In what ways might theoretical models of training evaluation be difficult to put

into practice? Illustrate your answer by making reference to your chosen

organisation.

There are many theoretical models concerned with training evaluation. The scope
of the models vary, some are focused solely on the training already conducted,
other are also concerned with the preliminary stages which precede the training
or/and try to determine whether the training is (was) actually the most suitable
instrument to tackle organizational deficiencies.

In general there are some issues which may prove difficult when dealing with the
models in practice.

Firstly it might be difficult to determine who should carry out the evaluation.

For instance the training of security officers at CSP lies almost solely with the line
managers, so in order to obtain a relevant outcome the evaluation shouldn’t be
carried out by the line management since they might be reluctant to reveal or
admit the shortcomings of the training.

A candidate for the evaluation could be the contract manager (the immediate
superior to the line manager), however his personal and work relationship with
the line manager may one way or another seriously bias the outcome too. For
instance there may crop up seemingly more important issues than the training,
and the contract manager may task the line manager to deal with other issues
compromising the training. Such direct intervention then would be difficult to
reflect and incorporate into the evaluation, besides this interference of work
related issues into the training and evaluation process compromises also the
desirable continuity and consistency of training evaluation.

An ideal person could appear to be an independent (external) evaluator, however

as an outsider he may struggle to recognize the wider picture and complexity of
issues relevant to the to training process.

Anyhow the role of the line manager as a trainer at CSP is not optional, so
despite the fact that most of the theoretical models don’t presume the line
manager to be also trainer the application of a model would have to be aptly
adjusted to this arrangement.

Secondly it might be difficult to determine which model to use and how much
resources should be allocated for the evaluation.

Criteria for choosing a model of evaluation could be the availability of resources

(time and competence of the relevant people) or/and a presumption that a
particular part of the training process is not fully functional.
Yet it may be difficult to estimate and allocate amount of time and other
resources beforehand. This may be particularly an issue when the evaluator is an
insider (like the line manager at CSP) since his commitment to the evaluation
may be compromised by his other work commitments.

A problem also could be to match a model of evaluation and techniques used with
a particular training. There are various types of trainings – induction trainings,
trainings which maintains the current state or trainings which introduce and
implement a brand new way of doing things.
Each training require a different approach and apply a different set of techniques.
A separate issue at CSP could be a lack of competence and insufficient support
given to the line managers. This might compromise the training evaluation from
the very outset, since for instance the training needs might not be established
correctly.

Another issues which could distort the training evaluation is a lack of motivation
of the trainer and trainees and the organizational culture. This can have multiple
effects on the training and evaluation process, however to quantify and
distinguish these factors from the training itself may be difficult. This can be the
case at CSP with the organizational culture not supportive to communication,
dysfunctional system of appraising and sub-standard personal development
planning.