企业培训评估.doc

《企业培训评估.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《企业培训评估.doc（8页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、2022年-2023年建筑工程管理行业文档 齐鲁斌创作企业培训评估：一个利益相关者分析评价的需要马可-古尔兹 经济和工业工程一、摘要1.目的：近年来，文学上的项目评估审查了多方利益相关者的评价，但培训评估模型和做法一般不被考虑这个问题。本文的目的是为了填补这一空白。2.设计/方法/方式本研究之间的交叉：识别方法和途径的参与性评价，以及技术和评价工具通常用于训练。研究的重点是了解评价需要的利益相关群体通常涉及培训计划。培训计划的经费由欧洲社会基金在意大利进行了研究，用定性和定量方法（访谈和调查研究）。调查结果: 第一，鉴定评价方面没有考虑到在投资回报的培训评估模型的培训评估，但这是重要的利益相关

2、者的评价满足需求；第二，确定收敛/发散利益相关群体之间的评估需要；第三，确定潜在的变量和收敛/不同的属性对他们的重要性之间的相关群体。研究限制/问题的主要研究如下：第一，分析是基于一个单一的培训计划；其次，本研究仅集中于先决条件，设计一个利益相关者的评价计划；和第三，分析认为归属的重要的利益相关者不考虑发展一致的和可靠的指标。实际影响这些结果表明，不同的利益相关群体有不同的评估需要，在业务方面认识的趋同和分歧之间需要。创作/值研究结果有助于确定：第一，评价要素，所有利益相关群体认为重要的；其次，评价因素视为重要的一个或多个利益相关群体，但不是所有的人；第三，潜在的变数，东方相关群体在培训评估。

3、关键词培训评价，利益相关者分析纸张类型研究。背景市场是购买服务和技能的培训提供者曾经使用的方法训练系统公司建立关系的群体。作者感谢布瑞恩博士布洛赫为他的综合编辑的手稿境外公司。目前，然而，公司也尝试建立这种关系，通过参与公共项目通常受公共资助的机构，旨在鼓励和促进持续的培训，这被认为是一个“集体利益”。在培训过程在这种情况下，许多演员需要作出的决定可能影响性能的培训倡议。通常，这些利益相关者有不同的机构任务，和训练的利益和目标可能是不同的：如将其列入评价过程中创建和维护多样性的利益相关者参与集团（遗嘱，1993；马丢和格林尼，1997）。此外，“利益相关者可以帮助特别大时，审查评估建议”修订方

4、案。建议计划的人员普遍预计将在评估报告（布兰登，1999，363页）。这项研究的重点是培训评估等多方利益相关者的情况下，和的目的是确定两国之间的交叉学科。首先是项目评估，正式的方法来研究的目标，过程，和影响的项目，政策和计划的实施在公共和私营部门。二是培训与发展管理，特别是，文学的评价模型和工具，用于评估培训公司。这项研究的重点是连续培训项目资金由意大利公共权力，以突出评价需要的利益相关群体通常涉及这类训练过程。研究报告在这里进行了接触后，利益相关者的规划和执行程序的培训模块，采用定性和定量方法。特别是，研究过程包括最初的定性研究阶段的关键线人，属于不同的利益群体，其次是定量研究整个人口。 研

5、究结果可用于有益的各种不同的用途。首先，本研究确定的趋同和分歧之间的评价需要的不同利益相关群体。其次，它确定了“准则”，东方的利益相关群体在培训评估。文献分析文献分析的重点是三个问题。首先，理论培训评价分析，说明理论原因利益相关者评价应用到培训可以被认为是重要的。结果在文学上的训练，然后提出利益相关者为基础的评价。最后一部分的调查关注的背景，公司培训系统运作，并表明实际意义的利益相关者培训评估。总的来说，这部集锦知识差距和确定具体的研究问题。培训和教育是一项投资，该组织预计积极的回报；投资回报率（投资回报率）的培训和教育。为此，从层次评价模型柯克帕特里克（1998）和菲利普（1996）提出了投

