can essential skills training in the workplace make a ... · transfer payments: ei, welfare - 0 + 0...
Post on 10-Oct-2020
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Can Essential Skills Training in the Workplace Make a Difference?
• David Gyarmati, Research Director, Social Research and Demonstration Corporation
• Val Lockyer, Executive Director, The Training Group at Douglas College
| BC CENTRE FOR EMPLOYMENT EXCELLENCE 2
Presenters
Establishing the Business Case for Workplace Essential Skills Training
UPSKILL: A Pan-Canadian Demonstration Project
March 7, 2014
A Pan-Canadian research and demonstration project measuring the effects of literacy and Essential Skills training in the workplace
Implemented in 8 provinces with 110 firms and nearly 1500 workers in frontline service occupations
Here in British Columbia –30 firms and 450 workers
Managed by SRDC with funding from the Federal Government’s Office of Literacy and Essential Skills (OLES)
Implemented in partnership with
Goals of the Study
To measure the effects of Literacy and Essential Skills (LES) training in the workplace
To establish a clear business case for LES training by measuring its return on investment for firms
To understand the conditions in which LES training can be most successful and ROI can be maximized
Accommodations sector in the Tourism industry
110 firms joined the study, largely hotels
104 underwent organizational needs assessments
88 firms with clear training needs continued in the study
Only 1 firm withdrew after workers were engaged
Regional distribution:
◦ ~ 30% in BC
◦ ~ 25% in the Prairies (AB, MB, SK)
◦ ~ 20% in ON
◦ ~ 25% in the Atlantic region (NB, NS, NL)
1454 workers joined the study from 88 active firms
Four frontline occupational groups
◦ Administrative, Client Service – Front Desk Agents
◦ Custodial Positions – Housekeeping Room Attendants
◦ Food and Beverage – Servers, Bartenders
◦ Culinary – Line Cooks, Kitchen Assistant/Prep
ES training needs, primarily in oral communication, problem solving, document use, and numeracy
1. Evaluation Design – utilizing a randomized control trial (RCT) to estimate unbiased impacts of ES training
2. Evaluation Framework – comprehensive set of measures to help understand conditions for success
3. Performance Metrics – objective measurement of behaviour change - the “missing link” between Essential Skills and business outcome measures
4. Rigorous Cost-Benefit Analysis – monetizing impacts to estimate ROI for workers, firms, and government
Employers join the project
Complete baseline needs assessment
Employees join the project
Complete baseline skills and performance assessments
Post-training evaluations are completed and compared to
baseline
All employees receive training
Employers join the project
Complete baseline needs assessment
Employees join the project
Complete baseline skills and performance assessments
Post-training evaluations are completed and compared to
baseline
All employees receive trainingMarket Conditions,
Layoffs
Employees motivation
Employers join the project
Complete baseline needs assessment
Employees join the project
Complete baseline skills and performance assessments
Post-training evaluations are completed and groups are compared
Program Group receives training
Market Conditions,
Layoffs
Employees motivation
Control Group No training
Random assignment
Long-te
rm
Outc
om
es
Retu
rns
Inte
rmedia
te O
utc
om
es
Inputs
, acti
vit
y,
outp
uts
Everyday
Practices
Workplace
Performance
Individual Factors
Structural Factors
Workplace LES Training
Psycho-
social
Capital
Social
Capital
Human
Capital
Individual ROI Firm ROI
Individual Outcomes
FinancialNon-financial
Firm Outcomes
FinancialNon-financial
Gov’t ROI
Maintaining Service
Excellence
Enhancing Customer Relations
Increasing Productivity
Enhancing Human
Resources
Increasing Sales
Business Needs
Improving Health and
Safety
ES needs
Oral Communication
Maintaining Service
Excellence
Enhancing Customer Relations
Increasing Productivity
Enhancing Human
Resources
Increasing Sales
Business Needs
Improving Health and
Safety
Thinking Skills
Document Use
Numeracy
Working with Others
Continuous Learning
Reading Text
Writing
ES needs
Maintaining Service
