Hello MM:
>have ever done an ROI on training. <
That is not what I do.
>1) I think it is quit Utopian to think that all employees will be successful after training.<
That is the point of my message.
It may be utopian for you but not for employers who know how to hire and train successful employees. Job failure after training should be a rare event.
>Even if it were so then the ROI will let us know how much difference has the training made in that success. E.g. if an employee was producing X in Y hrs and now has started producing Z, it is worthwhile to study how much of Z-X has happened because of training.<
Yes, I know the ins and outs of ROIs but managers hide behind ROIs because they do not trust trainers to provide training that works--far too many trainees fail to become successful employees after training. That said, training failures are almost always the fault of the hiring manager not the training department.
>2) All training programs being a 100% successful is Utopian again.<
What if it isn't?
> You do not seem to accept the fact that things can go wrong or deviate from planned output for very many factors not always under your control.<
When we stop training the wrong people training success soars.
>Also, ROI is not about whether the training is successful or not; that is a relative term and what you might term as successful may not be the same as my definition. ROI is about what difference the training has made in fiscal terms, even negative, and what changes, modifications, improvements we can make.<
Would an ROI be easier if all trainees were successful after training?
>Hope this helps in your understanding of ROI and remove some of the biases against it.<
Oh my, I'm not against doing ROIs, in fact, I think ROIs are under used by managers who don't know what it is or how to do it or who are incapable of evaluating the results and/or using the results for decision making.
Bob Gately, PE, MBA
[Login to view]
>have ever done an ROI on training. <
That is not what I do.
>1) I think it is quit Utopian to think that all employees will be successful after training.<
That is the point of my message.
It may be utopian for you but not for employers who know how to hire and train successful employees. Job failure after training should be a rare event.
>Even if it were so then the ROI will let us know how much difference has the training made in that success. E.g. if an employee was producing X in Y hrs and now has started producing Z, it is worthwhile to study how much of Z-X has happened because of training.<
Yes, I know the ins and outs of ROIs but managers hide behind ROIs because they do not trust trainers to provide training that works--far too many trainees fail to become successful employees after training. That said, training failures are almost always the fault of the hiring manager not the training department.
>2) All training programs being a 100% successful is Utopian again.<
What if it isn't?
> You do not seem to accept the fact that things can go wrong or deviate from planned output for very many factors not always under your control.<
When we stop training the wrong people training success soars.
>Also, ROI is not about whether the training is successful or not; that is a relative term and what you might term as successful may not be the same as my definition. ROI is about what difference the training has made in fiscal terms, even negative, and what changes, modifications, improvements we can make.<
Would an ROI be easier if all trainees were successful after training?
>Hope this helps in your understanding of ROI and remove some of the biases against it.<
Oh my, I'm not against doing ROIs, in fact, I think ROIs are under used by managers who don't know what it is or how to do it or who are incapable of evaluating the results and/or using the results for decision making.
Bob Gately, PE, MBA
[Login to view]