Human resource development:The limitations of the systematic training cycle

Content

1. Introduction: The Systematic Training Cycle

2. Critique and Variations of Systematic Training
2.1 Pre-assessment Considerations
2.2 Needs Analysis
2.3 Design
2.4 Plan and Implementation
2.5 Evaluation

3. Substantial Critique and Alternative Approaches
3.1 Assumption of Mutuality
3.2 Training versus Learning
3.3 Training versus Development
3.4 The Learning Organisation
3.5 Shared Responsibility for Learning
3.6 Training and Business Strategy

4. Conclusion

References

1. Introduction: The Systematic Training Cycle

The definition of training provided by Armstrong (2001: 517) resembles most definitions of training found in reference works. It reflects the basic features and objectives as stated in the mainstream training approach: Training is, accordingly, “the planned and systematic modification of behaviour through learning events, programmes and instruction which enable individuals to achieve the levels of knowledge, skill and competence needed to carry out their work effectively.” Two aspects of this definition could be highlighted as the most characteristic and distinctive elements of training as opposed to other methods in the wider field of learning. First, training is planned and systematic; and secondly, it aims at the improvement of defined abilities related to work.^[1]

The systematic training cycle is a model reflecting these characteristics. It emphasises that training is a continuous process, a circle in which the end leads back to the beginning, rather than a single linear and isolated event with a defined start and finish. In its classical form the systematic training cycle consists of four stages (Armstrong 2001: 549; Kenney and Reid 1986: 15; Donelly 1987: 3). In the first stage, the training needs on organisational or job level are identified and specified. This needs analysis tries to establish the training gap, i.e., the difference between the knowledge and skills required for effective performance on a certain job and the actual knowledge and skills of the employees working on this job. The second stage of the systematic training cycle is designing a training programme. Based on the results of the needs analysis, the required sort of training and appropriate training methods are chosen. Additionally, a training plan is developed, in which the more practical aspects of conducting a training event are considered.^[2] Some authors, e.g. Armstrong, regard the planning process as a part of the third training cycle stage which mainly consists of the implementation of training. In this stage, the actual training event takes place, i.e., a training course is delivered to the participants. The fourth and last stage of the systematic training cycle is the evaluation of training. Here, the trainer assesses if the training objectives are achieved. Usually, this evaluation occurs on an individual level during or at the end of the training by checking if the trainees have acquired the trained skills and knowledge.

The systematic training cycle is a well-structured and internally logical model serving as a theoretical and practical guide for professionals concerned with training. It became the orthodox method within a few years after its introduction in the late 1960s and has remained popular.^[3] Taylor (1991: 258) states, with a touch of irony, that training cycles “must have been created by a superior intelligence, being so neat and logical and all.” He indicates that they tend to be simplistic and ignorant towards the complex reality in organisations, and supports Kenney and Reid (1986: 16), who maintain that “a more sophisticated model is required.”

In the following, a number of critical variations of the systematic training cycle will be presented. These variations address several shortcomings of the traditional model and suggest improvements on different stages, from pre-assessment considerations at the very beginning of the cycle over needs analysis, training design, plan and implementation to new methods of evaluation.

Afterwards, more fundamental criticism of systematic training and more comprehensive alternative approaches will be outlined. Especially newly emerging concepts of individual learning and development reveal some basic limitations of the traditional training, and suggest a broader perspective. Furthermore, a wider perspective on the organisation as a learning system highlights the importance of and pre-conditions for learning in everyday work for individual as well as organisational development. Finally, the question of responsibility for learning and development will be addressed, and the necessity of integrating training and development with business strategies will be outlined.

2. Critique and Variations of Systematic Training

A number of authors (e.g. Kenney and Reid 1986, Donnelly 1987, Harrison 1988, Wills 1998) have refined and partly restructured the systematic training cycle. In the following, some major variations of the classical four-stage model will be sketched.

2.1 Pre-assessment Considerations

In his 10-step training cycle Boydell (1970:4) suggests examining thoroughly the job chosen as a training priority, and to check if training can be obviated by re-organisation. Kenney and Reid (1986: 14) go a step further by proposing that “planned training” should generally start with a pre-assessment check to determine if training is the appropriate and most cost-effective method to resolve the problem at hand, or if there are other more efficient approaches.

Donnelly (1987: 6) suggests another step which should precede any training needs analysis. As budget plans and financial restrictions usually exist before any training process starts, the training cycle should be entered with an assessment of resource availability. Only if the resource limitations are known, can a realistic and negotiable training concept be drawn. Other factors like organisational values, policies and responsibilities should be considered in a pre-assessment as well.

2.2 Needs Analysis

In most of the various models of systematic training strong emphasis is put on the analysis of training needs. While in earlier models the focus is on needs analysis on a job or business level (Boydell 1970: 4; Taylor 1991: 262), more recent approaches stress the necessity to consider different analytical levels, from the global organisational frame over departmental and job problems to the single individual (Kenney and Reid 1986: 69; Donnelly 1987: 5). Especially the individual and his/her needs and characteristics have received increasing attention.^[4]

Wills (1998: 27) points out that there are often conflicting interests within the organisation. Therefore, “needs identification has to balance corporate demands, policies and strategies as well as individual and organisational requirements.” He suggests a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches: on the one hand, the collection of corporate strategies and identification of business and departmental needs should set the overall frame for training activities; on the other hand, the identification of individual needs and development requirements should take into account the single employee. In reality, organisational needs will usually have priority over individual needs, especially when resources are limited (Wills 1998: 37).

[...]

^[1] Kenney and Reid (1986: 7), for instance, identify the job and work-related orientation of training as a main difference to education, which aims at more general and abstract objectives. Harrison (1988: 5) similarly distinguishes between training and development.

^[2] A very detailed list of practical steps to be considered in the planning stage is provided by Wills (1998: 18-19).

^[3] One of the first and most influential models of the systematic training cycle is the “systematic training in ten steps” by Boydell (1970: 4-5). Boydell’s more detailed outline of the four classic cycle stages underlies several subsequent approaches and has, thus, “proved to be remarkably enduring and popular … up to the present day” (Taylor 1991: 260).

^[4] Harrison (1988: 167) lists various sources of information about the individual, among them personnel specifications, performance records, and trainability tests. The increasing tendency of focusing on the individual and his/her needs and characteristics is discussed in the context of learning further in the text.