Excellence
Enhancing Customer Relations
Increasing Productivity
Enhancing Human
Resources
Increasing Sales
Meeting Service Standards
Effective Communication
Increasing Task Efficiency
Health and Safety Practice
Professionalism
Reducing Error
Retention and Absenteeism
Problem Solving
Product Knowledge
Business Needs Performance Gaps
Improving Health and
Safety Emergency Preparedness
Up-selling
Success in further training
Oral Communication
Thinking Skills
Document Use
Numeracy
Working with Others
Continuous Learning
Reading Text
Writing
Maintaining Service
Excellence
Enhancing Customer Relations
Increasing Productivity
Enhancing Human
Resources
Increasing Sales
Meeting Service Standards
Effective Communication
Increasing Task Efficiency
Health and Safety Practice
Professionalism
Reducing Error
Retention and Absenteeism
Problem Solving
Product Knowledge
Business Needs Performance, Industry Standards
Improving Health and
Safety Emergency Preparedness
Up-selling
Success in further training
Measured through
objective performance
assessments based on
industry standards
Establish a clear
relationship with
business outcomes
Maintaining Service
Excellence
Enhancing Customer Relations
Meeting Service Standards
Effective Communication
Professionalism
Problem Solving
Business Needs Performance, Industry Standards
1. Service Quality Indices – quality metrics of reliability, responsiveness
2. Guest Satisfaction – various customer rating systems, complaint tracking
3. Customer Loyalty, Retention
e.g. return to hotel, return to brand
4. Promoter Scores
e.g. likelihood to recommend hotel
5. Occupancy Rates, Room Revenue ($)
6. Ancillary Spending ($) on future visits
Increasing Productivity
Organization, Efficiency
Reducing Error
Business Needs Performance, Industry Standards
7. Efficiency Metrics – speed of check-in, check-out; room-cleaning
8. Error Rate – room, order, billing, HR
9. Cost Savings in Staff Time ($) – for frontline (e.g. lower time-to-complete) and supervisors (check/correct errors)
10. Cost Savings in Wastage ($) –room revenues, inventories savings, reduced spoilage
11. Room Turn-Around ($) – arising from quicker cleaning, checkout
Participants Firms
Government
Budgets Society
Participant Impacts
Employment and Earnings + - 0 +
Transfer payments: EI, welfare - 0 + 0
Tax payments - 0 + 0
Other Household Income, Tax Credits +/- 0 0 +/-
Firm Effects
Sales Revenue: Occupancy rates, Ancillary spending 0 + 0 +
Productivity: Task Efficiency/Staff Time 0 + 0 +
Changes in Direct Costs: Inventories/Supplies 0 + 0 +
Health and Safety: Sick Leave/Absenteeism 0 + 0 +
HR: Hiring Costs/Retention 0 +/- 0 +/-
Taxes: Sales, Payroll, Corporate 0 - + 0
Program Delivery Costs
UPSKILL Program Delivery 0 0 - -
UPSKILL Release Time 0 - - -
Other Transfer Program Administrative costs 0 0 + +
Benchmark Model: Benefit/Cost per Participant ($) +/- +/- +/- +/-
Return on Investment (ROI) (%) +/- +/- +/- +/-
Financial Components (Fully-monetized)
Perspective
The Offer to Firms and Workers
• Needs Analysis and skills assessments
• Up to 40-hours of on-site LES training
• Customized to workers needs
• Blended delivery – group sessions, on-
to-one, self-paced
• ½ of the release time covered
Sectoral Engagement
Sectoral Performance
Gaps & Training Needs
Analysis
Firm Engagement
Participant
Recruitment
Needs Analysis &
Delivery Plan
Curriculum
Customization
Training Delivery
Core Curriculum
Design
Valerie LockyerMarch 7, 2014
Firm Engagement
Employee Recruitment
Needs Analysis
Curriculum Development
Training Delivery
12/03/2014 24
Job specific
training
Essential
Skills
12/03/2014 25
12/03/2014 26
Training
Employer
Employee
Funder
Thank you
douglascollege.ca
1. Essential Skills
2. Job Performance
3. Employment and Earnings
4. Non-Financial Impacts – Psychosocial, Health
5. Firm Impacts, Business Outcomes
6. Benefit Cost Analysis – Return on Investment
7. Conditions for Success
Essential Skills
Did UPSKILL training produce measurable impacts on
Literacy and Essential Skills?
UPSKILL increased literacy scores on Prose/Document Use
by about 12 points immediately after LES training.
For those assessed more than a year after enrolment, this
increased up to 23 points, or nearly a half level.
