Training evaluation is universally described as indispensable. Yet in practice, it remains one of the steps most commonly bypassed or reduced to a few boxes to tick. Why is this so widespread? And what do organisations stand to lose by failing to take it seriously within their training strategy? The work of Phillips, Kirkpatrick and Kraiger offers solid answers. Here, we have structured their insights to help you build an evaluation process that is genuinely meaningful.
What Evaluating Training Actually Means
Before putting an evaluation framework in place, it is worth agreeing on what it actually entails and what objectives it can serve.
A Definition and Two Forms of Practice
Evaluation is defined as "the act of making a judgement about the value of the subject". Applied to training, it allows organisations to measure and assess the results achieved, then improve their practices accordingly. It takes two main forms.
Formal practices are structured and explicit: they aim to establish a judgement on the value of a training process or product. A concrete example: a satisfaction questionnaire distributed at the end of a session.
Informal practices are more spontaneous, implicit or explicit, and serve the same purpose through different means. An example: verbal feedback exchanged between a manager and an employee, without any technical support. These two forms are complementary: one structures the data, the other captures what numbers alone cannot.
The 4 Objectives of Evaluation
Training evaluation serves four precise objectives:
Demonstrating the relevance and value of training to decision-makers and the teams involved.
Improving the quality of programmes and their organisation, drawing on factual data.
Verifying that programmes comply with the expectations, standards and benchmarks set.
Developing or testing new knowledge on the participants' side, to ensure that learning is properly embedded.
The Case for Evaluation: What Phillips, Kirkpatrick and Kraiger Say
Phillips and Kirkpatrick, two leading authors on the subject, have each formalised the underlying reasons why training evaluation is essential. Kraiger, for his part, has synthesised its functional dimensions.
The Phillips Model: 10 Reasons to Evaluate Impact
Phillips identifies ten reasons to evaluate the impact of a training programme:
Determine whether training objectives have been met.
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the employee development process.
Compare the costs and benefits of a programme.
Decide who should take part in future programmes.
Test the clarity and validity of the case studies or exercises used.
Identify which participants achieved the best results from the programme.
Remind participants of certain key content.
Gather data for the design of future programmes.
Determine whether the programme provided an appropriate solution to the identified need.
Build a database to support management decision-making.
According to Phillips, impact evaluation is "the most compelling way to demonstrate the value of training to senior management". It enables organisations to optimise both the management of training and the decision-making processes that accompany it.
The Kirkpatrick Model: 3 Fundamental Reasons
Kirkpatrick puts forward three reasons to evaluate:
Justify the existence of the training department by demonstrating its contribution to the organisation's objectives. A well-conducted evaluation makes the real output of training visible.
Decide whether to continue or discontinue training programmes, based on data rather than gut feeling.
Obtain information to improve future programmes, and thereby feed a process of continuous improvement.
These three reasons carry direct strategic weight. They place evaluation at the heart of investment decisions and the direction of training policy.
Kraiger's Synthesis: Three Functions of Evaluation
Kraiger's model (2002) draws on the work of Sackett and Mullin, Kirkpatrick, Twitchell, Holton and Trott to identify three functional reasons for evaluation:
Decision-making: providing information on the level of learning retention or the effectiveness of trainers.
Feedback: enabling adjustments to training programmes and learning approaches throughout their rollout.
Internal marketing: structuring internal communication around the value of training, primarily within the organisation.
Why Evaluation Remains So Rarely Practised
Despite the evident value of training evaluation, it faces very real obstacles. Phillips, Kirkpatrick, Grove and Ostroff, Lewis and Thornhill, Kraiger and Twitchell have identified these and grouped them into five categories.
Five Barriers Identified by Research
Lack of vision: evaluation is not a priority shared by enough stakeholders within organisations. Training tends to be seen as a matter of conviction rather than an investment to be measured. A "we already know" attitude closes the door to any analytical approach.
Absence of clear development objectives: without knowing precisely what one wishes to evaluate, it is impossible to produce a useful evaluation. Understanding the role of evaluation is a prerequisite for putting it into practice.
Lack of technical expertise: setting up a rigorous evaluation requires tools and methods that many teams do not yet have at their disposal.
Fear of risk: evaluation may reveal uncomfortable results. This prospect sometimes slows its deployment, particularly in organisations where training is not yet viewed as a measurable performance driver.
Cost: evaluation can be time-consuming and represents a genuine investment. Without any prior assurance that results will justify the effort, it is often deferred.
These barriers are real, but they do not invalidate the process: they explain it, and allow organisations to respond to it methodically. As Sugrue and Rivera observe: "All the best companies have put in place systems to measure and report on the activities and impact of the training function within the business." Evaluation enables HR and management teams to regulate and adapt their training strategy, whilst helping employees reflect on their initial objectives, analyse gaps, and continue to progress.
