An Intervention in the Human Resource Department, General Administrative Division, in the Ministry of National Security on the Effectiveness of Return of Investments (ROI) From Training (Published)
This study investigates why public sector organisations, specifically the General Administrative Department in the Ministry of National Security, must reassess their Training and developmental programs to maximise their effectiveness and efficiency. As a result, the Human Resource Unit will be the focus of this study to determine the Return on Investment in Training and Development and how to increase its effectiveness and efficiency within the Ministry of National Security and, by extension, all its subsidiaries. The evaluation of investments in enhancing employee knowledge, skills and abilities is expected to benefit the organisation and usually requires the output of substantial amounts of resources on the company’s part. Thus, it is crucial to assess training initiatives efficiency (Goldstein, 1986; Hinrichs, 1976; Kirkpatrick, 1978; Wexley & Latham, 1981). In the General Administration Division of the Ministry of National Security, the returns from Training are commonly assessed using the Kirkpatrick model as outlined by Cabinet Minute 2140 (1998). Such assessments within the organisation can help evaluate training programs’ benefits and whether they contribute to achieving their objectives. The method of evaluation currently utilised by the General Administration Division is the Kirkpatrick model. In this study, the Kirkpatrick model will serve as the guiding framework for analysing the collected data. The chosen methodology for this study was the mixed-method simple approach, which, as the name suggests, consists of applying more than one data type. Hence, the data collection method would consist of both qualitative and quantitative data, and the channels used include primary and secondary data gathered through interviews, questionnaires, books, and scholarly articles.Upon completing this study, the main issue identified was the Ministry’s lack of fully utilising the Kirkpatrick model in evaluating its implemented training and development programs. According to the data collected, emphasis is placed more on levels 1, which is the reaction, and 2, which is learning. At level 3, which is behaviour to level 4 (results), it shows little to no focus as use diminishes, leaving the findings lacking in accuracy and validity. Findings also suggested that the responses are lower than expected in its post-assessment attempts to generate much-needed feedback. The recommendations were based on the insights that evolved from the diagnosis and findings portion of this research paper and were guided by the Kirkpatrick model used in the evaluation of Training and development, together with the complement of the Phillips Return of Investment model. The main recommendation is to properly execute the Kirkpatrick model from levels 1 to level 4 as intended to properly assess the training effectiveness and efficiency. This would involve running post-assessment evaluations from levels 1 to 4 and noting the increase in levels of complexity in the type of data collection and application being used. Progressing to levels 3 and 4 will take more time to complete and require more resources. However, once the Model is appropriately executed, it would allow the organisation to make more informed decisions regarding using its resources and the effectiveness and efficiency of Training and developmental programs implemented. Finally, the paper outlines an action plan for implementing an evaluation process for Training that can also be applied to the evaluation process of any project undertaken by the General Administration Division, any Governmental agency or organisation. In the implementation process, it illustrates the data collection plan, an explanation of the tabulation of program costs, calculation of the ROI, converting the data to monetary benefits and an evaluation plan in the form of a gnat chart. This process gives a clearer idea of the responsibilities and accountability of each employee as they aim to achieve the organisation’s goals. Future insights would encourage further research on other evaluation methods to determine which best meets the organisation’s needs in assessing training and development effectiveness and efficiency.
Keywords: Intervention, Ministry of National Security, Training, general administrative division, human resource department, return of investments (ROI)