems in adopting Kirkpatrick’s Model, including: the noted perception problems (time consuming, difficulty in measurement, beyond the realm of most trainers), as well as the pitfall of reliance on Level 1 results that may or may not translate to similar Learning / Transfer and ROI results that should be evaluated in Levels 2, 3 and 4.
Additional Speaker Notes: Brinkerhoff & Dressler also note 3 important problems with reliance on Kirkpatrick. Brinkerhoff & Dressler stress that training must be considered as part of the greater Performance Environment that includes the “owners” (such as senior and line managers), as well as other non-training factors (such as management support, incentives or rewards) which may impede or enable training. Given these limitations, it is recommended an alternative to Kirkpatrick be considered at BIG.
Additional Speaker Notes: As noted at the beginning of the presentation, it is necessary to incorporate an evaluation plan into the training programs at BIG. While Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation is a well known framework, it has important limitations. It is unlikely, the training staff at BIG will complete all of the necessary 4 levels to effectively evaluation the training program. Further, it lacks performance system focus. Brinkerhoff & Dressler propose a streamlined Success Case Evaluation Model that is recommended for use at BIG. As the training staff has not routinely performed evaluation as part of the underwriting training programs, it provides a relatively rapid evaluation and feedback process. It will also address the key business impact issues while contemplating the entire performance environment.
![Agenda ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()