Measurement of the return on investment in education and in-house training
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6018.325.04Keywords:
training efficiency, training effectiveness measurement, in-house trainingAbstract
The level of awareness and acceptance of the need to enhance volume and intensity of investment in education and in-house training is increasing. This phenomenon stems from the following facts: the aging of the European societies; an intense technological and organizational progress; and a noticeable process of extension of the scope and length of professional and personal development and activity; accompanied with employees' expectations for better quality of life.
The increase in the level of acceptance of the need for increased investment in education and training of employees is accompanied by new challenges, including, in the first place, the need to redefine the approach to investment in training and to the evaluation of its results. The „High-Efficiency‟ point of view, alongside the assessment of the advisability of investment in education and training within a company, raises the need to move away from the traditional system of input oriented financing (i.e. financing resources) and to move towards output oriented funding (i.e. financing results). In other words, instead of paying for teaching, companies want to pay for teaching results. This means that the companies which finance education and training, rise - in the process of assessing the training results – fundamental questions about the improvement of the efficiency of the company; and how an increase in the qualifications of workers facilitates the achievement of organizational objectives. On the other hand, the training results assessment from the participant‟s point of view includes a question about the efficiency of the supplier of educational and training programs, and whether the supplier is able to achieve the promised results.
The existing business reality is that the efficiency and effectiveness assessments often do not go beyond the survey measuring the level of satisfaction and self-esteem of the participants. This, in turn, causes a visible quantitative pressures, accompanied by insufficient care for quality and inability to use modern techniques to measure the impact of education and training on business performance.
As a result, many entrepreneurs treat the investment in training and education of their employees solely as an expense and a disruption of operations. This is due to the fact that managers do not see a direct effect of the investments on the performance of the company. In addition, managers fear possible hazards in the form of expense claims; loss of trained personel to competitors‟ companies, or excessive self-empowerment of the employee.
The study is devoted to presentation and discussion of modern techniques measuring the effectiveness of investment in education and training. The list of methods includes an analysis based on objectives, the targeted evaluation, systemic evaluation, judicial evaluation, and assessment prior to the program.
Downloads
References
Alliger G., Junak E. (1989), Kirkpatricks levels of training criteria Thirty years later, “Personnel Psychology” 41, p. 331–342.
Google Scholar
Arthur W., Bennett W., Edens P., Bell S. (2003), Effectiveness of Training in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis of Design and Evaluation Features, “Journal of Applied Psychology” vol. 88, no. 2, p. 234–245.
Google Scholar
Bernais J., Jędralska K. (eds.) (2015), Uniwersytet w perspektywie kształcenia przez całe życie, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny Katowice, Katowice.
Google Scholar
Bramley P. (2011), Ocena efektywności szkoleń, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa.
Google Scholar
Broad M., Newstrom J. (1992), Transfer of Training: Action-packed Strategies to Ensure High Payoff from Training Investments, Addison-Wesley Reading, New York.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J. (2010), From Humboldtian Towards Entrepreneurial University. The Modernization Concept of the European Commission, [in:] Klucznik-Toro A., Bodis K., Pal I. (eds.), Management and Interpreneurship in a Changing Market, Publikon, Budapest, p. 13–35.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J. (2011) Performance Measurement for Entrepreneurial University, “The Future of Education”, vol. 2, p. 320–331.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J. (2012), On Rate of Return Measurement in Education, “Econometrics”, no 31, p. 49–66.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J. (2012a), System jakości kształcenia, [w:] Dziechciarz J., Błaczkowska A., Grześkowiak A., Król A., Stanimir A., Analiza wybranych aspektów wyników egzaminu gimnazjalnego, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu, Wrocław.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J. (2015), Measurement of Rate of Return in Education. Research Directions, [in:] Velencei J. (ed.), Management, Finance, Industry and Regional Development, Obuda University, Budapest.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J. (2015), O pojęciu jakości w pomiarze efektów pracy uniwersytetu, „Ekonometria”, no 4, p. 79–92.