A Study of Training Program Characteristics and Training Effectiveness Among Organizations Receiving...

8/8/2019 A Study of Training Program Characteristics and Training Effectiveness Among Organizations Receiving Services Fro

1/193


2/193


3/193

Copyright by

Jeeyon Paek2005


4/193

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of training program

characteristics on training effectiveness among organizations receiving training services

from external training providers. It is to evaluate training effectiveness as a function of

the nature of the relationship among client organizations and external training providers,

the training needs assessment, and the nature of the training program. In addition, it is to

investigate the relationship between the evaluations of training effectiveness as perceived

by client organizations and as measured by financial performance. The literature review

identified four variables to examine training effectiveness: evaluation of training,

partnership training between client organizations and educational institutions, training

needs assessment, and the nature of the training program. Two survey instruments were

developed to measure the variables. One survey asked HRD managers about training

program characteristics, and another survey asked senior managers about the perception

of training effectiveness and operational margin information. Surveys were sent to

companies who received training funds from the Ohio Investment in Training Programs

from 2002 to 2004. Forty five out of 125 companies completed both surveys, and thus,

the response rate was 36 percent. The collected data was merged with the some

demographic information from the OITP database.

ii


5/193

The results showed that most participant organizations are privately owned,

manufacturing companies. The major external training providers are private organizations.

Few companies engage in partnership training with educational institutions. The results

showed that the operational margin of the programs where private training providers were

involved increased more than the programs that did not involved private training

providers. In addition, if external training providers were involved in more stages of the

training process, operational margin increased. The results also showed that senior

managers perceived the entirely developed training program was more effective than the

generic, standard programs or customized programs. There was no documented

relationship between training needs assessment and training program effectiveness. This

study provides several implications on future study in HRD area as well as practitioners

in business, workforce development policy, and workforce development practitioners in

higher education.

iii


6/193

Dedicated to my sisters,

Soyon, Seokyon, Nayon, and Ohyon

iv


7/193

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express sincere gratitude to my adviser, Dr. Joshua D. Hawley, for

his endless encouragement and consistent support. His encouragement and considerate

assistance made my journey of doctoral study complete, though in many times I lacked

patience and endurance to pursue the study. His generous understanding and support

helped me be more confident in my abilities to do this study. I also appreciate the way he

shared his knowledge and experience in Workforce Development & Education Policy.

I want to convey my deep appreciation to Dr. Ronald D. Jacobs who was on my

committee in Human Resource Development, as well as, my boss for the last four years.

He always challenged the logic and ideas that I brought to him. I cannot help admitting

his continuous challenges improved the quality of this work, but also the quality of who I

am as a young scholar. I was blessed to work with him as a GRA from the beginning of

my study. I appreciate his trust and experienced coaching.

I also thank Dr. Joe A. Gliem, my research methodology committee member. I

learned fundamental, essential research methodologies through classes and meetings with

him. I appreciate his insightful teaching and support of my work.

A special thank goes to Dr. Ada Demb, who served on my general exam

committee in Higher Education. I appreciate the role model she provided as a woman

v


8/193

scholar and learning from her about international view points and acceptance of a

diversity of culture.

I would like to thank Ms. Jamie Klinger and Ms. Carla Wood at Ohio Department

of Development for their proactive support in data collection. Although collecting data

required tremendous effort, their help greatly relieved my burden. I also appreciate their

enthusiasm to support organizations through training and educating workforce.

In addition, I would like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Ae-Kyung Choi at

Ewha Womans University. She has been my lifetime mentor for the last 15 years and has

guided not only my academic and professional life but also my personal values. I deeply

appreciate her caring and love.

I also owe gratitude to so many of my friends at The Ohio State University. They

shared their wisdom and experiences about how to be successful in this academic

program. I want to thank them for their friendship and for our mutual learning. I also

want to thank sisters and brothers at the Korean Church of Columbus for their prayer in

the Lord.

I do not know how to express my gratitude to my parents, Mrs. Eun-Suk Lee and

Mr. Ju-Hyun Paek. Without their support and trust, I might not have been able to start

this study. They have taught me how to follow our Lord through everyday their lives.

Their belief encouraged me to prepare myself as a scholar.

Above all, I would like to praise the Lord who prepares my way and completes

His good will through my life. He has expressed His great love and support to me

through every day, intimate living with Him. I joyfully appreciate everything He has

provided me in this work, and hope to glorify Him through this work.

vi


9/193

VITA

March 29, 1971 .Born Seoul, Korea

1994 ...B.A. Secretarial Science,Ewha Womans University

1994 1995 ...Secretary/Client Support, Gartner Group, Inc.

1996 1997 ...Associate Consultant, The Optima Consultants

1998 .......Business Analyst, Oppenheimer Funds

1998 1999 ...Teaching Fellow, New York University

1999 ...M.B.A. Finance, New York University

1999 - 2000.Lecturer, Ewha Womans University

2000 ...Certificate, Strategy and Entrepreneurship in

the IT Industry, Stanford University

2000 2001 ...Team Manager, Korea Bond Pricing Co.

2002 2005 ...Graduate Research Associate,The Ohio State University

PUBLICATIONS

Research Publication

1. Paek, J. (2004, March). A systems approach to mentoring: A literature review. In

T. M. Egan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development(pp.

367-374). Austin, Texas: Academy of Human Resource Development.

vii


10/193

2. Paek, J. (2002, October).Women workforce development in Korea: Issues and

environmental forces. Proceedings of the SOM Conference on Globalization, Innovation

and HRD for Competitive Advantages (pp.229-236). Bangkok, Thailand.

3. Hawley, J. D. & Paek, J. (2005, March). Developing human resources for thetechnical workforce: A comparative study of Korea and Thailand.International Journal

of Training and Development, 9(1), 79-96.

4. Hawley, J. D. & Paek, J. (2004, November). Developing human resources for the

technical workforce: A comparative study of Korea and Thailand. In Y. Moon, A. M.Osaman-Gani, S. Kim, G. L. Roth, & H. Oh (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third AsianAHRD Conference, (pp. 328-335). Seoul, Korea.

5. Jacobs, R. L., Wanstreet, C. E., & Paek, J. (2004, May). Using system theory to

evaluate organizational change in an Indian software firm: A case study. Proceedings of

the Fifth Conference on HRD Research and Practice across Europe. Dublin, Ireland.

6. Lee, C. & Paek, J. (2003, May). Exploring strategic staff development in higher

education institutions. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on HRD Research and

Practice across Europe. Toulouse, France.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Education

Workforce Development and Educational Policy Joshua D. Hawley, Ed.D.

Human Resource Development Ronald L. Jacobs, Ph.D.

Research Methods and Statistics Joseph A. Gliem. Ph.D.

