The Use To most organisations, the benefits of buying ongoing staff training are generally clear. They include:
Process improvements: reduced duplication involving effort, less time wasted correcting mistakes, faster access to information, etc.
Cost cost savings: lower staff turnover, lower recruitment costs; reduction in financial obligations; reduced customer support message or calls; reduced help desk phones; reduced need for supervision; reduced downtime; increased staff productivity; fewer machine breakdowns; lower maintenance costs, etc.
Improved profitability: increased sales; more referrals due to raised customer service; new product ideas; improved customer full satisfaction and retention, etc.
Effectiveness improvement: in quality, amount, speed, safety, problem clearing up, etc.
Behavioural improvements: in attitude, ethics, motivation, leadership, communication, reduced staff struggle, etc.
Increased staff pleasure: Well trained staff tend to be happier, stay longer, and are more loyal.
Furthermore, research undertaken to uncover the financial impact for an organisation of investing in staff training shows a clear and quantifiable link involving an above average investment in staff training and superior bottom line performance:
Based on pursue a career investments of 575 companies during a 3-year period, researchers found that firms investing probably the most in training and advancement (measured by comprehensive investment per employee together with percentage of total gross payroll) yielded a 36. 9% total shareholder return compared with the 25. 5% weighted return for the S&P 500 index for the same period. [1]
Firms that invest $1, 500 per employee in training (per annum) compared with people who spend $125 experience typically 24% higher gross income and 218% higher revenue per employee. [2]
Just a 2% increase in productivity has been shown to net a 100% return on investment in training. [3]
Some sort of Louis Harris and Affiliates poll reports that concerning employees with "poor" exercising opportunities, 41% planned to leave just a year, whereas of people considered their company's training opportunities to become "excellent", only 12% planned to leave within the same period.
So, if we accept that findings above that help the case for investing in a formal staff training program, how does one attempt identifying staff training requirements and putting a suitable program in place?
Enter The Staff Skills Exam:
If a company's tactical plan involves doubling this workforce size within 3 years and opening two innovative divisions during that time period, then you would hope that company's HR Management team possess a good handle on what skills this company currently has, and what new skills it requires to obtain to ensure that the company to meet its business objectives. Consequently, a staff skills audit (uncovering current situation) and training must have analysis (guiding future direction) is a vital first step with obtaining company-wide quantitative data on which skills an organisation's workforce currently has, and (good company's business objectives) where the skills gaps lie.
Whilst conducting face-to-face meetings which has a select few staff members to debate training requirements, or ensuring training needs are raised with staff at their annual effectiveness reviews can both be a worthwhile exercise, neither approach will give you an accurate company-wide picture in the organisation's skills status and future training requirements at one stage. As such, an annual or bi-annual internet staff training needs survey has become an increasingly popular method to address this requirement.
When assessed against the alternatives of paper-based and also face-to-face training needs test surveys, we find the online approach has several clear advantages. These comprise:
1. Speed and simplicity of reporting: online survey email address particulars are generated instantly, and anyone given authorisation can access the outcome from any web browser on the globe, at any time, with the data securely held with encrypted servers. If the same customer survey is used results is usually compared from month to month, or year to year to help spot trends and help with budgeting and planning. The internet approach also saves serious time with distributing together with administering the survey being a survey link is simply e-mailed to employees.
2. Data entry time/expense/errors: the internet survey quickly stores the exact data and scoring accessed by each employee. Management's info entry requirement is removed.
3. High cost: compared with the paper or face-to-face alternatives, the online TNA process has been shown to cost as much 80% less, and reduce decision making time by around 90%.
4. Consistency: when a decentralised, verbal training needs examination system is replaced by a centralised online process, pursue a career survey issued is the same for all employees together with comparison of like-for-like results made easy.
5. Job interviewer bias or interpretation blunders: the 'interview' is in the form of an online survey and what the employee types is exactly what HR report on.
Process improvements: reduced duplication involving effort, less time wasted correcting mistakes, faster access to information, etc.
Cost cost savings: lower staff turnover, lower recruitment costs; reduction in financial obligations; reduced customer support message or calls; reduced help desk phones; reduced need for supervision; reduced downtime; increased staff productivity; fewer machine breakdowns; lower maintenance costs, etc.
Improved profitability: increased sales; more referrals due to raised customer service; new product ideas; improved customer full satisfaction and retention, etc.
Effectiveness improvement: in quality, amount, speed, safety, problem clearing up, etc.
Behavioural improvements: in attitude, ethics, motivation, leadership, communication, reduced staff struggle, etc.
Increased staff pleasure: Well trained staff tend to be happier, stay longer, and are more loyal.
Furthermore, research undertaken to uncover the financial impact for an organisation of investing in staff training shows a clear and quantifiable link involving an above average investment in staff training and superior bottom line performance:
Based on pursue a career investments of 575 companies during a 3-year period, researchers found that firms investing probably the most in training and advancement (measured by comprehensive investment per employee together with percentage of total gross payroll) yielded a 36. 9% total shareholder return compared with the 25. 5% weighted return for the S&P 500 index for the same period. [1]
Firms that invest $1, 500 per employee in training (per annum) compared with people who spend $125 experience typically 24% higher gross income and 218% higher revenue per employee. [2]
Just a 2% increase in productivity has been shown to net a 100% return on investment in training. [3]
Some sort of Louis Harris and Affiliates poll reports that concerning employees with "poor" exercising opportunities, 41% planned to leave just a year, whereas of people considered their company's training opportunities to become "excellent", only 12% planned to leave within the same period.
So, if we accept that findings above that help the case for investing in a formal staff training program, how does one attempt identifying staff training requirements and putting a suitable program in place?
Enter The Staff Skills Exam:
If a company's tactical plan involves doubling this workforce size within 3 years and opening two innovative divisions during that time period, then you would hope that company's HR Management team possess a good handle on what skills this company currently has, and what new skills it requires to obtain to ensure that the company to meet its business objectives. Consequently, a staff skills audit (uncovering current situation) and training must have analysis (guiding future direction) is a vital first step with obtaining company-wide quantitative data on which skills an organisation's workforce currently has, and (good company's business objectives) where the skills gaps lie.
Whilst conducting face-to-face meetings which has a select few staff members to debate training requirements, or ensuring training needs are raised with staff at their annual effectiveness reviews can both be a worthwhile exercise, neither approach will give you an accurate company-wide picture in the organisation's skills status and future training requirements at one stage. As such, an annual or bi-annual internet staff training needs survey has become an increasingly popular method to address this requirement.
When assessed against the alternatives of paper-based and also face-to-face training needs test surveys, we find the online approach has several clear advantages. These comprise:
1. Speed and simplicity of reporting: online survey email address particulars are generated instantly, and anyone given authorisation can access the outcome from any web browser on the globe, at any time, with the data securely held with encrypted servers. If the same customer survey is used results is usually compared from month to month, or year to year to help spot trends and help with budgeting and planning. The internet approach also saves serious time with distributing together with administering the survey being a survey link is simply e-mailed to employees.
2. Data entry time/expense/errors: the internet survey quickly stores the exact data and scoring accessed by each employee. Management's info entry requirement is removed.
3. High cost: compared with the paper or face-to-face alternatives, the online TNA process has been shown to cost as much 80% less, and reduce decision making time by around 90%.
4. Consistency: when a decentralised, verbal training needs examination system is replaced by a centralised online process, pursue a career survey issued is the same for all employees together with comparison of like-for-like results made easy.
5. Job interviewer bias or interpretation blunders: the 'interview' is in the form of an online survey and what the employee types is exactly what HR report on.