10 replies to this topic

[YongYM]

Dear all:



Auditors usually focus on the effectiveness of a training (food safety or quality-related) being delivered to workers.



I just would like to get some advices on how to conduct post training evaluation for a large group of people?



Who should evaluate the attendees’ performances, trainer or the respective HOD?



When to conduct the evaluation as the effectiveness may not be seen immediately?



Do we need to evaluate the attendee one by one? [The trainer may be the HOD and he/she is the one who usually gives training. Let’s say 10 topics / trainings per week for a group of 50 people, for example.]



Any recommendation from you all? Thank you.

Edited by YongYM, 07 February 2007 - 10:16 AM.

[shakti]

Effectiveness could be checked by his / her immediate boss..provided the boss is also trained. Otherwise the trainer could be engaged to check the effectiveness of the program. The frequency of check depends on the type of training provided. Hope this answers.

[Simon]

Dear all:
Auditors usually focus on the effectiveness of a training (food safety or quality-related) being delivered to workers.
I just would like to get some advices on how to conduct post training evaluation for a large group of people?
Who should evaluate the attendees’ performances, trainer or the respective HOD?
When to conduct the evaluation as the effectiveness may not be seen immediately?
Do we need to evaluate the attendee one by one? [The trainer may be the HOD and he/she is the one who usually gives training. Let’s say 10 topics / trainings per week for a group of 50 people, for example.]
Any recommendation from you all? Thank you.

Tell us what the training is for and maybe we can discuss some measurable ojectives.

Regards,
Simon

[angelica]

In some cases, we do it in an indirect way, such as measuring non-conformities. If we can relate them with training, for example, we give training in how to do a specific task or use some machine, and then we observe the number of non-conformities or their severity diminishes, we assume the training was effective.

I would like to hear other member’s opinions about this topic. May be we’re doing wrong.

[Simon]

In some cases, we do it in an indirect way, such as measuring non-conformities. If we can relate them with training, for example, we give training in how to do a specific task or use some machine, and then we observe the number of non-conformities or their severity diminishes, we assume the training was effective.

I would like to hear other member’s opinions about this topic. May be we’re doing wrong.

It sounds very logical Angelica. Anyone else have an angle on this subject?

Regards,
Simon

[Sankara narayanan]

Dear Angelica,

What we practise here is to involve the participants also for the next training. After some days one of the participants is asked to come prepared and take a class on one of the topics which was discussed already and the other participants are invited for a debate. In one hand it ensures their 'involvement' and on the other hand it they dont doze off(afternoon ISO classes can put any one to sleep).
Another way is to assign them homework. Like for Hazard analysis I gave a blank form each to every employee and asked them to have a 'go' at it. Believe me, they came up with some points which we had originally missed out. Of course, here I am handling only around 15 people.

Best Regards,

A Sankara Narayanan

[Suzuki]

I understand your situation and it is not easy to evaluate effectiveness of one's training and that depends on how deep you wish to benchmark your level as individual technical background differs sometimes drastically.

One approach is to set your own training assessment matrix which can be based on specific resource category rather than across the board.

To me its like assessing a Food Auditor and a CB for my Company. We need to establish our selection criteria and we are very very strict particularly on the Auditor's food audit background.

The degree of expectations would naturally increase on people who have gone through quality / food safety training. Despite training assessment matrix being subjective sometimes, its a decent guide on how far you may have gone. Ask Simon - he has got a cartoon poster that he sells for a song and get your people to bend their mind some what on the potential hazard identification.

Regards
Suzuki

[Simon]

I suppose you can test employees to see if they have remebered and understood what they have learned, but the ultimate test is back at the workplace and whether the knowledge is applied. Results of internal audits, walkabouts, internal and external complaints, should confirm how effective training has been or where further refresher training is required.

And yes thank you Suzuki my posters are great for facilitating interactive learning. Colourful, interesting, good value and effective.

Regards,
Simon

[Jean]

Who should evaluate the attendees’ performances, trainer or the respective HOD?

If the internal trainer delivers the training, then the internal trainer and the respective HOD / Manager / Supervisor can evaluate the performance.

When to conduct the evaluation as the effectiveness may not be seen immediately?

The evaluation can be seen when they return to work after the training sessions and through the communications between the staff. Like after each training session (e.g. personal hygiene) the staffs perform e.g. hand washing, explain and correct the other staff from what they had learnt from their session. I even witnessed one staff demonstrating first aid techniques to the others after attending the First Aid Session.

Do we need to evaluate the attendee one by one? [The trainer may be the HOD and he/she is the one who usually gives training. Let’s say 10 topics / trainings per week for a group of 50 people, for example.]

The effectiveness of training can be assessed by giving a test to all candidates either every month, while auditing or in small groups during the briefing or in between other training topics etc.

Other factors like fewer complaints, decreased costs, less accidents etc can be effective to assess the effectiveness of the training.

[GMO]

I think an immediate understanding test needs to be done because if they didn't understand it after the training; they're not going to apply it. That then also gives you audit evidence.

Then you review through audit and verification activities (complaints, micro etc) whether it worked. Also bring up the topic in meetings regularly so it's talked about and then retrain anyone if you feel it's necessary in conjunction with a refresher programme.

The problem with not using testing is there's no proof an individual understood or has been trained. I think with accreditation and for your own benefit, that's always needed.

[Dr Vu]

I think an immediate understanding test needs to be done because if they didn't understand it after the training; they're not going to apply it. That then also gives you audit evidence.

Then you review through audit and verification activities (complaints, micro etc) whether it worked. Also bring up the topic in meetings regularly so it's talked about and then retrain anyone if you feel it's necessary in conjunction with a refresher programme.

The problem with not using testing is there's no proof an individual understood or has been trained. I think with accreditation and for your own benefit, that's always needed.

Right on GMO
immediate test to get a feel if trainees were paying attention - this test does not in any way signify understanding

Observation, auditing, verification , NCR etc after that. This is only measure you can use to signify effectiveness.