Has anyone out there used the balanced scorecard approach to measuring trainer productivity? If so, what areas were assessed? How was it accepted? If abandoned, what were the issues? Did the BSC replace an existing appraisal system or implemented in adition?
Jackie Barnett
2 Responses
What are you actually trying to do?
Jackie,
An interesting question – thanks!
Productivity is generally defined as unit output per unit input of resource.
It is generally viewed as fitting in to just one of the 4 quadrants on the BSC – namely to do with process measures.
So I’m curious – what are you trying to do? Specifically, who are the stakeholders interested in the what the L&D people deliver? What outcomes are they looking for? How are these defined and measured?
Answer these questions and you can probably populate your BSC!
I’ve worked with the BSC in a number of applications, from strategy communication to individual performance management, in many kinds of organisations, so have a general interest in the subject.
Best wishes,
Martin
http://www.5boxes.com
Does it have to be Balanced Scorecard?
Martin, I believe, is asking the right questions. It is really important to start with who the stakeholders (and not just the customers) of the training are, and then to find out the outcomes that matter most to each. Some of these outcomes are likely to conflict with one another, such as customers wanting tailored training programs but training managers wanting to keep costs down. But this tension is natural and measuring the outcomes helps to find the balance among them.
When you know these outcomes, it then can help to understand the processes of training, such as design, development, delivery and follow up. Explore which steps in these processes have the most impact on the outcomes, such as how quickly the design of training can be accomplished. Measure the results of these critically important steps and you start seeing how you can control the outcomes better. If the training team are involved in designing these measures, they’ll get a better idea of what they contribute to the outcomes, and higher ownership of the measures.
So I guess I agree with Martin – it’s not just about productivity. Productivity is probably one of the performance attributes of training to measure, but just measuring it alone ignores other important attributes.