But, I have some doubt about the succession of TNA implementation, based on my experience as training coordinators on 8 years ago before joining in this company also what's my feeling up to now in TNA application.
My own feelings are:
- TNA is somewhat haphazard most of the time, based on individual perceptions as opposed to organizational need. this results in the wrong training for the wrong people, with little resulting implementation. Some training is good but not match against achievemnt of mission.
- Training is seen as a panacea for when management fails - the answer to a problem, side lined to HR.
- The manager (line) has little interaction with their member of staff regarding preparing him/her for the training, or for following up after training, it s make us as Training professional "Head ache" (Poesiiiiiiiiiing)
- Training aims to change behavior and sometimes thinking - it is as simple as that. In order to measure this in practice, the manager, HR and the participant need to work together to ensure that this happens in practice. But as the behavior development is very difficult to develop otherwise technical training is simple. The managers should become role model related with the learning behavior subject.
- On level 3 of Kirkpatrick, we conduct the behaviour development survey to the participants and managers feedback, but due to the trainer is coming from internal so some "hallo effect" like subjective feeling to the trainer make the survey is biased.
- the ROI in training is not that difficult to measure - but the energy required to do sometimes outstrips the benefit. In order to measure success (or failure) you need to assess what was and what is now (after the training). This is defendant on a clear understanding of training outcomes - sometimes this is the missing pin, and an enthusiasm of all concerned to see it happen. That can sometimes be complex.