In the contemporary business setting, human resource has been used to develop competitiveness, and organizations have used different approaches to attain this goal. Predominately, training and development are approaches applied to enhance the competitiveness of the workforce. On-the-job training, simulation, and case studies are some of the standard hand-on method used in various organizations. However, evaluation is vital as it determines whether a firm has attained the objectives of training and development. My reflection focus on the evaluation of training and development in AIA Company, which provides different types of insurance in the Asia-pacific region. The firm has invested in various training programs in a bid to improve competitiveness. Therefore, the Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework will be used to determine the effectiveness of this program in AIA.
The Kirkpatrick’s evaluation encompasses a unique approach that assesses the outcome using four parameters. Reaction, learning, behavior, and results are the four aspects, which are used to determine the effectiveness of the training program. Markedly, evaluating learning commences when the trainer set the objectives of the training session. Conversely, the behavior level assessment determines to what degree the program has changed the behavior of trainees. In essence, it seeks to establish whether the trainers are adopting the skills acquired during the training sessions. The assessment is conducted when the program has been completed. Secondly, the reaction parameter is used to appraise the success of the program by primarily focusing on the mood of the trainees during the session and afterwards. Lastly, the result level assessment is done after the training is completed to compare the outcome with the training objectives. Outcomes such as increased level of customer satisfaction, reduction in cost and increased production are noted. Evidently, Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model provides a systematic assessment of training and development programs.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The first level assessment provided an overview of the effectiveness of the training. To begin with, the reaction of trainees is an indication that they understood and loved the content. Notably, the trainer drafted topics that were relevant to employees of AIA, and precisely focused on matters related to the insurance sector, and more so, highlighted how they would benefit everyone as employees of AIA. The facilitators adopted a mode of delivery that favored everyone in sessions and provided assignments that further reinforced the concepts and ideas. The assessment is crucial as it has an impact on the outcome of other stages
The second level of assessment accentuates on establishing whether the trainees have acquired the desired skills and knowledge. In this case, the skills and knowledge attained are judged against predetermined goals. Mainly, the trainees are tested to determine whether the training session has improved their skills. For instance, at the end of this training, a large portion of AIA employees was familiar with a 360 feedback assessment and how it allowed the management to improve performance, primarily by addressing the needs of the consumers. Predominately, AIA provides products and services in a highly competitive market, which is prone to erratic changes. Therefore, the training equips employees with the required skills and knowledge needed in tackling such matters.
Testing the applicability of the skills acquired is the other level of assessment under this model. In particular, trainees are tested on how effectively they transfer the skills and knowledge in their day to day jobs. Notably, AIA Company has several divisions due to the complexity of the insurance products and the broadness of their operations. Therefore, the trainer designed topics that could be adopted by each employee. Therefore, the assessment is conducted on every employee, and a reward system was created. However, prior to this, the company ensured that the environment favored the implementation of the skill required. The approach motivated employees to use the skills acquired. AIA developed mechanisms that motivated trainees to use skills and knowledge acquired in training, thereby improving performance.
Evaluating the result of the whole training was the last assessment of Kirkpatrick’s model. Markedly, the impact of the entire training is well assessed at this stage as it focuses on the measurable areas. In this case, the AIA used measurements such as turnover rate, customer satisfaction, product penetration, retain of talent, and profitability. The data is collected over a specific period, which is decided by the management. In most cases, the period is decided even before the commencement of the training. The result of the data provides an overview of the effectiveness of the training programs. For instance, the latest research regarding the training program indicated that the company managed to improve customer satisfaction, primarily by training employees on how to address customer queries. Seemingly, the results evaluation phase provides an overview of the effectiveness of the whole training.
Undoubtedly, evaluation of employee training and development is vital as it allows an organization to determine whether the goals were attained. AIA can use the Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework model to systematically establish the effectiveness of training programs. The model uses a four-level assessment, whereby the first evaluation begins during training. The trainers evaluate whether the program is effective from day one. The second level focuses on the behavior and how employees are resonating with the topic and content of the program. The other phase determines how well employees implement the skill in the daily tasks, while the result tests measurable parameters. Personally, I would recommend AIA to use the approach as it adopts a holistic approach, which covers all the areas in the evaluation of training and development programs.
