PERFOMANCE MEASUREMENT ISSUE: OUTCOMES OF PERFORMANCE

MEASUREMENT ARE HARD TO EVALUATE

One of the issues that are being extensively discussed in performance measurement is the
difficulties to measure programs outcomes. For example, programs related to foreign policy
objectives, training conducted by the public sector, health, and safety related programs, and
many more. If we investigate training programs conducted by the public organization,
research have been conducted to study the difficulties to measure its outcomes. A study by
Berge (2008) suggested that training outcomes are difficult to measure due to few reasons
which are: -

 Training programs tend to face failure

Few reasons that might hold back the programs are lack in planning, and
inadequate budget (Abernathy, 1999). Without a proper planning and adequate
financial support, the programs would not be able to be smoothly executed. This
would indirectly affect the programs performance itself including the trainee as such
objectives cannot be met. Additionally, training programs tend to fail because the
program is executed for inappropriate reasons. For example, the training is being
conducted just for the purpose of annual budget requirements so that organizations
can obtain more for the next reporting period.

 Manager usually measure on training based on increase performance.

When program objectives are not being properly addressed, it will cause
conflict against the main objectives of training which are improvement in skills and
knowledge. This scenario happens due to different expectations among managers.
According to Harward (2008), different goals and different understanding in
addressing those goals exist within a manager because the managers formed up from
different functional areas and leadership roles. An instance, a human resource
manager may put emphasis on measure performance based on skill and knowledge
enhancement, meanwhile general manager may want to measure on how this
developed skill based on performance enhancement. Although both scenarios
involved the usage of skill and knowledge, even so these two measurements are
different from each other. A study conducted by Berge (2008), also mentioned that
 the purpose of training is for individual learning meanwhile performance
improvement is to ensure organization’s productivity and profitability is improved.
 Outdated accounting methods to evaluate human asset
For most company that experience high turnover or suffering the loss of key person,
human capital is considered as the utmost significant asset to the company. This type
of assets is hard to be categorized under monetary value due to inadequacy of
accounting treatments. Conversely, training activities that involve this human capital
are accounted for as a cost (Berge, 2008). He also mentioned that although training
development focusing on incrementing organization assets, the accountants have yet
to find a proper accounting treatment to solve the issue. This can be seen in intangible
activities like worker development, training in leadership, as well as soft skills. That is
why, the organizations are uncertain on how the outcomes should be properly
measured since it is subjective in nature.

Based on these issues, there are few recommendations that the employee or manager can
implement are: -

 Focus on creating a well-prepared plan with a proper budgeting.

Every beneficiaries and manager should be informed on the program’s objectives,
goals, and the program outcomes. This should become a guideline for programs to be
conducted in a mannerly way and ensure its smoothness. Each proposed budget
should be put in details on its purposes. Respective manager should ensure the budget
is used for the purpose of training instead of others.
 Redefined the objectives of the program
Since stakeholder and manager tend to have difference view on which outcome
should be examined, the training objectives should be redefined. Therefore, it is
crucial for each of involved individuals to understand the main purposes of trainings
being conducted. Berge (2008) also suggests that evaluation of training should be
done based on its impact on the arising issues of businesses. That is why operating
manager plays a very important role as he needs to address clearly the busines
problem as it gives picture to the training manager what should be included in the
training program. Hence, we can conclude that by problems solving can be used as
one of the measures to evaluate the outcomes.
  Calculating Return on Investment
The importance of return on investment in our evaluation measurement is to account
for training expenses to see whether the training is effective and measure the value
that it has created. A study by Kaminski and Lopes (2003), one of the easiest ways to
calculate ROI is through Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR). The relationship between
program benefits and its cost is as the following: -

BCR = Program Benefit

Program Cost

The study mentions that when the BCR is greater than 1, then the program’s benefit
outweighs the cost hence considered as successful and vice versa.

The Kirkpatrick Model

A specific study conducted by Mohammed Saad and Norsiah (2013), training can also be
evaluated through a model named “The Kirkpatrick Model”. This model includes four
aspects of evaluation which are emotional reaction, achievement of objectives, changes in
behaviors and organizational impact (Kirkpatrick, 1998).

 Emotional Reaction
Refers to how the trainee’s attitude after completing the program. The training
program is considered as successful when the trainee applies the obtained skills and
knowledge.
 Achievement of objectives
Post-training evaluation where the trainer will measure based on objectives that have
been achieved.
 Changes in Behavior
Study by Mohamed Saad and Norasiah (2013), changes in behavioral often used to
reflect performance. Changed in behavior includes aspects from emotional reaction
and objectives’ achievement which will be translated in terms of behavioral changes.
 Organizational Impact
 Mohamed Saad and Norasiah (2013) also suggest that organization culture and
strategy is measured based on the conducted trainings and human resource
development. Under this aspect, the program is deemed to be successful only if the
outcomes are closely in line with organizational objectivity.

References

Abernathy, D. J. (1999). Thinking outside the evaluation box. Training & Development, 53,
18-23.

Alyahya, M. S. & Norsiah, M. (2013). Evaluation of effectiveness of training and

development: The Kirkpatrick Model. Asian Journal of Business and Management
Sciences, 2(11), 14-24.

Berge, Z. L. (2008). Why it is so hard to evaluate training in the workplace. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 40(7), 390-395.

Harward, D. (2008). So, you aren’t a CLO – do you deserve to be?. TrainingIndustry.com.
http://www.trainingoutsourcing.com/TO_Editorials.asp?ID

Kaminski, K. & Lopes, T. (2009). Return on investment: Training and development. Society
for Human Resource Management.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating training program: Four levels. The Hidden Power of
Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels. Berrett Koehler.