Training Impact Evaluation (TIE) Process
Purpose:
To assess the impact of training courses, modules or exercises on staff performance.
Description:
Systematically examines links between training and performance by looking at the impact of training on staff skills and performance (with the further assumption that good individual performance contributes to good organizational performance). The six-step process also assesses the expectations of managers who send employees to training and what can realistically be accomplished.
Developed by:
Management Sciences for Health in 1994.
Intended Users:
Training and service delivery organizations. Trainers and managers.
Application:
In 1994-95, by MSH in Bangladesh with CAs and indigenous NGOs. TIE was also used in 1995 by AVSC International, at ten sites in four Central Asian Republics.
Advantages:
The Training Impact Evaluation (TIE) process is systematic; it pays attention to expectations; it encourages negotiation between trainees and training organizations; and it has real examples and many worksheets. The tool also encourages broad participation and a team approach.
Limitations:
Requires the support and acceptance of management and of the organization; takes time to see results; is a generic approach, requiring adaptation for specific uses.
Recommendations for Users:
TIE should be used jointly by training organizations or training units within service organizations and their clients (usually service delivery organizations). It is the collaborative effect of the two different groups that make TIE a unique tool.
Time frame:
The TIE visit should take place several months after the training course took place, so that trainees have had a chance to practice their new skills and act on their changed knowledge and attitudes. The visit only takes one day. However, the preparation for this visit can take several days, possibly spread out over weeks: preparing the instruments, training the interviewer, interpreting the results, and planning future training. All this depends on the number of trainees, their geographical distribution, the number of organizations involved, and the complexity of skills being assessed.
Articles and Publications:
Presentation at APHA, November 1996 by Ann Buxbaum; presentation at Tulane University, 1996, by Ann Buxbaum.
Availability:
Published as an issue of The Family Planning Manager (FPM): “Assessing the Impact of Training on Staff Performance,” FPM , Volume V, Number 3, Fall 1996. FPM is available in English, Spanish, and French at no cost to individuals from Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. It is available for $5.00 per copy for individuals from Western Europe and North America.
Contact:
Management Sciences for Health
784 Memorial Drive
Cambridge, MA 02139
USA
Phone: (617)250-9500
E-mail: bookstore@msh.org