IATF 16949 says it clearly: training has to "work", not just happen.
While working with different organizations, I keep hearing the same question:
"OK... the training happened, the attendance list was signed, the coffee was drunk, the branded pen was collected. But how do we now prove - and make sure - that it actually delivered anything?"
Simply "having attended the training" is not enough.
Why? Because if I invest, I want to know what return I will get from that investment.
So how do we move from participant opinion to results for the company?
The answer is actually quite simple - among other things, by using the Kirkpatrick model:
Level 1 - Reaction
"Was it a nice training?" Survey, opinions, the coffee was good.
Fine, but that is only the beginning.
Level 2 - Learning
"What did you learn?" Tests, tasks, exams.
Show what you know and I will tell you where you are.
Level 3 - Behavior
"Are you using it at work?" Observations, layered audits, manager evaluation.
That is the use of knowledge in the process.
Level 4 - Results
"And what does the company get from it?" Fewer nonconformities, better KPIs.
Numbers say everything.
The conclusion?
Not every training has to go through all 4 Kirkpatrick levels...
But the more expensive the training, the less we want its only outcome to be... the attendance sheet.
Because training effectiveness does not end when someone walks out and says:
"That was great, the training was amazing."
IATF wants evidence that the training changed something - preferably in the process and in the company's results.
So how is it in your organizations?
Which methods of evaluating training work best for you?
At which Kirkpatrick level does training evaluation most often stop in your company?