6、资回报率的培训评估模型，包括五个层次；每个调查不同层次：1级。反应：措施方案参与者的满意度。2级。学习的重点是什么与会者学到在计划。3级。应用和实施：决定是否参加申请什么他们学会工作。4级。业务影响：侧重于实际取得的成果参加方案，他们成功地运用所学的。5级。投资回报：比较货币利益的方案，该方案的成本。该模型已作出了宝贵贡献，培训评估的理论和实践，因为它强调必须考虑和评估培训在一个“视角”。然而，该模型至少有三个局限性。第一，该模型集中在限制设置的变量。事实上，这五个层次的评价，提出是基于一个非常简化的培训效果。特别是，他们没有考虑范围广泛的组织，个人，网络的训练的设计和交付因素会影响培训效果（

7、遗嘱，1993；布拉姆利和基特森，1994；卡侬-布鲁兹等人。，1995；福特和卡瑞格，1995；萨拉斯和卡侬-布鲁兹，2001；坦南鲍姆和尤克尔，1992；）。二批评涉及因果之间的联系在不同层次的培训成果。是的，这是不可能实现的积极成果在高层次上，如果这种情况并没有出现在较低的水平以及。研究（艾利格和赞拿克，大宝，1989；1992；艾利格等人，1997）在该领域在很大程度上未能证实这种因果联系。三分之一个弱点的层次模型的评价是，它缺乏一个多角色的视角。事实上，这个角度所承担的模型是该公司的股东。事实上，该模型假定每个水平的评价提供的数据，更翔实比去年（艾利格和赞拿克，1989）。这个假设产

8、生了“知觉在培训评估，建立四级的结果将提供最有用的信息，培训计划的有效性”（贝茨，2004，342页）。因此，评价需要利益相关者参与培训过程中被忽视，这是特别限制在背景的特点是存在一个多元化的演员。运用利益相关者评价培训可能是有益的处理这最后的批评，包括不同的观点的利益相关群体的评价程序的设计和实施（布拉姆利和基特森，1994；马丢和格林尼）。这也可能影响的批评，因为设计的评估程序的基础上的利益相关者的评价需要需要延伸设置的变量被认为是投资回报率的培训评估模型。 一些年来，文学课程评价已处理的主题的多方利益相关者的评价（格雷戈瑞，2000；标记等人，2000），但对这一问题的思考和实践评价的训

9、练场，已不那么明显（路易斯，1996）。事实上，最著名的培训评估模型是几乎完全依据测量结果的角度，一个演员。这个演员对应的主要公司的股东，视为主题，基金培训计划。这必然导致评价系统集中的影响，在财务和业务方面的培训，对公司绩效的影响，而不考虑其他利益相关者：利益相关者的评价是一种方法，确定是知情的特定的个人或团体。利益相关者是不同的群体感兴趣的评估结果，要么因为他们是直接的影响（或参与）计划的活动，或是因为他们必须做出决定的程序或一个类似的程序（米卡尔斯基和表亲，2000，213页）。文献中对利益相关者评价指出，评价是提高程序性能，它有一个工具的使用和结构必须作为一个系统，它支持的行动，和更是

10、如此，决策过程（弗林，1992）。为此，有必要知道的评价需要的行动者参与该项目的评价系统在设计：工具使用，也许是最早使用类型的审查文学，是指利用评价结果为基础的行动。例子仪器使用包括消除程序证明是无效的，修改程序的评估基础上，针对一个程序的新观众，分配新的预算支出计划和改变结构的组织在一个程序的运行（约翰逊，1998，94页）。因此它是重要的利益相关者为基础的评估过程，涉及激活的演员。 根据这一理论对参与性评价（堂兄弟和惠特莫尔，1998；米卡尔斯基和表亲，2000），这种列入可实用，当其目的是提高程序的性能或改变，当它的目的是解放弱势群体社会/文化群体在该计划的目标是。这种分类是一致的更一般

