Dear all
Before the closure of the training programmes, the companies circulate the feedback form. Earlier hard copies of the forms were circulated, nowadays e-forms are circulated. Mode of feedback apart, I have observed that the method and the questions in the form have remained the same.
𝘍𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘵𝘸𝘰-𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘺. 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘦𝘵𝘤., 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯.
My comments on the points on which rating is taken from the participants are as below:
a) 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞: - The course structure should be decided in consultation with the HOD of the participants. If not HOD, then it could be the Director, MD etc. Why ask participants about the course structure? Are they mature enough to decide on the course structure?
b) 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭: - The course contents should be derived from the needs of the organisation. Before organising the training programme, the authorities from HR or Training Department or the function head should be taken into confidence on how the course contents will meet the needs of the organisation. Therefore, the rating on this count is also not required.
c) 𝐃𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐒𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫/ 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐢𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐣𝐨𝐛 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬? - This could be the weirdest question. If the training programme were not to meet the requirements of the current job, then should the HR/Training department organise the training programme at all? Why at all are they taking risks by organising a training programme if they are unsure about its efficacy?
d) 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐞𝐰? - The HOD or the Director/MD is expected to know about the level of the knowledge of the participants. Why organise the training programme, if the participants were not to learn something new?
𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬: - The employee training is conducted to:
e) reduce some cost
f) reduce consumption of resources
g) reduce the turnaround time of some process
h) increase/decrease some ratio
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 (𝘦) 𝘵𝘰 (𝘩) 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦. Based on the goal statement, the trainer/faculty should design the course structure. After the training programme, feedback may or may not be taken. However, after three or six or twelve months a measurement must be done on whether the goal statement of the programme was achieved or not. In fact, right when the circular about the training programme is issued it is important to communicate when the effectiveness will be measured, how it will be measured and whose responsibility it will be to provide evidence of the implementation of learning.
𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦.
Thanks,
𝑫𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒉 𝑫𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒌𝒂𝒓
From India, Bangalore
7879Before the closure of the training programmes, the companies circulate the feedback form. Earlier hard copies of the forms were circulated, nowadays e-forms are circulated. Mode of feedback apart, I have observed that the method and the questions in the form have remained the same.
𝘍𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘵𝘸𝘰-𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘺. 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘦𝘵𝘤., 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯.
My comments on the points on which rating is taken from the participants are as below:
a) 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞: - The course structure should be decided in consultation with the HOD of the participants. If not HOD, then it could be the Director, MD etc. Why ask participants about the course structure? Are they mature enough to decide on the course structure?
b) 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭: - The course contents should be derived from the needs of the organisation. Before organising the training programme, the authorities from HR or Training Department or the function head should be taken into confidence on how the course contents will meet the needs of the organisation. Therefore, the rating on this count is also not required.
c) 𝐃𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐒𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫/ 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐢𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐣𝐨𝐛 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬? - This could be the weirdest question. If the training programme were not to meet the requirements of the current job, then should the HR/Training department organise the training programme at all? Why at all are they taking risks by organising a training programme if they are unsure about its efficacy?
d) 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐞𝐰? - The HOD or the Director/MD is expected to know about the level of the knowledge of the participants. Why organise the training programme, if the participants were not to learn something new?
𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬: - The employee training is conducted to:
e) reduce some cost
f) reduce consumption of resources
g) reduce the turnaround time of some process
h) increase/decrease some ratio
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 (𝘦) 𝘵𝘰 (𝘩) 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦. Based on the goal statement, the trainer/faculty should design the course structure. After the training programme, feedback may or may not be taken. However, after three or six or twelve months a measurement must be done on whether the goal statement of the programme was achieved or not. In fact, right when the circular about the training programme is issued it is important to communicate when the effectiveness will be measured, how it will be measured and whose responsibility it will be to provide evidence of the implementation of learning.
𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦.
Thanks,
𝑫𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒉 𝑫𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒌𝒂𝒓
From India, Bangalore
Yes, the "happy sheets" at the end of a course have always intrigued me. Quite a lot of them for courses I have done over the years were abysmal to say the least. Others, of course, were designed solely to get the answers they wanted, not the truth!
When I was running training courses, I was constrained by what the company employing me wanted, and I had no say in the matter. Sometimes if there was no feedback form, I would initiate a short discussion with a few prompting questions. That seemed to elicit more honest feedback, and trainees found it easier to talk about it rather than have to write something down.
People are reluctant to criticise or make adverse comments, but in my view we need to know those things so we can tailor our training style to meet the needs of our trainees. We are paid to impart new skills, or reinforce existing ones, and we fail if a trainee leaves our training room not knowing much more than they did when they walked in the door that morning.
From Australia, Melbourne
When I was running training courses, I was constrained by what the company employing me wanted, and I had no say in the matter. Sometimes if there was no feedback form, I would initiate a short discussion with a few prompting questions. That seemed to elicit more honest feedback, and trainees found it easier to talk about it rather than have to write something down.
People are reluctant to criticise or make adverse comments, but in my view we need to know those things so we can tailor our training style to meet the needs of our trainees. We are paid to impart new skills, or reinforce existing ones, and we fail if a trainee leaves our training room not knowing much more than they did when they walked in the door that morning.
From Australia, Melbourne
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
KLC Thoughts - 7.JPG
Thoughts.zip
Daily Thoughts.ppt