Higher Education Administration Ada Demb, Ed.D.

viii


11/193

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ..ii

Dedication .ivAcknowledgments ..v

Vita ...vii

List of Tables .xiList of Figures ..xiv

Chapters:

1. Introduction .. 1Statement of the Problem ... 4Research Questions .6

Definition of Terms .7

Limitations 10Significance ...11

2. Review of Literature ...15Evaluation of Training ..15

Training Evaluation in Human Resource Development ...15

Training Evaluation in Labor Economics .18Evaluation of State-Funded, Employer-Based Training ...20

Measurement of Organizational Performance ..23University-Industry Partnership and Partnership Training ...30

University-Industry Partnership 30

Empirical Works of Partnership Training .34Partnership Training ..42

Training Needs Assessment ..45

Definition of Needs Assessment & Training Needs Assessment..45Ways of Conducting Needs Assessment ...46

Roles of the Needs Assessment in Training .49

Nature of the Training Program 51

Customization ...52Relationship to Job 58

Conceptual Framework .59

ix


12/193

3. Methodology ...63Research Type ...63

Research Setting and Sample 65Research Setting 65

Sample ...67Operationalization of Variables 70Instrument Development ...74

Instrument Validity ...75

Instrument Reliability ...75

Design of the Instruments .76Research Procedures .78

Data Collection .78

Data Analysis 80

4. Results .. 83

Descriptive Statistics .83

Respondents...88

Findings on Research Questions ...96

Research Question One .96Research Question Two ..103

Research Question Three 112

Research Question Four ..114Research Question Five ..127

5. Summary, Discussions, and Implications129

Summary of Findings ..129Discussions .....133

Implications..138

Implications for Future Research.138Implications for Practice and Policy142

References .. 145

Appendices . 154

Appendix A: Training Program and a Relationship with Training ProviderSurvey Questionnaire

Appendix B: Training Effectiveness Survey Questionnaire

Appendix C: Cover Email Scripts for both SurveysAppendix D: Supporting letters from OITP for each Survey

x


13/193

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3.1 Cronbachs Alpha Coefficients for the Survey Responses (Senior manager survey,

n=44)......76

4.1 Frequency and Percentage of Type of Industry among Respondent Companies,Non-respondent Companies, and Not-in-Sample Frame Companies (OITP

database) ...86

4.2 Company Size, Number of Participants in Training, and Base Wage of TrainingParticipants among Respondent Companies, Non-respondent Companies, andNot-in-Sample Frame Companies (OITP database)..87

4.3 Demographic Information for Manager Survey Respondents (Manager survey,n=45)..91

4.4 Demographic Information for Senior Manager Survey Respondents (Seniormanager survey, n=45)..92

4.5 Demographic Information of Participant Companies (OITP database and Managersurvey, n=45).93

4.6 Demographic Information of the Training Programs (Manager survey,n=45)..94

4.7 Frequencies and Percentages of Type of Training Providers (Manager survey,n=45)..97

4.8 One-way ANOVA on Type of Training Provider-Perception on Effectiveness ofthis Specific Program (Manager survey and Senior manager survey,n=43)..98

4.9 One-way ANOVA on Type of Training Provider-Perception on RelativeEffectiveness (Manager survey and Senior manager survey, n=43)..99

4.10 One-way ANOVA on Type of Training Provider-Increase in Operational Margin(Manager survey and Senior manager survey, n=13)..100

4.11 Independent Samples t-test on In-house Training Staff and Training ProgramEffectiveness (Manager survey and Senior manager survey)..101

xi


14/193

4.12 Independent Samples t-test on Educational Institution Providers and TrainingProgram Effectiveness (Manager survey and Senior manager

survey)..102

4.13

Independent Samples t-test on Private Training Providers and Training ProgramEffectiveness (Manager survey and Senior manager survey)..103

4.14 Summary Data: Regression of Perception of the Specific Training ProgramEffectiveness on Selected Variables in the Relationship with External Training

Providers (Manager survey and Senior manager survey)....106

4.15 Standard Multiple Regression of Perception of the Specific Training ProgramEffectiveness on Selected Variables in the Relationship with External TrainingProviders (Manager survey and Senior manager survey, n=28)..107

4.16

Summary Data: Regression of Perception of the Relative Training ProgramEffectiveness on Selected Variables in the Relationship with External Training

Providers (Manager survey and Senior manager survey)....108

4.17 Standard Multiple Regression of Perception of the Relative Training ProgramEffectiveness on Selected Variables in the Relationship with External Training

Providers (Manager survey and Senior manager survey, n=28)..109

4.18 Summary Data: Regression of Increase in Operational Margin on SelectedVariables in the Relationship with External Training Providers (Manager surveyand Senior manager survey).....110

4.19 Standard Multiple Regression of Increase in Operational Margin on SelectedVariables in the Relationship with External Training Providers () (Manager

survey and Senior manager survey, n=10)...111

4.20 Independent Samples t-test on Training Needs Assessment and Training ProgramEffectiveness (Manager survey and Senior manager survey)..112

4.21 Correlation Matrix between the Quality of Training Needs Assessment andTraining Program Effectiveness (Manager survey and Senior manager

survey)..114

4.22 Frequencies and Percentages on Intended Goal of Training, Level of Relationshipto Job, and Level of Customization (Manager survey, n=45).116

4.23 Distribution on Training Participants Portion among Total Employees and Levelof Customizations (Manager survey, n=45)117

xii


15/193

4.24 Summary Data: Regression of Perception of the Specific Training ProgramEffectiveness on Selected Variables in Training Program Characteristics

(Manager survey and Senior manager survey)....121

4.25 Standard Multiple Regression of Perception of the Specific Training ProgramEffectiveness on Selected Variables in Training Program Characteristics(Manager survey and Senior manager survey, n=37)......122

4.26 Summary Data: Regression of Perception of the Relative Training ProgramEffectiveness on Selected Variables in Training Program Characteristics

(Manager survey and Senior manager survey)....123

4.27 Standard Multiple Regression of Perception of the Relative Training ProgramEffectiveness on Selected Variables in Training Program Characteristics(Manager survey and Senior manager survey, n=37)......124

4.28

Summary Data: Regression of Increase in Operational Margin on SelectedVariables in Training Program Characteristics (Manager survey and Senior

manager survey).......125

4.29 Standard Multiple Regression of Increase in Operational Margin on SelectedVariables in Training Program Characteristics (Manager survey and Senior

manager survey, n=10)....................................................126

4.30 Correlation Matrix between Perceptions on Training Program Effectiveness andIncrease in Operational Margin (Senior manager survey, n=43).............128

xiii


16/193

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 Conceptual Framework for the Study of Training Program Characteristics andTraining Effectiveness among Organizations Receiving Services from External

Training Providers.62

4.1 Number of Survey Participant Companies in each County in Ohio (OITP database,n=45)..95

5.1 Revised Conceptual Framework..141

xiv


17/193

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Sustaining competitiveness is one of the most critical challenges to business

organizations (Porter, 1996). Rapid advancements in technology, information and trading

lead to changing business conditions. Competition, segmented markets, and greatly

diversified customers have also impacted the business environment. Those constant

changes require organizations to focus on being competitive, in particular, the

competitiveness of their human resources.