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J. (2015a), O pomiarze efektywności nakładów na edukację i szkolenia w kontekście kształcenia przez całe życie, [w:] Bernais J., Jędralska K. (eds.), Uniwersytet w perspektywie kształcenia przez całe życie, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny Katowice, Katowice, p. 42–52.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J. (2015b), Pomiar i wycena wiedzy, umiejętności i kompetencji nabytych w formalnych i nieformalnych formach kształcenia, [w:] Wdowiński P. (ed.), Nauczyciel akademicki wobec nowych wyzwań edukacyjnych, Uniwersytet Łódzki, Łódź, p. 25–43.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J. (2016), Multivariate Statistical Analysis in Missing Skills Identification, [in:] Michelberger P. (ed.), Management, Enterprise and Benchmarking in the 21st Century, Obuda University, Budapest.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J., Błaczkowska A., Grześkowiak A. (2009), Econometric Evaluation of Education Systems, [in:] Rinderu P. (ed.) Creating an Observatory on Europe-wide Transparency of Academic Qualifications, Editura Universitaria Craiova, Craiova, p. 112–131.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J., Błaczkowska A., Grześkowiak A., Król A., Stanimir A. (2012), Analiza wybranych aspektów wyników egzaminu gimnazjalnego, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu, Wrocław.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J., Dziechciarz-Duda M., Krol A., Targaszewska M. (2015), Various Approaches to Measuring Effectiveness of Tertiary Education, “Archives of Datascience” no 1, p. 1–25.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J. et al. (eds.) (2006), Rynek pracy aglomeracji wrocławskiej. Stan i perspektywy, AE Wrocław.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz J., Kwiatkowska-Ciotucha D. (2004), Managerial Training Needs: Analysis for Management Quality Improvement, [in:] Contemporary Trends in Top Management Education, Brno International Business School, Brno.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz-Duda M., Król A. (2012), Próba zastosowania modelu Mincera do oceny wpływu wyższego wykształcenia na poziom wynagrodzeń, „Ekonometria” 3(37), p. 56–69.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz-Duda M., Król A. (2013), On the Non-monetary Benefits of Tertiary Education, “Econometrics” (3)41, p. 78–94.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz-Duda M., Przybysz K. (2011), Rynek usług edukacyjnych dla osób starszych. Analiza cech studentów uniwersytetów trzeciego wieku [w:] Garczarczyk J. (ed.), Metody pomiaru i analizy rynku usług. Pomiar jakościowy. Zastosowania i efektywność, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny, Poznań, p. 44–55.
Google Scholar
Dziechciarz-Duda M., Przybysz K. (2014), Wykształcenie a potrzeby rynku pracy. Klasyfikacja absolwentów wyższych uczelni, „Taksonomia” (22)327, p. 303–312.
Google Scholar
Estimating Economic and Social Returns to Learning (2011), OECD Issues For Discussion, Fourth General Assembly, Tokyo.
Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick D. (1994), Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, Berrett Koehler, San Francisco.
Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick D. (2001), Cztery poziomy oceny efektywności szkoleń, Emka, Warszawa.
Google Scholar
Klucznik-Toro A., Bodis K., Pal I. (eds.) (2010), Management and Interpreneurship in a Changing Market, Publikon, Budapest.
Google Scholar
McMahon W. (2006), Education Finance Policy: Financing the Nonmarket and Social Benefits, “Journal of Education Finance”, 32:2, p. 264–284.
Google Scholar
Michelberger P. (ed.), (2016) Management, Enterprise and Benchmarking in the 21st Century, Obuda University, Budapest.
Google Scholar
Phillips J. (2010), ROI czyli zwrot z inwestycji w szkolenia i rozwój kadr, Academica, Warszawa.
Google Scholar
Phillips J., Stone R. (2011), Mierzenie wyników szkoleń, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa.
Google Scholar
Porter L., McKibbin L. (1988), Management Education and Development: Drift or Thrust into tne 21st Century?, McGraw–Hill, New York.
Google Scholar
Rae L. (2002), Assessing the Value of Your Training Gower, Aldershot.
Google Scholar
Rae L. (2013), Workplace Learning Evaluation. Content and Tools, Chapman, London.
Google Scholar
Rinderu P. (ed.) (2009), Creating an Observatory on Europe-wide Transparency of Academic Qualifications, Editura Universitaria Craiova, Craiova, p. 112–131.
Google Scholar
Velencei J. (ed.) (2015), Management, Finance, Industry and Regional Development, Obuda University, Budapest.
Google Scholar
Vila L. (2000), The non-monetary benefits of education, “European Journal of Education” 35, p. 21–33.
Google Scholar
Wdowiński P. (ed.) (2015), Nauczyciel akademicki wobec nowych wyzwań edukacyjnych, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź.
Google Scholar
www.businessballs.com/bloomstaxonomyoflearningdomains.htm, [Access 01.09.2015].
Google Scholar
www.businessballs.com/consciouscompetencelearningmodel.htm, [Access 09.09.2015].
Google Scholar
www.businessballs.com/erik_erikson_psychosocial_theory.htm, [Access 08.09.2015].
Google Scholar
www.businessballs.com/howardgardnermultipleintelligences.htm, [Access 09.09.2015].
Google Scholar
www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm, [Access 09.09.2015].
Google Scholar
www.businessballs.com/vaklearningstylestest.htm, [Access 08.09.2015].
Google Scholar