11、的理论，利益相关者的管理，这是利益相关者理论管理工具，基于的假设是，组织的建立与利益相关者的关系，基于信任与合作将有竞争优势与企业相比，没有这样的关系。竞争优势来源于这样一个事实关系基础上的相互信任与合作方便快捷协议，减少交易成本（弗里德曼和英里，2006）；和道德规范的利益相关者理论认为，管理，规范的理论基础，包括“确定道德或哲学为经营准则，公司管理”为核心的利益相关者理论（杜纳尔迪和普莱斯顿，1995，P71）。 基于这种考虑，各种研究讨论的话题，利益相关者培训评估采用的概念，实际参与评价，它本身是在更一般的理论，利益相关者的管理工具。因此，本研究定义了一个利益相关者作为一个学科能够影响性

12、能的训练过程，因为她/他要求作出决定的过程中。它还认为，评价系统作为一个“工具”的利益相关者提供必要的信息来验证他们的决定要求作出。 Training evaluation: an analysis of the stakeholders evaluation needs Abstract Purpose In recent years, the literature on program evaluation has examined multi-stakeholder evaluation, but training evaluation models and practices have

13、 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 evaluation tools typically used for training. The study focu

14、ses 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 interviews and survey research). Findings The find

15、ings 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 stakeholders evaluation needs; second, identification of convergences/divergences between st

16、akeholder groups evaluation needs; and third, identification of latent variables and convergences/divergences in the attribution of importance to them among stakeholders groups. Research limitations/implications The main limitations of the research are the following: first, the analysis was based on

17、 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 development of consistent and reliable indicators. Practical im

18、plications 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 useful in identifying: first, the evaluation elements that a

19、ll 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. Introduction The market that is, buying skills and services from

20、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, however, companies also try to establish such relationships throu

21、gh 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 are required to make decisions which may have an impact on

22、 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 maintains diversity within the participating stakeholder group

23、 (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 (Brandon, 1999, p. 363). This study focuses on training e

24、valuation 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, policies and programs implemented in public and private sect

25、ors. 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 public authority, in order to highlight the evaluation n

26、eeds 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 methods. In particular, the research process consisted o

27、f 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. First, the study identifies convergences and diverge

28、nces between the evaluation needs of the different stakeholder groups. Second, it identifies the “guidelines” which orient stakeholder groups in training evaluation. Literature analysis The literature analysis focuses on three issues. First, the theory on training evaluation is analyzed, indicating

29、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 contexts in which company training systems operate, and

30、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 positive return; that is, a return on investment (RO

31、I) 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: . Level 1. Reactions: measures programme participant

32、 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 results achieved by the programme parti

33、cipants, 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 importance of thinking about and ass

34、essing 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 of training effectiveness. In p

35、articular, 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, 2001; Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992; K

36、ontoghiorghes, 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, 1989; Talbot, 1992; Alliger, 199

37、7) 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 model assumes that each level of

38、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 effectiveness” (Bates, 2004, p. 342)

39、. 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 useful in dealing with this f

40、inal 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 first criticism, because designin

41、g 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 (Gregory, 2000; Mark et al., 200

42、0), 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 actor corresponds largely to

43、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 stakeholders: Stakeholder-based eva

44、luation 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

45、the program or about a similar program (Michalski and Cousins, 2000, p. 213). The literature on stakeholder-based evaluation states that if evaluation is to improve program performance, it has an instrumental use and must be structured as a system, which supports actions, and even more so, decision-

46、making processes (Flynn, 1992). For this reason, it is necessary to know the evaluation needs of the actors involved in the program whose evaluation system has to be designed: Instrumental use, perhaps the earliest type of use examined in literature, refers to using evaluation findings as a basis fo

47、r action.Examples of instrumental use include eliminating a program shown to be ineffective, modifying a program based on an evaluation, targeting a program to new audiences, allocating new budget outlay for a program and changing the structure of the organization in which a program operates (Burke

48、Johnson, 1998, p. 94). Based on such considerations, various studies have discussed the topic of stakeholder-based training evaluation by adopting the concept of practical participatory evaluation, which itself is based on the more general, instrumental theory of the stakeholder management. Hence, t

49、his research strand defines a stakeholder as a subject able to influence the performance of a training process, because she/he is requested to make decisions during the process. It also conceives the evaluation system as an “instrument” for providing the stakeholders with the information necessary to validate the decisions they are requested to make.