MODELS OF EFFICIENCY EVALUATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OF EMPLOYEES' COMPETENCES

Keywords: competences, learning objectives, curriculum effectiveness, curriculum evaluation, assessment models

Abstract

Introduction. Staff competence is a strategic resource of the enterprise. Therefore, personnel management should provide the necessary conditions for their formation and development. An enterprise that operates in accordance with the principle of efficient management should consider the costs and benefits of implementing competency development programs. This means comparing the level of competence of individual employees before and after training. The result of such an audit allows us to identify training programs that are beneficial to employees and effective for the enterprise.

This purpose of the article is to systematize the experience of methods of evaluating the effectiveness of training programs for the development of employees' competences with a view to their perception of domestic practice.

Results. There are two types of competences: the necessary ones that follow from the prepared job profiles and outline the requirements for those who will perform this work in a certain workplace (position); acquired, which employees are acquired and used on the job. Therefore, the main purpose of competency development at the enterprise is to achieve a better match between the necessary and actual levels of competence. Development involves improving the already acquired competences and mastering completely new ones.

Employee competencies are developed in different ways. These are: learning through experience; use of employees as assistants, trainees; preparation in project teams; information and advice received from others (coaching, mentoring, consultations, meetings with experts); conferences, seminars, trainings taking various forms.

The diversity of approaches is explained by the fact that the development needs of each enterprise are different. In addition, the methods used must be adapted to the changing environmental conditions.

The article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the most commonly used enterprise competence development models of performance assessment programs, including the Kirkpatrick model and its modified version by J. Phillips, the CIPP model, and R. Brinkerhoff's "case of success.

Conclusions. In order to ensure that domestic practice of foreign experience is accepted, research into the methodology of assessing the effectiveness of personnel training should move in the direction of systematic decomposition of foreign models and taking into account the peculiarities of the national economy.

References

1. DeSimone R. L., Werner J. M., Harris D. M. (2003). Human resource development. Mason, South Western. [in English].

2. Kirkpatrick D. (1996). Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level-model. Training & Development. № 1. Р. 54-57. [in English].

3. Stufflebeam D. L. (1974). Evaluation perspectives and procedures, w: Evaluation in Education, ed.
W. J. Popham, McCutchan. Berkley. [in English].

4. Warr P., Bird M. & Rackham N. (1970). Evaluation of management training. London: Gower Press. [in English].

5. Brinkerhoff R. O. (2006). Increasing impact of training investments: an evaluation strategy for building organizational learning capability. Industrial and Commercial Training. № 6. V. 38. Р. 302-307. [in English].

6. Bushnell D. S. (1990). Input, process, output: A model for evaluating training. Training and Development Journal. № 44 (3). Р. 41-43. [in English].

7. Kraiger K., Ford J. K. & Salas E. Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology. URL: www.apa (retrieved: 24.04.2020). [in English].

8. Kaufman R., Keller J. and Watkins R. (1996). What Works and What Doesn’t: Evaluation Beyond Kirkpatrick. Performance and Instruction. № 35 (2). Р. 8-12. [in English].

9. Holton E. F. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly. № 7 (1). Р. 5-21. [in English].

10. Phillips J.J. (1996). ROI: the search for Best Practices. Training and Development. Р. 42-47. [in English].

11. Swanson R. A., Holton E. F. (1999). Results: How to assess performance, learning and perceptions in organizations. San Francisco CA; Berrett Kochler. [in English].

12. Bramley P. (1996). Evaluating training effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead. [in English].

13. Eseryel D. (2002). Approaches to Evaluation of Training: Theory & Practice. Educational Technology & Society. № 5 (2). [in English].

14. Worthen B. R., Sanders J. R. (1987). Educational evaluation. Longman, New York. [in English].

15. Taylor P. J., D. F. Russ-Eft and D. W. L. Chan. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology. № 90. Р. 692-709. [in English].

16. Brinkerhoff R. O. (2006). Increasing impact of training investments: an evaluation strategy for building organizational learning capability. Industrial and Commercial Training. № 6. V. 38. Р. 302-307. [in English].

17. Wieczorek-Szymańska А. (2011). Problematyka oceny efektywności programоw rozwoju kompetencji pracownikоw. Studia i prace wydziału nauk ekonomicznych i zarządzania. № 24. S. 205-207. [in Polish].
Published
2020-06-30