Are we doing the right thing? Food for thought on training evaluation and its context

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to advance the debate regarding the use of training evaluation tools, chiefly the Kirkpatrick model, in reaction to minimal use of the tools reported in the literature and the economic changes that have characterised the industrialised world in the past 20 years.

Design/methodology/approach

The main argument – the need to design new evaluation tools – emerges from an extensive literature review of criticism of the Kirkpatrick model. The approach is deductive; the argument emerges from extant literature.

Findings

The main findings of the literature review show that the major criticisms of the Kirkpatrick model, though rigorous, are not relevant in today's post‐industrial economy. Issues of complexity, accuracy and refinement, which are relevant in stable industrial organisations, must be revised in the new economic world.

Research limitations/implications

This paper is based on a literature review and presents a call for new research. As such, it is not grounded in original empirical evidence, beyond that presented in the cited articles.

Practical implications

The paper calls for training evaluation tools that align better with modern organisational reality. If the research community responds to this call, the results will benefit practitioners directly. This paper also presents practical advice about the use of existing evaluation techniques.

Originality/value

A new angle on criticisms of existing training evaluation systems does not reiterate classic criticisms based on logic and mathematics but rather takes a pragmatic and economic approach. Thus, this paper offers evidence of theoretically grounded paradoxes of the consequences of existing criticisms of training evaluation.

Citation

Giangreco, A., Carugati, A. and Sebastiano, A. (2010), "Are we doing the right thing? Food for thought on training evaluation and its context", Personnel Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 162-177. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481011017390