Make management training also includes making decisions for continuous improvement. Having a series of indicators is like having a GPS that tells you if you are on the right path and allows you to more accurately identify the mismatches to the established standards, with benefits in terms of people's satisfaction, the level of learning and cost and investment management.
Although they are simple and some of them are known to people who have specialized in this subject, I consider it necessary to make a compilation of some of the many indicators that can be used (and are used) to do professional training management. With them we can make decisions and carry out maneuvers that allow us to promote, modify and control the course and direction of a training department or unit. It must be borne in mind that if, the important thing is not the indicator or the data obtained, but to make a correct reading of these with respect to the organizational environment and to carry out continuous improvement actions in a proactive and tenacious manner.
Coverage =% Cob = (NPO / TPUO) * 100
Where:
• NPO: Number of “target” people who present the competence gap.
• TPUO: total number of people in the organizational unit.
Suggested standard:
Does not apply.
Comments:
This simple indicator makes it possible to compare and prioritize the coverage of the possible activities required, differentiated by competencies (with gaps). The organizational unit (total or partial) must be considered for the calculation, since comparatively the percentages vary if different units are used. For example, competition 1 coverage of 45% (5 professionals out of a total of 11) versus competition 2, whose coverage is 25% (32 people out of a total of 128).
Attendance =% As = (NPC / NPA) * 100
Where:
• NPC: Number of people summoned.
• NPA: Number of people actually attended the course.
Suggested standard:
Over 90% effective assistance.
Comments: It
allows to rethink the dissemination strategies of the training, the general interest of the people, real possibilities of assistance (leaving their usual tasks to go to the courses) among others. In addition, the higher the absence, the more money is lost due to empty places, above all because generally institutions and companies pay lump sum values for an estimate of students, where the “per capita” cost increases as there is greater absence.
Total Losses per activity = TPA = ($ Course / NPC) * NPI
Percentage of losses per activity =% per = (TPA / $ course) * 100
Where:
• $ Course: purchase cost of the course (from external providers), when it is internal and there is no activity cost, invested HH is calculated.
• NPC: Number of people summoned.
Suggested standard:
Less than 5%, even though if it is less than 10% of the total cost of the course it is considered permissible.
Comments: It
allows to keep track of the efficiency in training investment. Many times organizations are not aware of the amount of money that is lost by not ensuring the attendance of those summoned. For example, if an annual training plan includes 25 million pesos, the absence of 4% of those summoned during the year to the different courses means a loss of money of 1 million pesos, and that sometimes they cannot be used in other courses. issues, since the training activities have fixed costs independent of the number of assistants (teacher's fees per hour, equipment rental, classrooms, others).
Pass percentage =% Ap = (Ap / NPA) * 100
Where:
• Ap: number of people approved.
• NPA: Number of people actually attended the course.
Suggested standard:
Greater than 90%.
Comments:
Approval is one (among others) of the ways by which the person demonstrates to have acquired some skills. Approval will be understood as the successful and consistent result between the teaching / learning methodology and the achievement of expected learning, which implies an improvement in the performance of the person in their daily functions.
Learning effectiveness in grade =% EAN = ((NF-NI) / NI) * 100
Where:
• NF: Final or summative grade.
• NI: Initial or diagnostic note.
Suggested standard:
Greater than 70%.
Comments:
This formula indicates in what percentage the effective learning was achievedregarding your knowledge of entering a course. If we are only left with the final grades, it is likely that we will not see reality, for example, if all people pass with a grade of 7 (on a scale of 1 to 7), we might think that the real learning was exceptional… however, what about If the diagnostic score for this group, on average, was 6.5… how much did they really learn? Knowing the entrance mark of the students allows to identify the real level of effective learning. For example, if a person enters (diagnosis) with a 2.5 and leaves with a 5.5 (final) he learned more than a person who enters with a 3.5 and leaves with a 6.5, since applying the formula the learning they are 120% and 86% respectively. This is explained very simply, the lower the starting level, the greater the incorporation of knowledge. Given the above,then it is essentialapply diagnostic evaluations and prioritize those people with lower grades, since they will take better advantage of the programs than other people who already know and only attend, without detracting, to “update knowledge”.
Percentage of learned behaviors =% CA = (NCD / NTCE) * 100
Where:
• NCD: number of behaviors demonstrated by the person.
• NTCE: Total number of expected behaviors, or also called expected learning.
Suggested standard:
Greater than 90%.
Comments:
This indicator allows evaluating the level of behavioral change of the person after having attended a training activity, as well as the level of transfer to the job. There should be a list of expected learning, expressed as behaviors. The person is observed and the behaviors that conform to the expected learning are recorded, and then the calculation is carried out, determining the percentage of adjustment to the standard. If a prior evaluation of behaviors is applied, then the same formula above (notes) can be used to determine the percentage of effective learning by behaviors.
Percentage of effectiveness in reaction =% EFR = ((PR-E) / PR) * 100
Where:
• PR: average marks or percentage (as applicable) of the reaction or satisfaction survey.
• E: Standard.
Suggested standard:
For the note is: 4.0 (in scale 1.0 to 5.0); 6.0 (on a scale of 1.0 to 7.0); 80% (in percentage scale).
For% EFR: Positive value (if it is negative, we have a low standard score).
Comments:
The average of the reaction evaluation (level 1) can be compared with the standards to determine whether or not it meets the parameter. By applying the% EFR we can determine how much more or less this activity is of the standard and thus be able to compare it with other activities within the annual training plan.
Cost effectiveness percentage =% EFCo = ((CE-CR) / CE) * 100
Where:
• CE: Total estimated cost of the training activity.
• CR: real cost of the training activity.
Suggested standard:
Less than -5%, which corresponds to a 5% excess of the budgeted cost.
Comments:
This indicator allows determining the percentage of misalignment in the costs of a training activity with respect to the previously estimated costs. Generally the rises of this indicator are caused by ignorance of market values, unidentified costs, last minute variations, among others.
Return on investment = ROI = ((BO-Inv) / Inv) * 100
Where:
• BO: benefit obtained after training activity.
• Inv: Investment made, or also value of the training activity.
Suggested standard:
Positive values and percentage dependent on other variables are expected.
Comments:
This indicator is one of the best known, but beware, not all organizations are prepared to apply it immediately, because it requires an additional process, which is to carry out a study of the costs associated with the training gap, since these should decrease with increasing competition. To determine the costs of the gap, it is necessary to discriminate those variables that are not directly related to losses, as well as to define very well the sources of losses, especially in the more generic skills gaps, such as leadership and communication, among others. The key is to determine what actions are not carried out according to the standard, which generates losses or inefficiencies and then apply the corrective actions that in this case must respond to a training need.
Investment recovery period = PRI = Inv / (PPrev-PPost)
Where:
• Inv: Investment made, or also value of the training activity.
• PPrev: losses prior to training in the workplace.
• PPost: Losses after training in the workplace.
Suggested standard:
Positive values and percentage dependent on other variables are expected.
Comments:
First of all, the losses in the work areas due to the competence gap (which can be corrected with training) must be determined for a period of time, generally 1 month. If losses fluctuate in different months then an average can be estimated for analysis purposes and detailed analysis applied in the months most distant from the average.
After the training activity, the losses are measured again and the resulting difference (positive) divides the cost of the activity, which yields the number of periods (months as already established) in which the organization recovers the investment of the course. From the month following the one obtained in the formula, the organization begins to "earn" that money that it previously "lost" due to inefficiency.