Mean Impacts: Change in Document Use Scores
Outcome Group Group Impact Standard Error
Document Use Met or surpassed industry standard (%)Immediate post-training assessment 12.8 2.2 10.6 *** (3.4)
SurpassSecond post-training assessment 16.4 -1.8 18.2 *** (5.7)
Met or surpassed industry standard (%)Mean scores among those with assessments
SurpassLess than 6 months after enrolment 15.8 3.9 11.9 ** (5.1)
% meeting6 to 12 months after enrolment 12.7 4.9 7.8 * (4.3)
% below, but approachingGreater than 12 months after enrolment 16.1 -6.8 22.9 *** (6.6)
Program Control Difference-in-Difference
Participating workers were 22 per cent more likely to have
literacy scores at the level required for their jobs (Level 3).
0.2
-1.2
1.6
-1.4
0.7
-5.6
-6.4
-1.6
-7.9
21.5
-15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Lower Level 1 (<180)
Upper Level 1 (180 to 224)
Lower Level 2 (225-249)
Upper Level 2 (250-274)
Level 3 (275+)
At Enrolment/Baseline
Follow-up at 6 Months orLess
***
*
**
*
Percentage of sample
For the average employer with 15 participants, this translates into
an additional 3-4 employees with literacy levels they need.
Job Performance
Does Essential Skills Training lead to measurable
impacts on Job Performance?
• The Performance measures are based on industry expectations in the national standards for certification
• Observational measures taken on-site by industry assessors
• Very high standards for certification – requires min. of 85%
• Surpassed ( ≈ 95-100 %)
• Met ( ≈ 85-95 %)
• Below, but approaching ( ≈ 65-85%)
• Far below ( ≈ below 65%)
• Standards cover all of the core business needs of interest to employers in the Tourism sector
Participating workers were 20 percentage points more likely to meet industry standards for guest relations
Customer greetings
Addressing questions
Complaint resolution
For the average business with 15 participants, this translates into 3 additional employees performing at high
standards.
***
***
***
***
***
Participating workers were 15 percentage points more likely to surpass industry standards in productivity
Time management
Effective Teamwork
Organizing workspace
For the average business with 15 participants, this translates into 2 additional employees performing at high
standards.
***
**
Improvements in health and safety were achieved through performance gains in safe working practices.
Emergency preparedness
Avoiding injury, safe lifting
Safely handling chemicals
UPSKILL participants were 15 percentage points more likely to surpass standards in work safety after training
*
*
Overall, LES Training has resulted in significantly higher success rates for participants on industry certification.
In addition to positive effects for employers, this may reinforce participants future training goals, career paths,
and employment prospects.
Employment and Earnings
Does UPSKILL training produce financial gains for participants in terms of employment and earnings?
LES Training increased job retention by 8 percentage points
and employment rates by about 6 percentage points
within the year following training.
91%
83%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
ProgramGroup
ControlGroup
Working with the sameEmployer as baseline (%)
Working with a different Employer
Unemployment Spell Out of the Labour Force
Impacts on Firms
Do gains in Essential Skills and job performance lead to
measurable effects on business outcomes?
17.30%
33.40%
19.40%
29.90%
2.30%
14.00%
22.50%
61.30%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Large Increase Medium Increase Small Increase No Changes
Guest Satisfaction Ratings: Departmental Services (room cleanliness, check-in/out)
Program Group
Control Group**
*
***
3.03 + % 1.21 to < 3.03% <1.21%
17.65%
41.18%
23.53%17.65%
0.00%
6.67%
20.00%
73.33%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Large Reduction MediumReduction
Small Reduction No Changes
Service Recovery: Guest Complaints
Program Group
Control Group
5+ per week 2-3 per week 1 or less per week
**
***
***
11.40%
19.20% 17.10%
52.30%
0.00%
22.70% 18.00%
60.20%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Large Increase Medium Increase Small Increase No Changes
Revenue Change linked to Performance Change:Average Occupancy Rates
Program Group
Control Group
**
(3.19 to 5.11 %) (1.28 to < 3.19 %) (>0 to <1.28%)
4.70%
25.10%21.30%
49.50%
1.00%
17.60%21.10%
60.30%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
Large Increase Medium Increase Small Increase No Changes
Revenue Change linked to Performance Change: Food and Beverage Revenue
Program Group
Control Group*
(2.9 + %) (1.1 to < 2.9 %) (>0 to <1.1%)
Lower Supervisory costs
Reduction in supervisor time spent monitoring, correcting errors
Mean impact: 6 hours per week saved in program group firms
Distributional:
◦ 35% 12+ hours, 25% 5-8 hours, 40% no changes
Average Savings: $3,510 in cost savings over the follow-up
Lower Hiring costs
From increased retention of participants
Mean impact: 8.5 percent point increase in retention in program group firms
For an average firm of 15 participants this represents 1 foregone hire
Cost Savings: approximately $4,400 in cost savings
Return on Investment
What are the returns from investments in LES training
for workers, firms, and government?