Human resource is considered as one of the most significant resources to business

organizations (Swanson & Holton, 2001). As societies became more knowledge-based,

and as the proportion of knowledge workers in business organizations increases, human

resources become more critical (Jamrog, 2004). Business organizations emphasize

maintaining and developing human resources.

Human resource development (HRD) refers to a planned process for improving

organizational performance through training and employee development, career

development, and organizational development (Jacobs, 2001b). HRD focuses

organizational efforts for individual development towards organizational performance

improvement and ultimately to the sustainability of organizational competitiveness.

1


18/193

Training as an HRD intervention has played a significant role in improving

organization performance (Jacobs & Washington, 2003). The purpose of training is to

create job performance outcomes as well as to enhance employees knowledge and skills

(Lewis, 1996). Although business organizations are able to generate, develop, and

maintain employee competitiveness through training, as well as recruiting and placement,

training has been utilized as a major means for sustaining current employee development

and ultimately for improving organizational performance. Thus, companies have

increased training expenditures to sustain their employees competitiveness. In particular,

fast-growing companies have dedicated substantial amount of time to the professional

development of their employees (Cronin, 1993).

Organizations are increasingly receiving training services through outsourcing

and partnerships with other organizations (Osterman, 1995; Knoke, 1997; Stewart, 1999).

In fact, in this fast changing environment, it is very difficult for business organizations,

particularly high-tech companies with a high percentage of knowledge workers, to

provide all the necessary training programs to meet their organizations training needs

internally (Knoke & Janowiec-Kurle, 1999). Business organizations may hire outside

consultants to identify training needs, hire training professionals to develop a specific

training program for their needs, or only hire instructors. Also, business organizations

may select outside training providers for their entire training program design and

implementation. Regardless of the type of outsourcing, outsourced training expenditures

for U.S. companies sharply increased from 9.9 billion dollars in 1994 to 19.3 billion

dollars in 2000 (ASTD, 2002).

2


19/193

One of the most important sources of training among external training providers

are higher education institutions (Carnevale, 1998; Hagen 2002; Johnston, 2001;

Johnstone, 1994). Colleges and universities provide human resource development

services for organizations through partnerships. As business organizations receive greater

benefits from partnerships, partnerships between industry and university have expanded

(Campbell & Slaughter, 1999; Hagen, 2002; Normile, 1996). Government agencies also

consider universities as external providers of training and development, reflecting the

need for continuous professional development, for flexibility and for continuous

adaptability to change (Mavin & Bryans, 2000). However, it is very challenging for

higher education to help increase the effectiveness of the workforce (Hanna, 2001;

Lumby, 1999).

Community colleges provide much of the training and education services to

business and industry in comparison to other higher education institutions in the U.S.

Overall, universityindustry partnerships have increased, and, in particular, training

programs by community colleges (Johnstone, 1994; Lynch, 1991). Because one of the

major goals of community colleges is to train and educate the current and future

workforce for their communities, community colleges have been involved in training and

education intensively and actively (Demb, 2003).

As partnership training programs provided by external training providers have

increased, the types of training programs also changed to meet the various training needs

of organizations. The training of subjects ranges from basic writing and math skills to

high tech skill training like computer software and managerial types of training (Cappelli

et al., 1997).

3


20/193

Statement of the Problem

Rapid changes in the business environment and competitive market conditions

have required business organizations to sustain their competitiveness through employee

development (Jacobs, 2003). Business organizations have emphasized the significance of

training and made great efforts to improve training quality in order to sustain

competitiveness and improve performance (Jacobs & Washington, 2003). However, due

to limited resources, business organizations have increasingly utilized external sources

for identifying training needs, and for developing and implementing training programs

(Knoke & Janowiec-Kurle, 1999).

Business organizations acquire training related services from external training

providers such as training agencies, consultants, and educational institutions (Knoke,

1997; Sole 1999). Among outside training providers, community colleges have actively

provided a range of training related services. The characteristic of partnership training

between external training providers and client organizations has become one of the major

factors that can influence the impact of training (Hardingham, 1996).

As partnership training has become more common, the nature of the relationships

among client organizations and external training providers, especially in partnership

training, varies (Hawley et al., 2005). Some partnership training programs with

community colleges have formal contracts while others may not. Some participants in the

partnership training complete the training program with or without academic credentials

such as certificates, licenses, or degrees. External training providers level of involvement

and their history of the relationships might vary. In addition, different types of training

4


21/193

providers add to the diversity of the relationship among client organizations and external

training providers.

As partnership training has become more widespread, the training needs

assessments vary. Business organizations have different training needs and resources and

have their own training design process. At the same time, external training providers also

have different resources and experience in training design process and implementation.

Thus, some training design processes in partnership training programs heavily involve

needs assessment while others may not. Therefore, partnership training is widely

implemented with various quality of training needs assessment.

It is widely believed that partnership training is beneficial to business

organizations (Ellis & Moon, 1998; Gold et al., 1998; Hall & Scott, 2001; Hardingham,

1996; Ryan & Heim, 1997; Mavin & Bryans, 2000; Roever, 2000). Business

organizations often have partnership training programs simply because of the need to

develop a full range of training programs to meet organizations needs. Previous research

on partnership training has found that training programs serve various needs including

organizational development and employee development. (Ryan & Heim, 1997; Roever,

2000; Aslanian, 1988; Johnstone, 1994))

It is also believed that the outcomes of training for organizations are dependent

not only on the quality of the training needs assessment and the nature of the training

program such as the type of training and extent of customization, but also on the nature of

the relationships with external training providers. Although the partnership training

provided by external training providers has unique characteristics in the nature of the

relationship among client organizations and external training providers, training needs

5


22/193

assessment, and the nature of the training program, there is little information about

whether those unique relationships, training needs assessment, and the nature of the

training program relate to any outcomes of training. In other words, literature provides

little information whether the training effectiveness differ if the nature of the provider-

client relationships, training needs assessment, and the nature of the training programs

differ in partnership training.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the impact of training program

characteristics on training effectiveness among organizations receiving training services

from external training providers. It is to evaluate training effectiveness as a function of

the nature of the relationships among client organizations and external training providers,

the training needs assessment, and the nature of the training programs. In addition, it is to

investigate the relationship between the evaluation of training effectiveness as perceived

by client organizations and as measured by financial performance.

Research Questions

The research questions to be examined in this study are as follow:

1. Does training program effectiveness differ based on types of training providers?Does the training provided by community colleges and/or four-year universities

result in a higher degree of training program effectiveness in comparison to other

external and/or internal training providers?

2. Does the degree of training program effectiveness differ based on the nature ofthe relationship among client organizations and external training providers?

6


23/193

3. Does the degree of training program effectiveness differ based on the quality ofproviders training needs assessment?

4. How do training programs vary in terms of the extent of customization, type oftraining, relationship to job, proportion of participants verses total employees,

and expected outcome? How do these differences in the nature of the training

program impact on training program effectiveness?

5. Are perceived training program effectiveness and client organizations financialperformance (operational margin) related? Is perceived training effectiveness a

good indicator of financial performance? Or vise versa?

