Your Revenue Driver
The training function has become fond of Kirkpatrick and Phillips models that focus on:
1. Learner satisfaction
2. Knowledge attainment
3. Knowledge application
4. Business impact
5. ROI
We lament about the other factors that impede our ability to be willing to be held accountable for items 3, 4 and 5. We could discuss that topic for quite a while.
Drucker offers an alternate scorecard:
1. Capital appropriation performance
2. Hiring decisions
3. Innovation performance
4. Strategy performance
What would it take to shift to the Drucker scorecard? Is it relevant for the training function to consider such a shift?
Tags:
Hey paul, I have a bias here ---because I focus on job fit - BUT it makes so much sense.
Trying to train someone on skills for a job who is a poor fit for the job (ie: style, motivators and talent strengths do not match the job) is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. It is not easy, feels slow and messy and is frustrating for everyone involved.
Perhaps that is one of the reasons training can sometimes feel 'weary' to the instructors and the students.
But if the classroom participants are a strong match to what the job requires, then they are more interested in skills and knowledge training. They actually naturally want to do what needs to be done! That makes for a more productive traingn environment.
Not sure how training would focus on # 1. On #4 it seems that aligning training with overall corporate strategy, explaining to all---Sponsors and Participants - the tie in to the overall strategy is crucial and SHOULd be happening any way.
Some thoughts...
Suzie
When does the process of developing a talent pipeline begin? Who owns this? Who is measured on this?
When does the process of innovation begin? Who owns this? Who is measured on this?
When does the process of setting strategy expectations begin? Who owns this? Who is measured on this?
Do your answers reveal any gaps that need to be addressed?
© 2025 Created by Paul Terlemezian.
Powered by