Participants Firms
Government
Budgets Society
Participant Impacts
Employment and Earnings + - 0 +
Transfer payments: EI, welfare - 0 + 0
Tax payments - 0 + 0
Other Household Income, Tax Credits +/- 0 0 +/-
Firm Effects
Sales Revenue: Occupancy rates, Ancillary spending 0 + 0 +
Productivity: Task Efficiency/Staff Time 0 + 0 +
Changes in Direct Costs: Inventories/Supplies 0 + 0 +
Health and Safety: Sick Leave/Absenteeism 0 + 0 +
HR: Hiring Costs/Retention 0 +/- 0 +/-
Taxes: Sales, Payroll, Corporate 0 - + 0
Program Delivery Costs
UPSKILL Program Delivery 0 0 - -
UPSKILL Release Time 0 - - -
Other Transfer Program Administrative costs 0 0 + +
Benchmark Model: Benefit/Cost per Participant ($) +/- +/- +/- +/-
Return on Investment (ROI) (%) +/- +/- +/- +/-
Financial Components (Fully-monetized)
Perspective
Participants Firms
Government
Budgets Society
Participant Impacts
Employment and Earnings 948 -862 86
Transfer payments: EI, welfare -165 165 0
Tax payments -191 191 0
Other Household Income, Tax Credits
Firm Effects
Sales Revenue: Occupancy rates, Ancillary revenue 2282 0 2282
Productivity: Task Efficiency/Staff Time 1347 0 1347
Changes in Direct Costs: Inventories/Supplies 0 0 0
Health and Safety: Absenteeism/Presenteeism 0 0 0
HR: Hiring Costs/Retention 234 0 234
Taxes: Sales, Payroll, Corporate -692 692 0
Program Delivery Costs
UPSKILL Program Delivery 0 -1781 -1781
UPSKILL Release Time -27 -235 -235 -497
Other Transfer Program Administrative costs 0 0 0
Benchmark Model: Benefit/Cost per Participant ($) 565 2074 -1118 1671
Return on Investment (ROI) (%) 2,093% 883% -54% 73%
Financial Components (Fully-monetized)
Perspective
Participants Firms
Government
Budgets Society
Participant Impacts
Employment and Earnings 948 -862 86
Transfer payments: EI, welfare -165 165 0
Tax payments -191 191 0
Other Household Income, Tax Credits
Firm Effects
Sales Revenue: Occupancy rates, Ancillary revenue 2282 0 2282
Productivity: Task Efficiency/Staff Time 1347 0 1347
Changes in Direct Costs: Inventories/Supplies 0 0 0
Health and Safety: Absenteeism/Presenteeism 0 0 0
HR: Hiring Costs/Retention 234 0 234
Taxes: Sales, Payroll, Corporate -188 188 0
Program Delivery Costs
UPSKILL Program Delivery 0 -1781 0 -1781
UPSKILL Release Time -27 -470 0 -497
Other Transfer Program Administrative costs 0 0 0
Benchmark Model: Benefit/Cost per Participant ($) 565 562 544 1671
Return on Investment (ROI) (%) 2,093% 25% + 73%
Perspective
Financial Components (Fully-monetized)
Participants Firms
Government
Budgets Society
Participant Impacts
Employment and Earnings 948 -862 86
Transfer payments: EI, welfare -165 165 0
Tax payments -191 191 0
Other Household Income, Tax Credits
Firm Effects
Sales Revenue: Occupancy rates, Ancillary revenue 2282 0 2282
Productivity: Task Efficiency/Staff Time 1347 0 1347
Changes in Direct Costs: Inventories/Supplies 0 0 0
Health and Safety: Absenteeism/Presenteeism 0 0 0
HR: Hiring Costs/Retention 234 0 234
Taxes: Sales, Payroll, Corporate -484 484 0
Program Delivery Costs
UPSKILL Program Delivery 0 -594 -1187 -1781
UPSKILL Release Time -27 -470 0 -497
Other Transfer Program Administrative costs 0 0 0
Benchmark Model: Benefit/Cost per Participant ($) 565 1453 -347 1671
Return on Investment (ROI) (%) 2,093% 137% -29% 73%
Perspective
Financial Components (Fully-monetized)
Participants Firms
Government
Budgets Society
Participant Impacts
Employment and Earnings 948 -862 86
Transfer payments: EI, welfare -165 165 0
Tax payments -191 191 0
Other Household Income, Tax Credits
Firm Effects
Sales Revenue: Occupancy rates, Ancillary revenue 2282 0 2282
Productivity: Task Efficiency/Staff Time 1347 0 1347