Definition of Terms

The major terms for this study have been operationally defined as follows:

Partnership. A form of cooperative work between and/or among organizations

striving toward an immediate, common goal(s). Partnership and collaboration are

interchangeable. (Jacobs, 1999; Starbuck, 2001)

University-industry partnership. A form of cooperative work in which the focus is

to ultimately improve current practice, performance, and development between colleges

or universities and organizations (Rohdes, 2001; Rowley, et al, 1998). There are a wide

range of formats including research projects, training and education courses, placement,

college curriculum development partnerships, and consortium programs.

University-Industry partnership training. A form of training provided by

educational institutions such as colleges and universities for client organizations in both

7


24/193

the private and public sectors. The ultimate goal of the training is to improve current

practice, performance, and development.

Partnership training (outsourced training or outside training). A form of training

provided by professional training organizations including private companies, educational

institutions such as colleges and universities, vocational schools, and public supported

training centers for organizations both in the private and public sectors (Allen, 2002;

Aslanian, 1988)

Business organization. An organization which provides products and/or services

to maintain their presence. These organizations are current users of training programs or

potential training program users. They can be private companies, public or government

agencies, or non-for-profit organizations.

Client organization. A business organization that purchases and receives any

training services. Training services include training needs assessment, training program

design, instructional materials, training courses, training instructor, or the delivery of the

entire training program.

Employer-focused training. A training program that is planned by an employer to

increase organizational performance through a specific training program that is linked

with their organizational missions and/or outcomes (GAO, 2004).

Training providers. An entity that provides a training service(s) such as needs

assessment, program design, instructional materials, courses, instructors, or the delivery

of the entire training program. Training providers can be educational institutions such as

community colleges or universities, vocational centers, adult learning centers, private

training vendors, and public training agencies.

8


25/193

Training design process. A training providers process to develop training

programs. It includes work analysis, needs assessment, feedback, program design,

instructional strategy development, delivery methods and media selection, and evaluation.

Training needs assessment. Process used by the organization to identify the needs

of a company for training.

Nature of the provider-client relationship. A unique composition of several

components in the relationship among client organizations and external training providers.

One example of the nature of the relationship is how to form a relationship between client

organizations and training providers through different types of contracts. Other examples

are; 1) level of involvement of external training providers in the training process, 2)

contract history between a client organization and an external training provider, 3)

follow-up contact, and 4) the external training providers knowledge about the business

of client organizations.

Nature of the training program. A unique composition of several components in

the training programs. The extent of customization, training programs relationship to job,

the type of training, expected outcome are example of components in the training

programs.

Customization. Degree to which the training provider changes aspects of an

existing course to meet the client organizations employees needs.

HRD manager. Persons who are mainly responsible for HRD tasks such as work

analysis, training and education programs, and career development for employees. For

the purpose of the study, a training coordinator or training manager can be referred to as a

HRD manager.

9


26/193


27/193


28/193

assist the local economic development. Specifically, the result of the study will assist

workforce development policy makers to reinforce the workforce development policy

more effectively and efficiently by utilizing all the current and potential resources in the

local areas. The policy can be developed toward creating synergy among local economy

needs, capability of workforce, and higher educational functions. Workforce development

policy analysts will also gain a research-based analysis tool to evaluate their workforce

development policy in terms of not only outcome level, but also process level.

Numerous studies have been conducted about training needs assessment and

customization and their relationship to the outcome of HRD training (Brown, 2002;

Goldstein, 1993; Kaufman et al., 1993; McClelland, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1994d; Wright

& Geroy, 1992). However, this study will detail the difference between training programs

conducted through partnership projects. This study not only will add to the research of

training needs assessment and customization in HRD but also to the research on

outsourced training, including partnership training with higher education institutions.

The results of the study will improve current HRD practice. Organizations are

engaging with numerous types of external training providers and receive various forms of

training services. The data gathered from this study will help HRD practitioners to make

decisions about not only who will be selected as an external training provider, but also

how to engage in the outsourcing process including training needs assessment and

forming the provider-client relationship. HRD practitioners can choose characteristics of

partnership training programs and can determine the level of involvement in the training

needs assessment process while considering expected results from their decisions.

12


29/193

Ultimately, they can gain assistance in developing the most appropriate training programs

to fit their HRD strategies for their organization.

In addition, the study will enhance the understanding of the evaluation of training

programs. Conventionally, HRD research has focused on assessing training effectiveness

by measuring training results at the individual level including learning and change

behavior, but little research has been conducted to measure the impact of an

organizational level. On the other hand, labor economists have focused on measuring the

aggregate of individual employees productivity to assess organizational performance.

However, there has been little research linkage between training effectiveness and

training impact on organizational performance. The results of this study will provide

information on how training effectiveness and organizational performance are related,

and whether one can be a good indicator of another. The information about this

relationship will be significant to training evaluation.

The findings of this study will reveal senior managers awareness about training

impact and how they perceive training links with their organizations mission. Thus, it

will provide business leaders with critical knowledge about their significant role in

training evaluation, and provide organizations with sufficient rationale to assist their

leaders to be equipped with understanding of training.

One of the most common functions of community colleges is to train and educate

current and future workforces. Many higher education scholars have studied the

economic function of community colleges and asserted that partnerships with business

industries are inevitable for their existence (Bowie, 1994; Campbell & Slaughter, 1999;

Osterman, 1995). Because the result of this study will describe how community college

13


30/193

training services impact their local business, higher education scholars can make a strong

case to support their studies about benefits of university-industry partnership.

In addition, workforce development practitioners in higher education will have

useful knowledge from this study. The findings of the study will assist workforce

development practitioners in higher education to increase effectiveness of institutions

functions of training and education and to reach their organizational missions.

Knowledge on improving effectiveness of their current practice in engaging with

business and industries and providing training services will be provided to workforce

development practitioners in higher education.

Overall, the results of the study will provide critical information about the

effectiveness of partnership training to a wide range of professionals: HRD scholars and

HRD practitioners, business leaders, educational scholars and leaders, as well as policy

makers for business industry and labor issues.

14


31/193

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter discusses review of literature in four areas. They are evaluation of

training, partnership training, training needs assessment, and nature of the training

program. In addition, this chapter proposes a conceptual framework based on the

literature review.

Evaluation of Training

This section is divided into four parts of review of literature on training evaluation.

The first part reviews HRD literature on training evaluation, and the second part of

review discusses economic literature on training evaluation. The third part discusses

evaluation of state-funded, employer bases training. The last part reviews business

literature on measurement of organizational performance

Training Evaluation in Human Resource Development

The evaluation of training has been studied by labor economists and by human

resource development (HRD) scholars. From the HRD perspective, evaluation of training

examines training impact on organizational goals and strategies and on individual

performance requirements. Because HRD is based on systems theory, the evaluation of

training is considered as a tool for continuous improvement at the individual, process,

15


32/193


33/193

there have been criticisms of the Kirkpatrick model, numerous studies in evaluation

training have been conducted based on this model.

