Jochen Robes über Bildung, Lernen und Trends

OpEd: ROI vs. Metrics

Es ist nicht ganz leicht, die Begriffe und den Gegensatz ins Deutsche zu übertragen, aber im Kern argumentiert Jay Cross gegen ein Bildungscontrolling, dass immer noch zu viel Energie in die Beantwortung von Fragen investiert, die keinen interessieren (sollten).

How I wish I had $10 for every time I’ve heard a training manager lament that they cannot separate the impact of training from everything else that was happening in the organization. I’ve even heard some trainers suggest using a control group, having a number of employees go untrained. Forget that idea; the Hawthorne effect* would skew the results. (*In a classic experiment in the 30s at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works, researchers found that workers were more productive when they cut the lights up. Also, when they cut the lights down! Conclusion: Workers are more productive if you pay attention to them. Placebos work.)

Ist mir aus der Seele gesprochen! Die Suche nach dem Ansatz, der uns den ROI eines oder aller Trainings liefert, ist Zeitverschwendung! Stattdessen sollten wir endlich anerkennen, dass „the sponsor decides what markers constitute proof„. Jay Cross schlägt deshalb „Performance agreements“ vor:

The best proof describes quantitatively the link between your learning initiative and business results, using assumptions your sponsor will buy into and explicitly stating the what-ifs and maybes. Do this in writing, in a performance agreement that
– provides a shared understanding of the problem to be solved
– describes what you intend to provide in its solution
– estimates the expected increase in profit and the step to get there
– sets out a way to assess whether the goal was accomplished or not
– lays the foundation for solving the next problem.
This sort of agreement will show that you understand the business and that you’re on the same page as your sponsor.

Couldn’t agree more.
Jay Cross, LearningCircuits, April 2004
[Kategorien: Bildungscontrolling]