Changes in Direct Costs: Inventories/Supplies 0 0 0
Health and Safety: Absenteeism/Presenteeism 0 0 0
HR: Hiring Costs/Retention 234 0 234
Taxes: Sales, Payroll, Corporate -369 369 0
Program Delivery Costs
UPSKILL Program Delivery 0 -1056 -725 -1781
UPSKILL Release Time -27 -470 0 -497
Other Transfer Program Administrative costs 0 0 0
Benchmark Model: Benefit/Cost per Participant ($) 565 1106 0 1671
Return on Investment (ROI) (%) 2,093% 72% 0 73%
Perspective
Financial Components (Fully-monetized)
Explanatory Analysis
Under what conditions do investments in LES make sense?
How do impacts vary based on contextual and
delivery factors?
Impacts vary by context in several policy relevant ways
Participant Characteristics, at enrolment
- Skills gaps: target where its needed - larger need, larger returns
- Motivation : affects degree of engagement in learning activities
- Trust: influences whether and how new skills are utilized on job
- Social capital: provides more opportunities for learning and support
Impacts vary by context in several policy relevant ways
Business Characteristics, at enrolment
- Breadth of business needs – greater need, greater return
- Link from skills to performance – have a clear transfer plan
- A learning culture – have additional supports for training
Implementation Process, Training Dosage
- Alignment – effectively matching training with business needs
- Dosage – higher number of contact hours, larger gains
Performance impacts are driven by gains among those with low Essential Skills at baseline (Level 1 Document use)
Standard
Performance and Skill GAINS, by Baseline Skill Level Group Group Impact
Job performance
Met or surpassed industry standards (%)
Level 1 10.4 -4.0 14.5 ** (6.9)
Level 2 11.8 9.8 2.0 (6.3)
Document Use Score
First post-training assessment (1-6 months)
Level 1 34.4 20.6 13.7 *** (3.9)
Level 2 0.3 -8.3 8.7 * (4.8)
Second post-training assessment (9-18 months)
Level 1 35.5 28.0 7.5 (8.0)
Level 2 3.0 -10.6 13.6 * (7.2)
Program Control
Error
Performance impacts and longer run skills gains are experienced by only those with higher levels of trust at baseline
Standard
Performance and Skill GAINS, by Levels of Trust Group Group Impact
Workplace performance
Met or surpassed expectations (%)
Low Levels of Trust 6.9 5.1 1.8 (7.0)
High Levels of Trust 18.8 1.0 17.7 *** (6.1)
Document Use / Prose
First post-training assessment (1-6 months)
Low Levels of Trust 15.6 1.4 14.2 *** (4.5)
High Levels of Trust 14.4 -0.8 15.2 *** (3.8)
Second post-training assessment (9-18 months)
Low Levels of Trust 9.5 -1.7 11.2 (7.7)
High Levels of Trust 12.3 -7.1 19.4 *** (6.6)
Program Control
Error
Skills and performance impacts are larger in firms with a pre-existing culture of training
Standard
Performance and Skill GAINS, by Training Culture Group Group Impact
Workplace performance
Met or surpassed expectations (%)
Training Expenditures, low 16.9 -2.9 19.7 ** (9.3)
Training Expenditures, high 15.6 -8.0 23.5 *** (9.0)
Training Expenditures unknown 6.9 4.2 2.7 (5.7)
Document Use Scores
Immediate post-training assessment (1-9) months
Training Expenditures, low 13.5 5.6 8.0 (7.2)
Training Expenditures, high 17.7 -2.7 20.4 *** (4.7)
Training Expenditures unknown 10.5 2.9 7.7 ** (3.8)
Second post-training assessment (1-9) months
Training Expenditures, low 14.7 -0.8 15.5 (11.0)
Training Expenditures, high 12.1 -14.3 26.4 *** (7.9)
Training Expenditures unknown 15.5 12.3 3.2 (6.3)
Program Control
Error
Participants Firms
Government
Budgets Society
Participant Impacts
Employment and Earnings 142 -129 13
Transfer payments: EI, welfare -25 25 0
Tax payments -29 29 0
Other Household Income, Tax Credits