Since the Kirkpatrick model was introduced, several modifications of this model

have been developed by various researchers to attempt to design a better evaluation

model from organizational perspective. For example, Phillips (1996) added a fifth level

ROI levelto separate the assessment of the monetary benefits of the training compared

to its costs.

Another expanded model from Kirkpatricks original book is the organizational

elements model by Kaufman and Keller (1994). They argued that the Kirkpatrick model

was useful for only evaluating training, and that the model needed to be modified since

organizations wanted to evaluate other types of development events. They expanded the

Kirkpatrick model by adding societal contribution level as an evaluation criterion.

Although HRD research has put great effort on developing a model to aid

conceptual thinking about the evaluation of training, especially from an organizational

development perspective, few empirical studies were found due to limits of inability of

models to distinguish the actual impact of training from other variables on benefits (Gray

& Herr, 1998).

Ahlstrand, Bassi, and McMurrer (2003) analyzed available information in the

1997 and 1998 American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) databases based

on the Kirkpatrick model. In order to identify training impact for lower-wage workers

from employers providing training programs, they distinguished the courses designed for

lower-wage workers by participant characteristics. They divided the participants into two

levels: participants had fewer than 12 years of formal education, or participants in the

17


34/193

course who earned equal to or less than ten dollars per hour. In the total database of 831

courses, less than ten percent of the training courses were oriented to lower-wage workers.

In the initial evaluation immediately after completion of the training course,

participants reactionlevel one in the Kirkpatrick modelwas measured whether

participants knowledge or skills increased as a result of the course or whether their

newly earned knowledge or skills are applicable to their current job. It was found that the

reaction level of the participants in the lower-wage worker oriented courses was less

favorable than those in other courses. In the follow-up evaluation, usually three to six

months after completion of the course, participants performance change was measured

by requesting the supervisors assessment. It was found that performance improvement of

those workers who participated in the lower-wage worker oriented courses was much

higher than those in other courses, though it was not statistically significant (Ahlstrand et

al., 2003).

Training Evaluation in Labor Economics

Economists have also studied training evaluation from a slightly different point of

view. Although both HRD scholars and labor economists applied the human capital

theory to their research, the economists approach is more empirical and focuses more on

return on investment of human capital. The human capital approach assumes that workers

choose post-school human capital investments (training or education) which maximize

their lifetime earning so that workers pay the full cost of general training and earn the full

return (Barron et al., 1999; Borjas, 2000).

One of the key distinguishing features in the labor economics training evaluation

is the concept of present value. The training cost is paid in current dollars while the

18


35/193

training ROI is expected to be gained in the future. Hence, the expected return should be

calculated at the present value, which is discounted by the long-term interest rate when

considering opportunity cost (Becker, 1964; Borjas, 2000).

Another key feature is that economists have conducted a number of empirical and

theoretical studies about on-the-job training. On-the-job training in labor economics is

less clearly defined than in the HRD area. It is generally understood as all the training

programs that are related with training receivers current job and that are provided by

employers for their employees including in-class training and on-site training (Barron et

al., 1999; Borjas, 2000).

Economists used experimental data to find out how this training works. For

example, many research questions are related to the effect of training on earnings or

employment rate or duration, which require empirical data to provide answers (Acemoglu

& Pischke, 1999). Even though there are concerns regarding using only simple estimators

to assess training returns, and even though they admit limits of inability to assess non-

feasible returns from training, it is widely used (Ham, 1994).

Barron, Berger, and Black (1999) studied the relationships among on-the-job

training, starting wages, wage growth and productivity growth. Two survey data sets

were used: (1) an Employment Opportunity Pilot Program surveyed 5,700 employers and

gained a working sample of 756 workers in 1980 and 1982 and (2) a survey of 3,600

firms in the Small Business Administration in 1992 gained a working sample of 1,323.

Training was measured by time spent in formal training, time spent in informal training

with supervisors or coworkers, and time spent watching others perform. The study used

19


36/193

several dummy variables such as years of education, industry, occupation, and unionized

status and controlled relevant work experience and worker ability.

However, the studys findings were different from the hypotheses based from

human capital theory. The study found that workers who required less training are more

likely to earn a higher starting wage but those who required more training than the typical

worker did not receive a lower starting wage. It means that companies bear the major

portion of training, not workers. Based on the human capital theory, firms do not pay for

the general training, but the survey represented more than 60 percent of training was

general training, and only eight percent of training was pure firm specific. General

training is that new knowledge and skills learned by new employees in this training are

useful outside of the company while specific training is that new knowledge and skills

learned are too firm-specific to be used in the outside of the company (Borjas, 2000). The

study also found that wage growth was weakly correlated with training but productivity

growth was highly correlated with training. Thus, the impact of training on productivity

growth is much larger than the impact of training on wage growth (Barron et al., 1999).

Evaluation of State-Funded, Employer-Based Training

Every state government has various forms of training programs. For the last

decade more state governments have actively involved state-funded, employer-based

trainings aiming to improve a states economic development. State governments have

attempted to develop a states economy through state-funded, employer-based training

programs, which provide a competitive workforce for supporting: (1) recruitment of

business and industry from other regions, (2) retention, revitalization, or expansion of

existing business and industry, and (3) development of new business and industry (GAO,

20


37/193

2004; Grubb & Stern, 1989; Hodson et al., 1992; Moore et al., 2003; Regional

Technology Strategies, 1999). Not only in the United States, but in many other

developing countries in Asia, South America, and Africa, local and federal governments

have developed community colleges as workforce training agencies with the cooperation

of business industry, international association, and foreign agencies modeling U.S.

community college system (McMurtrie, 2001).

Because of the nature of state-funded programs, most state-funded training

programs have been evaluated by various local and federal governments and independent

researchers. Their evaluations also have been conducted based on legislation and policy

perspective as well as economic perspectives, and/or mixed perspectives. Many

governmental reports alert that most state-funded, employer-focused training programs

need more in-depth of evaluation in terms of their impact at the firm level, the employers

reason for selecting training providers, and linkage with other state and federal higher

education programs (GAO, 2004; Regional Technology Strategies, 1999). Although most

state governments implemented state-funded training programs, the quality of evaluation

of those programs varies from state by state.

The National Governors Association developed a report based on 47 state

governments responses about state-funded, employer-focused training programs. One of

the results of the study found that there were weak linkages between state-funded,

employer-focused training and education at state-supported higher educational

institutions, though states interests were increasing to connect both entities (Regional

Technology Strategies, 1999).

21


38/193

One state with the best practices, California, showed that major training providers

are community colleges. While few states require independent, outside evaluations, the

California legislation requires a regular training outcome evaluation. Their required

evaluation is designed to measure pre-12 months of wages and post-12 months of wages

of training participants (Regional Technology Strategies, 1999).

The United States General Accountability Office (GAO, 2004) conducted a

survey of 23 states regarding their state-funded, employer-focused training programs.

