| Return on investment for pre-mission briefings
Click here to download the complete document in PDF format The literature on corporate human resource development suggests that three things are needed to calculate return on investment; the cost of the training, the dollar value of the improvement of performance, and a convincing causal story that links improvement to the training. In the private sector it is often possible to link return on investment to the balance sheet. For example, if cross-cultural training is proven to reduce the number of grievances on an assembly line, and if the cost of the training is less than the financial benefit of avoiding those grievances, then the training is worth it. It is possible to extend this type of analysis into the public sector where the value of the ‘product’ is often unknown or unknowable. What is required is that we assume that the product is of sufficient value to justify the cost of its production. For example, if training can increase the efficiency of processing citizenship applications to an extent that is greater than the cost of training, then the investment is justified. The value of processing citizenship applications is assumed. The issue that we face is that, unlike the first example, our product is of unknown and perhaps unknowable value, and unlike the second example, our training is not in support of a discrete process. In the first case where there are cars at the end of the assembly line and in the second where there is a stack of processed applications, we have strengthened democracy in another country and increased efficiency of skills transfer. It may be difficult to attach a dollar value to democracy in another country or conclusively identify the impact of our training on the success of skills transfer. Though these constraints may limit the power of the analysis an evaluation method developed in the private sector may be appropriate. The basic model for assessing the impact of training used in the private sector is Kirkpatrick's four level approach. His model, which looks at smile sheets, learning, application and results, seems to be fairly broadly accepted. For the purposes of this investigation we will be relying on an extension of Kirkpatrick developed by Phillips (1995 various). Phillips proposes the following levels of evaluation: .... |