Firm Effects
Sales Revenue: Occupancy rates, Ancillary revenue 342 0 342
Productivity: Task Efficiency/Staff Time 0 0 0
Changes in Direct Costs: Inventories/Supplies 0 0 0
Health and Safety: Absenteeism/Presenteeism 0 0 0
HR: Hiring Costs/Retention 0 0 0
Taxes: Sales, Payroll, Corporate 0 0 0
Program Delivery Costs
UPSKILL Program Delivery 0 -1781 0 -1781
UPSKILL Release Time -27 -470 0 -497
Other Transfer Program Administrative costs 0 0 0
Benchmark Model: Benefit/Cost per Participant ($) 61 -2,038 54 -1923
Return on Investment (ROI) (%) 225% -91% + -84%
Perspective
Financial Components (Fully-monetized)
Participants Firms
Government
Budgets Society
Participant Impacts
Employment and Earnings 1777 -1617 160
Transfer payments: EI, welfare -310 310 0
Tax payments -462 462 0
Other Household Income, Tax Credits
Firm Effects
Sales Revenue: Occupancy rates, Ancillary revenue 4110 0 4110
Productivity: Task Efficiency/Staff Time 2660 0 2660
Changes in Direct Costs: Inventories/Supplies 0 0 0
Health and Safety: Absenteeism/Presenteeism 0 0 0
HR: Hiring Costs/Retention 465 0 465
Taxes: Sales, Payroll, Corporate -842 842 0
Program Delivery Costs
UPSKILL Program Delivery 0 -1781 0 -1781
UPSKILL Release Time -27 -470 0 -497
Other Transfer Program Administrative costs 0 0 0
Benchmark Model: Benefit/Cost per Participant ($) 978 2525 1614 5117
Return on Investment (ROI) (%) + 113% + 227%
Perspective
Financial Components (Fully-monetized)
Is the offer of workplace LES training attractive to firms?
Yes, there were high take-up rates, low withdrawals, and a very high degree of satisfaction with training
Key to its attractiveness is embedding LES in a familiar performance framework and aligning with business needs
However, hours of training delivered were half (20 hours) of what was offered due to ongoing business constraints
For more intensive training needs, one should supplement an instructor-led model with other approaches
e.g. ES with mentorship training, which lowers release time
Does workplace LES training improve worker outcomes?
Yes, there were large sustainable gains in Essential Skills and job performance
Increased job retention, employment rates, and earnings, are observed at least in the short-term
Improvements in psychological and social capital that help both reinforce skill gains and broader well being
Does workplace LES training improve firm outcomes?
Yes, there were large gains in most business areas of interest to employers
◦ Improved customer relations leading to increased revenue
◦ Increased productivity leading to reduced labour costs
◦ Increased job retention leading to reduced hiring costs
This is accompanied by several gains in non-financial measures related to worker morale and motivation
Does workplace LES training generate positive ROI?
Yes, returns were substantial for employees who bear few costs under this model
Average returns for firms were also high at about 25 percent, even when they bear the FULL costs of training
However, impacts and returns vary based on context and conditions among workers and firms
What are some of the conditions for success, which produce larger impacts and ROI ?
Key factors include depth of business needs, training readiness, and receptivity to learning
Impacts are substantial when performance needs are large i.e. clear performance gaps exist, breadth of business needs
Impacts are larger when training readiness is high i.e. firm has existing culture of learning, plan to utilize training
Impacts are larger with more receptive learners i.e. level of trust and motivation among learners is high
| BC CENTRE FOR EMPLOYMENT EXCELLENCE 79
Q & A
Thank you!
top related