This report also concluded similar results with a previous survey in 1999. The report

stated that all 23 states assessed their training programs in 2002, but none have

implemented sufficiently extensive evaluation methods to see the impact of training in

terms employees wages or companys earnings. In 41 percent of the states, internal state

government staff evaluates the programs, while only four percent of the states hire

external evaluators. Fifty four percent of states implemented a combination of internal

and external evaluation.

Moore, Blake, Phillips, and McConaughy (2003) conducted an extensive

evaluation study on Californias Employment Training Panel programs. They selected a

sample purposefully in order to capture a wide range of business types and sizes, and

used both qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods. They measured the quality of

training through assessing the quality of instructors, training materials, and customization.

They applied Kirkpatricks four levels of evaluation to assess learning from training.

Management reinforcement and institutionalization were also measured. The study

developed a very interesting framework for measuring the value of training impact. The

22


39/193

framework represents that the value of potential gains realized from training is a function

of potential gains, quality of training, and management reinforcement of training.

As a quantitative approach, they measured the number of employees and their

wages. The growth in the number of employees was calculated compared to growth on

average of the same industry, and the growth in total wages per employees was also

calculated compared to average wage growth in the same industry. One of the rationales

for measuring them is because they are only uniform data available cross companies

(Moore et al., 2003).

Measurement of Organizational Performance

As identified in the previous section, most evaluation of training impact tend to

measure learning pre and post training intervention. Self-reporting methodology has

predominated over behavioral observations (Phillips, 1990), and empirical studies of

training impacts on organizational performance have been rare. Therefore, human

resource development researchers have measured training impact in terms of individual

levels of learning and change behavior.

Measures by Evaluation Level

As reviewed earlier in the evaluation of training section, Kirkpatricks evaluation

model with four levels has been one of the most popular models in training evaluation.

Hence, many researchers have developed measures to assess training outcomes based on

the Kirkpatricks evaluation model (Alliger et al., 1997; Warr & Bunce, 1995). A recent

report of the ASTD described current practices of companies training evaluation. It

reported that 78 percent of companies use reaction measures, 32 percent use learning

23


40/193

measures, and less than 10 percent of companies assess measures of behavioral change or

organizational results (Van Buren & Erskine, 2002).

Trainees reactions, the level one in Kirkpatricks model, have been measured by

trainees enjoyment or satisfaction. Alliger et al (1997) asserted that enjoyment and

perceived usefulness should be differentiated and that both should be used to measure

trainees reaction. Warr and Allan (1999) further developed measurement in this reaction

level and found that differentiated measures are more closely related to learning

outcomes than traditional measures. They used trainees enjoyment, perceived usefulness,

and perceived difficulties to measure trainees reactions. They additionally measured

trainees pre-motivation and confidence level. One other recent study added two more

measurements such as post-transfer utility reactions and transfer climate reactions to the

above measures in assessing reaction level (Sekowski, 2002).

To assess the second level of Kirkpatricks model, the amount of acquisition of

knowledge is generally used. The amount of learning from the training usually is

measured immediately after the program. More recent studies asserted trainees perceived

value toward equipment and instructors should be measured as well as acquired

knowledge (Kraiger et al., 1993).

In addition to measuring the amount of learning, training researchers have

investigated how an individuals self efficacy is critically associated with higher learning

efficiency. Learning outcomes are separately measured based on types of learning such as

cognitive learning, skill-based learning, and affective (or attitudinal) learning outcomes

(Sekowski, 2002).

24


41/193

Behavior change or transfer, the third level in the Kirkpatricks model, is usually

measured based on supervisors observation or trainees self-reporting at the pre and post

training points of time. Level two and level three of the Kirkpatricks model have been

most frequently used to measure training outcome by practitioners at numerous

companies (Goldberg & Ramos, 2003).

Measures in all three levels are believed to measure training impacts consistently.

Warr and Allan (1999) studied 23 two-day training courses attended by motor-vehicle

technicians. All participants completed tests and questionnaires pre-training and post-

training. The results of the study found that the measures of the first level have

statistically significant relationships with the measures in the second level and in the third

level. For example, for those who enjoyed the course and perceived utility, presented

higher learning efficiency and behavior changes.

Leach and Liu (2003) also found that there are positive relationships among

reactions, knowledge acquisition, and behavior change. They asserted that those who had

constructive reactions to training have some potential to learn materials, and those who

with a higher level of knowledge retention were more likely to apply it in their work. The

result of their study found that measuring level two is most related to the results of

measuring level four. Thus, if companies wanted to measure organizational level of

outcomes, assessing knowledge transfer is the best indicator among Kirkpatricks level of

evaluations.

The results or business impacts has been considered to most difficult measure

since not a single event affects them, though level four outcomes are considered most

tangible (Goldberg & Ramos, 2003; Lupton et al., 1999; Warr & Bunce, 1995). However,

25


42/193

researchers have made efforts to identify relatively reliable measurements such as sales,

productivity, cost, quality, and turnover rate. The following section will describe what

measures have been identified to assess the fourth level of organizational outcomes.

Financial Measures

Business and economic scholars have frequently used financial measures to assess

training impact. However, most studies on returns from training have focused on

individual returns to training (Jacobs & Washington, 2003). Thus, an individuals wage

has been one of the most popular measures in assessing training impact, in particular,

from the economics perspective (Lynch, 1992).

While economists use individual earnings as a measure of training outcome at the

individual level, other researchers use aggregation of individual earnings as a measure of

training outcome at the organizational level. Moore, Blake, Phillips, and McConaughy

(2003) applied individual wages in measuring organizational performance in their

evaluation study of California state-funded, employer-focused training programs. They

measured change of total wages per employee for all the employees which included

training participants as well as non-participants. Their assumption was that if training

influenced increased organizational performance, total wages of all the employees should

increase overall.

Numerous studies on measuring performance have used many other financial

measures such as growth, earnings, return of investments, or unit costs, though few

studies have applied the financial measures on assessing organizational performance as

training outcome (Eccles, 1991).

26


43/193

Growth is one of the conventional measures to indicate organizational

performance. Growth represents growth in revenue and/or growth in production.

Although growth itself does not promise increased income, it is set as many

organizations targeting objectives. Because growth is closely related to the economies of

scale in many industries, growth in revenue and/or in production directly relate to lower

unit costs and higher return. In addition, if companies short-term goal is to increase

revenue, growth becomes the major measure for organizational performance (Kalleberg

& Van Buren, 1996).

Earning is another major measure to indicate organizational performance. Either

operational earnings or net income is measured depending on what is chosen to measure.

If operational efficiency is to be measured, operational earnings is appropriate, and if not

only operational efficiency but also efficiency of financial decisions are to be measured,

net income is more appropriate. Operational earnings are equal to subtracting operating

expenses, depreciation and amortization from the total revenue. Operating expenses

include production costs and overhead expenses such as energy, maintenance, human

resources, marketing, and any other supporting costs. Net income is equal to subtracting

financial expenses (loss or earnings) from operating earnings. Financial expenses include

capital investment, lease rental, insurance, and interests (Damodaran, 1999).

