Learning and Performance Development in Asia:
A Study of the Evaluation of McDonald’s & BreadTalk’s Training Programs
This report reviews the current methods on evaluating training programs by BreadTalk, with an aim of improving its evaluation methods. Through a search of literature and an analysis of current methods, the report summarises the latest thinking on evaluating training programs and provides insights on how BreadTalk can improve the quality and management of its evaluations. A comparison with an overseas company, McDonald’s, was also done to provide suggestions for improvement for BreadTalk’s evaluation methods. There are three key objectives of the report: first, to identify models, frameworks, methodologies, and approaches as well as their uses and feasibility in evaluating training programs; second, to summarize how the quality and effectiveness of these evaluations are assessed in theory and in reality, and mainly, what cutting-edge methods and approaches other organisations use to maintain the quality and effectiveness of their evaluations; and, third, to outline some common practices of corporate evaluation units. Latest models. The review found that the reigning framework for evaluating training programs – and the subsequent models, methods and approaches – is one outlined more than forty years ago by Donald Kirkpatrick. His framework evaluates training programs in terms of four levels – reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Subsequently, Jack Philip’s five level Return On Investment (ROI) model became the conventional model for evaluating training. Basically it is similar to Kirkpatrick’s framework, with an additional level, the calculation of ROI. Other models analysed include the CIRO model and a few others. Critiques of the models are also mentioned. Quality and effectiveness. The report found that there were no new, cutting-edge methods and approaches beyond the Kirkpatrick framework used by the two organisations to maintain the quality and effectiveness of training program evaluations. In general, most organisations rely on simple evaluations of participants’ perception of learning. Common management practices. The role and management of evaluations of training programs are similar within organisations, and the responsibilities of the management teams are similar. It is common to use annual work plans and quarterly reports to develop work objectives and results and to report on progress toward those results. The organisations that appear to be the most effective in implementing training programs and in enhancing the impact of recommendations from evaluations are those that fully integrated training, evaluation, and administration in one unit and/or have developed strong partnerships with operational managers within the organisations (Evans, March 2007).
Table of Contents
1.1 Description of BreadTalk
1.2 Significance of Training Evaluation
1.3 General Trends of Training Evaluation
1.3 Training Evaluation trends in Singapore
2. Literature Review
2.1 Definition of Training Evaluation
2.2 Theories and Models in Training Evaluation
2.2.1 Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation
2.2.2 Jack Philip’s Five Level Return On Investment (ROI) Model
2 2.2.3 CIRO (Context, Input, Reaction, Outcome) Model
3. Current Practices of BreadTalk
3.1 Challenges Faced and Strategies Taken
3.2 Future Path
4. Summary and Recommendations
4.1 McDonald’s Evaluation Strategies
4.2 Comparing BreadTalk with MacDonald’s
4.3 Our recommendations to BreadTalk
4.3.1 Kirkpatrick’s four level Evaluation Model
4.3.2 Jack Philip’s ROI model
4.3.3 Making Evaluation Work in Your Organisation
4.4 Recommendations for McDonald’s
Appendix A – The Success Case Method
Appendix B – MOM report on Employee Supported Training: Charts
Bibliography: BreadTalk. (2008). Competitive Strengths. Retrieved from BreadTalk: http://breadtalk.listedcompany.com/strengths.html
(2006). Certification in the ROI Methodology. ROI Institute.
Chapman, A. (1995). Retrieved September 24, 2008, from Donald L Kirkpatrick 's Training Evaluation Model : http://www.businessballs.com/kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm
Dave Jennings, C. (November 2001). Proving Your Worth. Professional Development Forum Online.
Holton, E. (1996). The Flawed Four-Level Evaluation Model. Human Resource Quartely , 21.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1993). Evaluating Training Programs.
Kirkpatrick, J. (Aug 2007). The Hidden Power of Kirkpatrick 's Four Levels. Training & Development , 34.
M.Osman-Gani, A. (2008). Performance Development & Training with Asian Perspective. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education (Asia).
Manpower, M. R. (September 2007). Employer Supported Training 2006. MOM.
Philips, J. J. (April 1996). Measuring ROI: The Fifth Level of Evaluation. Technocal & Skills Training , 1.
Phillips, J. J. (August 2007). Using ROI to Demonstrate HR Value in the Public Sector: A Review of Best Practices. Strategic Planning , 14.
Pollitt, D. (2007). McDonald 's serves up better customer care and lower employee turnover: Two-stage training for more than 4,000 staff. Human Resource Management International Digest , 23-26.
Schmalenbach, M. S. (2005, January 24). trainingzone.co.uk. Retrieved from Training Evaluation: http://www.trainingzone.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=136034
Steve Mapp, S
Tennant, C. B. (2002). The design of a training program measurement model. Journal of European Industrial Training , 230-241.
Travis K. Brewer, A. B. (August 2007). USE OF PHILLIPS’S FIVE LEVEL TRAINING EVALUATION AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK IN THE U. S. NON-PROFIT SECTOR.
Exhibit B1: Proportion of Training-providing Establishments that Evaluated Effectiveness of Staff Training, 2003-2006 (Manpower, September 2007)
Exhibit B2: Common Evaluation Procedures, 2003 - 2006 (Manpower, September 2007)
Exhibit B3: Main Reasons (%) for not having Evaluation Procedures, 2003 - 2006 (Manpower, September 2007)
Exhibit D1: Summary of Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation (Chapman, 1995; M.Osman-Gani, 2008)
Please join StudyMode to read the full document