Training outcome and practical application analytics system
The team evaluates training goals, participation, abilities and subsequent application. The customer can be clearly shown what results are supported by the data collected.
Training participation, task results and subsequent application at work are assessed separately or limited to satisfaction survey. There is no verification of the outcome agreed with the developer. The client has difficulty understanding what the program has changed and what assistance is still needed. The proposal for the other program remains weakly based on participants' learning data.
How the solution works
- Define the purpose and proof of training
- Gather a suitable baseline assessment
- Get a Comparative Later Performance
- Separately discuss application at work and data boundaries
- To prepare a conclusion acceptable to the developer
Key challenges
- The result of the training is assessed by a satisfaction poll alone
Solution capabilities
Evaluation question
Determines whether knowledge understanding, practical ability, behavioral change or satisfaction is being studied. These indicators are not shaken.
Comparable evidence
Uses appropriate criteria and a task version. A different participant take or lighter repeat test is clearly marked.
Application at work
Once agreed, an example of application verified by a participant or manager is obtained after the right time. The promise to use knowledge alone is not called actual change.
Participants and results included in the report
Unanswered participants and missing baselines are displayed; individual results are only provided to eligible recipients.
Customer Value
The learning outcome is separated from the re-income and contract economy. The return on investment is only calculated with an appropriate basis of benefits and costs.
Business context
- The result of the training is assessed by a satisfaction poll alone
- Training participation, task results and subsequent application at work are assessed separately or limited to satisfaction survey. There is no verification of the outcome agreed with the developer. The client has difficulty understanding what the program has changed and what assistance is still needed. The proposal for the other program remains weakly based on participants' learning data.
- The client understands what the results of the training have shown
- The company wants to assess what employees have learned and where they have applied the knowledge. Agreed measurements allow to distinguish satisfaction from verified abilities and application at work. Such a review provides a basis for deciding on the continuity of the program and to revise the future training proposal.
Core features
- Evaluation question
- Comparable evidence
- Application at work
- Participants and results included in the report
- Customer Value
Key integrations
- Learning Assessment
- Task, criteria, assessed performance and its timing.
- Registration and customer discussion
- Participants or groups of participants were evaluated, the purpose of the training was agreed and data on the subsequent application of abilities.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Time frame for producing the result report
12–36%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 30-60% of manual data entry and handover work can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 40-60%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable workload and the resulting change.
Measure the hours of work for a report of a comparable program.
Part of programmes without an agreed result check
5–25%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 20-50% of missed actions can be identified through task and deadline tracking. That share is assumed to fall by 25-50%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
Programmes for which the full agreed outcome check was not carried out in time are divided by all the programmes that had to be checked during that period. Separately, the share of participants in the data received is indicated.
Share of companies that ordered further training
2–6%Increasing
Sample starting part - 50%. Assumption: 10-20% of the remaining cases relate to the unaddressed need of the company remaining after training; a solution would help solve 15-30% of these cases.
Customers who have ordered further training are divided among all clients with whom the results of previous training have been discussed. A reasonable need for further learning is assessed; the change in ability is measured separately.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- The training developer needs to evaluate the knowledge, abilities or their application at work.
- Available reports only show participation, and the results are not tied to pre-defined learning goals.
Project scope and implementation
Evaluation of the training outcome is planned according to pre-agreed learning objectives. For an information event, a competency test is not developed if no such assessment has been provided. To assess practical application, it requires agreed follow-up and developer data.
Further development options
- Evaluation of longer application with an agreed timeframe, appropriate sampling and realistic evidence collection.