In fact, training is a systematic project, which involves many things in all aspects of training effect. It's not a question of whether a class is done well. Please refer to the following figure:
For example, a company once asked me to do executive training, and I made a telephone survey of managers. I asked him, why do you need this training? He said it was because the company's execution was insufficient. I asked what happened, so you feel that the execution is insufficient? He said that there was no cooperation between teams (it sounded like cross-departmental communication and teamwork, not execution), and I then asked him what was going on. What do you think of teamwork? He replied that the finance department and the front-line business department always quarrel, almost every day. I said that since they quarrel every day, can you tell me what they are arguing about and what is the content? He said that they are sales agents, and the finance department will go to the sales department to collect money before 3: 30 to 5: 00 every day. Note that electronic payment was not so advanced at that time, and business outlets would collect a lot of cash. The people in the sales department hope that the people in the finance department will not collect money so early, because customers often check the house after dinner, so the peak time for them to collect cash is seven or eight in the evening, while the people in the finance department think that the bank is closed at five, so they don't need to work overtime to collect so much cash. The sales department feels that it is very risky to put cash in the business outlets every day. So the sales department and the finance department quarrel about it every day. I found it very funny after listening to it. This is a matter that needs reasonable improvement in the process of management and operation. It has nothing to do with the training of "execution". It's not that employees are unwilling to communicate well and have no communication skills, nor that employees have no execution. It is very problematic to design the process without considering the difficulties of both parties, and training can't solve it.
Suppose I didn't do research at that time, but I just received this request to do training for enterprises. This kind of training will not have any effect.
In addition, regarding the evaluation of training effect, there are the following examples for your reference.
1. Don't evaluate for evaluation's sake. Doing business is not academic research. It is meaningless to invest 1 million in research and evaluation, and the training effect is 2 million.
2. Unilateral ex post evaluation is meaningless. When designing a training program, there should be a goal in advance, and the evaluation after training should be based on it.
3. People are not machines, so it is impossible to completely decompose and evaluate them. Instead of desperately decomposing the role of "training" in an organizational development project, it is better to simply make an overall evaluation of the project. After all, the boss cares about the final performance, not part of it. Trying to decompose the performance of so-called training is the performance of training managers' technical fanaticism or self-entertainment.
4. Finally, I want to say that the performance is there with or without evaluation. Don't forget, the initial intention of training and learning is actually to cultivate the ability of the organization to realize its strategy.