Key Notes of the Session
Why training and its ROI. The session began with the question of why organisations need training. The resource person explained that people learn from their mistakes and that practical training helps them perform better. When an organisation invests in its employees, it expects a return in the form of higher employee productivity, which is measured as Return on Investment (ROI). He listed four questions every HR professional should ask: whether employees understand the importance of training, what the company wants to achieve through it, how to help people understand the training process, and how to calculate the cost of training. He also stressed that people analytics is an important skill for HR professionals today.
Kirkpatrick’s four levels. To evaluate training, he introduced Kirkpatrick’s four levels - Reaction, Learning, Behaviour and Results. Each level asks a different question and needs a different kind of evidence, as shown below. A good score at one level does not prove success at another level.
Level | Evaluation question | Evidence example |
1 - Reaction | Was the experience relevant and useful? | Relevance survey and learner feedback |
2 - Learning | What knowledge or skills improved? | Matched tests and demonstrations |
3 - Behaviour | What changed in workplace practice? | Observed use of a quality checklist |
4 - Results | What target outcomes improved? | Error rate, resolution time, complaints |
Pre- and post-assessment. The Learning level was explained with an example of 40 learners whose average score rose from 45 to 75. This is an absolute improvement of 30 percentage points and a relative improvement of 66.7%, calculated as (75 - 45) ÷ 45 × 100. Students were reminded not to confuse percentage points with percentage. He added that test scores show learning only and do not prove improvement at the workplace.
Training metrics dashboard. A dashboard from the Meridian Services case was discussed next. Completion was 92% against a target of 95% or more, the post-test score was 75/100 which met the target, checklist use was only 58% against a target of 80% or more, and the error rate was 4.0%, which met the target of 4.0% or less. Even though the outcome targets were met, the low checklist use showed that employees were not applying what they learnt, so it needed investigation. He also said that every metric needs an owner, date, source and denominator.
Estimating training’s contribution. To find how much of the improvement was really due to training, a comparison-group method was explained. The trained group of 50 agents reduced its error rate from 6.0% to 4.0% (2.0 percentage points), while the comparison group of 50 agents moved from 5.0% to 4.5% (0.5 percentage points). The adjusted estimate was therefore (6.0 - 4.0) - (5.0 - 4.5) = 1.5 percentage points. This works only when both groups have similar underlying trends and no separate change affects one group.
Cost-benefit analysis and training ROI. The session then showed how to calculate training ROI in rupees. With a programme cost of ₹6 lakh, a 1.5% reduction on 40,000 cases per month means 600 fewer errors per month. At ₹150 saved per error, the annual benefit is 600 × ₹150 × 12 = ₹10.8 lakh. ROI = (Benefits - Costs) ÷ Costs × 100 = (10.8 - 6) ÷ 6 × 100 = 80%, with a net benefit of ₹4.8 lakh and a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 1.8 : 1. These figures assume stable case volume, a lasting effect of training and ₹150 of avoidable cost per error.
Continuous improvement. Finally, evaluation was linked with continuous improvement through the PDCA cycle. In Meridian’s case, Plan meant defining critical checklist behaviours, Do meant piloting manager coaching, Check meant tracking application and errors every week, and Act meant standardising or revising the approach.
Case Study and Practical Application
The class discussion was based on a funding decision at Meridian Services, a customer-service company. After a training pilot, 92% of employees completed the programme, learners rated it 4.8 out of 5 and errors fell from 6% to 4%. Students were asked to take a position on whether to approve the next ₹20 lakh - approve, reject or ask for more evidence - and to say what conditions they would set.
The discussion showed that high completion and good ratings alone are not enough to approve further spending. Students understood that such a decision needs evidence on learning, application at work, a comparison group and the cost-benefit result, and that conditions can be set before more funds are released.
Interaction and Guidance
During the interaction, students asked which tools they should learn other than Power BI and analytics in Excel. The resource person suggested building communication skills and people analytics knowledge. He also advised students to follow business newspapers and HR forums such as NHRD and SHRM, and to attend programmes and workshops offered by institutions like the IITs and IIMs. As the market changes fast, he encouraged students to keep upgrading their skills. For further self-study, he shared learning resources from NPTEL (IIT Kharagpur), Kirkpatrick Partners and u21global.
Learning Outcomes
The session helped students understand why training must be evaluated and how Kirkpatrick’s four levels organise the evidence. Students learnt to calculate improvement from pre- and post-assessments, estimate the real contribution of training using a comparison group, and work out training ROI and benefit-cost ratio in rupees. The Meridian case encouraged them to take evidence-based decisions, and the interaction gave useful guidance on skills and learning sources for future HR professionals.
KPRIET – An AI Integrated Campus
Preparing future-ready engineers with AI-integrated teaching and learning. KPRIET integrates Artificial Intelligence across teaching, learning, research and innovation to create a smarter, future-ready campus experience for students and faculty.