Non-financial Measures

Recent studies on company practices that measure performance have started to

use non-financial measures such as organizational commitment, customer satisfaction,

employee satisfaction, market share, product quality, retention, and turn-over rate. These

non-financial measures are quantitative or at least quantifiable.

27


44/193

Since there are relatively few reliable measures available to assess performance of

professional or office workers, researchers have tried to identify indicators or factors

which have a positive relationship with their performance. They include job satisfaction,

turnover rate, absenteeism, and organizational commitment (Leach & Liu, 2003; Lincoln

& Kalleberg, 1990; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).

Eaton (2003) investigated the relationship between flexibility policies on

organizational performance by using survey data of professional and technical workers in

seven biopharmaceutical companies. Although her work does not assess results of

training impact, it shows measure of organizational performance using organizational

commitment. The flexibility was measured by three levels: formal, informal, and usable

policies. The organizational performance was measured by self-reported productivity and

organizational commitment. The results of the study found that usable flexibility policy

has a statistically significant association with organizational commitment, specially for

small companies. She used an organizational scale drawn from Lincoln and Kalleberg

(1990).

Leach and Liu (2003) assessed organizational level of training outcome in

salespersons training by asking trainees to state perceived efficacy of the training

program to reach organizational commitment and sales effectiveness and to improve

customer relations. Because salespeople work on a commission base, they are believed to

be relatively sensitive in time spending and time-value oriented. Thus, the authors

considered self-reporting as relatively accurate.

Pauley (2001) described a partnership training program among community

colleges, a couple of state governments departments, public training center, vendors, and

28


45/193

local chamber of commerce for client organizations. In this study, Pauley assessed

organizational level of training outcomes by asking employers to report employees

retention and change in productivity contrasting training hours and costs.

Studies in this area also attempted to prove these non-financial measures as a

predictor of organization performance, in particular, as long-term financial performance

(Anderson et al., 1994; Banker et al., 2000; Ittner & Larcker, 1998). However, the results

of those studies are not consistent. For example, one survey study analyzed customer and

business unit data for two service firms. It found that customer satisfaction measures are

positively related to future financial returns. However, the results of their cross-sectional

data analysis did not show any consistent associations between customer satisfaction and

market returns (Ittner & Larcker, 1998). Another study analyzed 77 Swedish firms from

various industries and showed that customer satisfaction is positively related with

concurrent returns on investment. But it showed that there are negative or weak positive

relations found in service industries (Anderson et al., 1994).

However, a more recent study asserted that those inconsistencies are due to an

inappropriate time lag between customer satisfaction measured and financial returns

measured. Banker, Potter, and Srinivasan (2000) analyzed 18 managed properties of a

hotel chain data to determine the relationship between customer satisfaction and long

term financial performance. The results of the study found a significant association

between customer satisfaction and financial performance measured by business unit

revenue and operating profit. They described that a single measure of customer

satisfaction is just as effective as a combined complex measure. They asserted that the

29


46/193


47/193

participation in partnership programs has increased. Before looking at the current practice

of university-industry partnership, a brief history of partnerships and their motivation will

be discussed.

During the 1920s and 1930s, private foundations were the dominant external

source of funds for university research. At the time, those funds went into basic research

with goal of benefiting mankind. After World War II, university research partnership

arose out of need for intensive research requested by the federal government. The

Department of Defense, the Atomic Energy Commission, and NASA were major

supporters of research at universities. By that time, the value from business interests was

also realized among universities, though industrial supports grew gradually (Bowie,

1994).

In the late 1970s and early 1980s financial support to universitiesusually for

research & development (R&D)from the federal and state governments started to

decrease, and universities began to look for other financial sources from business, which

was encouraged by the governments. Now university-industry partnerships have become

increasingly common and intensively implemented (Bowie, 1994; Campbell & Slaughter,

1999).

Besides financial challenges, there were several other pressures that encouraged

the promotion of partnerships. Several significant environmental trends such as the

political-economical order of countries, international competition over high technology,

and the rise of the knowledge society stimulated university-industry relationship

(Starbuck, 2001). After the post-industrial society, knowledge became increasingly

important to achieve competitive advantages for industry. This shift motivated business

31


48/193

and industry to consider universities as their source of knowledge. Thus, industrys

sponsorship to universities has taken the form of partnerships with universities (Santoro

& Betts, 2002).

Purpose and Definition of University-IndustryPartnership

There are many different motives to participate in university-industry partnerships. A

survey sponsored by the National Science Foundation showed that the reasons companies

interacted with universities are:

(1) to access to manpower, (2) to obtain technology and scientific knowledge, (3)

to provide general technical excellence, (4) to access to university facilities, (5) to

obtain prestige or enhance companys image, and 6) to solve a particular problem

or get specific information unavailable elsewhere (Powers & Powers, 1988a)

The reasons from universities side are:

(1) to access a new source of money and to diversify universitys funding base,

(2) to provide students exposure to real-world research problems, (3) to work on

an intellectually challenging research program, (4) to access companys research

facilities and research data, and (5) to provide better training for increasing

number of graduates going to industry (Powers & Powers, 1988a).

However, the ultimate goal beyond these motives is to improve practice. Thus,

university-industry partnership can be defined as working together for improving

practice (Jacobs, 1999; Starbuck, 2001). When university and industry conduct

university-industry partnership projects, they have their own immediate goals as

discussed above. Hence, a university-industry partnership might have dual goals: industry

32


49/193

wants to solve immediate organizational problems or issues while faculty (university)

wants to extend the body of knowledge in the research area.

Two major questions are why industry wants to solve their organizational

problems and why researchers want to generate new knowledge. Industry wants to

improve practice by solving business problems. Researchers want to improve practice by

building new knowledge to apply practice. Jacobs (1999) defined HRD partnership

research as the process of improving HRD practice through research (p.874). The

ultimate goal of university-industry partnership is to improve practice, whether it is

through research, training, or services. Starbuck (2001) also defined the university-

industry partnership as working together toward a common goal (p.2), and the common

goal is to improve practice.

Forms of University-IndustryPartnership

University-industry partnerships are delivered in a number of forms and vary in

intensity of collaboration and scale of intervention. The most conventional and common

partnership is the university-based, team-based research project, which allows

businesses to solve their problems or issues (Roessner et al., 1998).

Relatively recently training and education is another major purpose of university-

industry partnership projects. Under the workforce development university-industry

partnership, there are many forms of training, such as management education,

certification programs, tech prep, internship or apprenticeships, work-based learning,

placement, college curriculum development partnerships, consortium programs, teaching

company schemes, the placing of full-time management students on in-company projects

to act as a consultants and analysts, sponsoring and facilitation applied research programs

33


50/193

in management development, and developing a learning organization through

partnership (Bailey, 1995; Ellis & Moon, 1998; Keithley & Redman, 1997; Pearce, 1999;

Roever, 2000; Thacker, 2002; Wells, 1999). Recently the traditional customer-supplier

model in management development has been replaced by a learning partnership model

involving a mixture of learning, consultancy, and research (Keithley & Redman, 1997).

Empirical Work in Partnership Training

University-industry partnerships have contributed to organizational development

and employee development in numerous ways. As a result, it is widely believed that

university-industry partnerships are beneficial to industry. Since it is known that the

primary goal of private companies is profit maximization, the increasing number of

university-industry partnership projects can be one of the positive indicators that

university-industry partnerships are beneficial to industry.

In addition, a number of workforce development and business scholars have

examined the impact of university-industry partnership outcomes to identify benefits of

the university-industry partnerships to industry. How university-industry partnerships

have contributed to the organizational development level and employee development

level are discussed in a review of evidence from the following case studies.

Impact on Organizational Development

Learning Organization through Knowledge/Technology Transfer. One of the

biggest advantages from university-industry partnerships is that organizations can engage

in continuous learning and gain new technology and knowledge for their continuous

improvement. Several studies documented the role of university-industry partnerships in

knowledge transfer. For example, technology research outcomes transferred from

34


51/193

universities to industry contributed 38 billion dollars to the economy, creating over

300,000 jobs and forming hundreds of new companies (Hall & Scott, 2001). Another

study found that technology and knowledge are transferred from universities to industries

not only from the research partnership projects but also from the training and education

partnership projects. university-industry partnerships also assisted companies to recruit an

appropriately trained workforce who can increase technology transfer (Ryan & Heim,

1997).

Organizational Change. University-industry partnership training programs enable

participants to view organizations from a more objective point of view and to initiate

organizational change as change agents. For example, all the Company Associate

Partnership Scheme (CAPS) projects were established as change projects, and

participants perceived themselves as change agents. CAPS was established by a

partnership between British Small and Medium Enterprises (SME), recent graduates,

academic support from a local college and Leeds Metropolitan University in 1993.

During the program, even those who were resistors of change could understand the need

of and advantages of change, and those who supported change understood the resistors

fear and minds. Thus, their graduates could help SMEs to change their organization and

their organizational culture (Gold et al., 1998).

Public sector scholars also thought that universities were uniquely positioned to

play a role which encourages individuals and their organizations to critically challenge

their ways of working and thinking. Thus, in the 1990s when the public sectors faced

requests to become more effective organizations, Mavin and Bryans (2000) described

mutually beneficial outcomes from university-industry partnerships which could result in

35


52/193

the development of continuous learning, culture change, organizational development

initiatives, and appropriate restructuring.

Qualified Workforce and Professional Development. Companies can recruit an

appropriately trained workforce and stimulate current employees professional

development through university-industry partnerships. Companies often recruit qualified

workforce and develop their participating employees skills and knowledge not only from

training partnership programs but also even from research partnership projects (Ellis &

Moon, 1998; Roever, 2000; Ryan & Heim, 1997).

Private sector companies were not the only entities to value external training

providers. Government agencies also considered universities as external providers of

training and development, reflecting the need for continuous professional development,

for flexibility, and for continuous adaptability to change (Mavin & Bryans, 2000). Even

universities such as Saint Marys University also developed international management

programssponsored by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong and with

assistance of Hong Kong five star Hotelsand educated international mangers with

global perspectives (Chan, 1994).

Impact on Employee Development

Some HRD scholars have asserted to there is a relationship between individual

development and organizational performance (Jacobs & Washington, 2003). Even though

there are not many studies that have proved a clear linkage between employee

development and organizational development, employee development has been described

as having positive relationship with organizational development.

36


53/193

Compared to traditional education, participants in university-industry partnership

training programs experience several advantages. The partnership training programs

gives participants

more convenient time and places to study, less worry about finances, clearer

understanding of the connections between theory and applications, greater contact

with other students who have similar career objectives, more chances to practice

classroom skills on the job, less concern about jobs after graduation, and greater

access to instructors who are current in their fields (Aslanian, 1988).

Although university-industry training partnership participants are not employed

during the training period, their placement rates are very high. For example, placement

rates in the Ben Franklin Programs, technology training education programs through the

partnership between the Behrend College and a consortium of several small companies

with common interests in plastic and material technology, were almost at 100 percent

(Ryan & Heim, 1997).

In addition, individual participants gain more applicable knowledge and training

through university-industry training partnership. The HRD partnership program between

East Tennessee State University and Sprint adopted the open system approach to

education based on problem-based learning, which is a form of education that combines

discipline knowledge with a focus on solving problems (Yasin et al., 2000). Education of

applicable knowledge and appropriate training ultimately increases individuals

performance, job satisfaction, and their employment status at their workplace (Johnstone,

1994).

37


54/193

Although there are a few empirical studies found to examine impact of university-

industry partnership on workforce development, especially from a labor economics point

of view, case studies have been conducted to examine if university-industry partnerships

assist improving workforce development outcomes either for individuals or for

organizations.

New York Telephone Company and Empire State College. In 1991, the State

University of New Yorks Empire State College and New York Telephone Company

established a partnership program, the Corporate/College Program, which enables

company employees to earn associate or baccalaureate degrees while working full-time.

Empire State College is a nontraditional institution for adults, offering a full-range of

short-course training and tailored programs. This partnership occurred because the New

York Telephone Company needed to develop functional workplace competencies since a

competitive market and customers needs required excellent service using state-of-the-art

technology. With the assistance of the New York City public schools, Empire State

College and New York Telephone recruited one hundred senior high school graduates

who were willing to go to college but could not afford it because 92 percent of them

came from minority groups. In addition, 30 current employees and 20 from outside the

company were also added to this program.

New York Telephones financial commitment was matched by Empire State

Colleges program flexibility and capacity for partnership program. Nine months before

the students enrollment, academic programs started to be designed. Besides a flexible

program schedule to meet working condition, the Corporate/College Program

implemented unique programs to support current students need such as a collegiate

38


55/193


56/193

human resource development and continuing education, technology transfer, and the

advancement of the TQM relationship.

While conducting reengineering projects, DuPont looked to acquire relevant

technology from sources outside of the company. Since the director of technology

acquisition at DuPont and the director of the Industrial Research Office at Penn State

established a personal and professional relationship from the previous partnership,

DuPont and Penn State were able to successfully launch research and technology

development projects in advanced materials, housing and construction materials research,

business, and biotechnology.

Penn State also developed a relationship with Forum, Inc.DuPonts training

service providerand jointly developed comprehensive training programs as a response

to the DuPonts training needs. DuPont team members were also involved in an

innovative manufacturing engineering program that would revise the engineering

curriculum to emphasize the interdependency of design in a business environment (Ryan

& Heim, 1997). This case study showed that initially developed partnering relationship

impacted other business areas such as human resource development, research

development, and curriculum design to gain mutual benefits.

Cummins Engine Company and Teesside Business School in UK. Cummins, one

of the major players in diesel-engine manufacturing in the world, faced severe global

competition from companies in Japan, so Cummins launched a corporate initiativethe

Cummins production systems (CPS). CPS led to Cummins re-evaluating its management

activities and found that new management skills would be required to support CPS at all

levels.

40


57/193

The partnership program designed several part-time, integrated programs with a

Management Certificate, a Management Diploma, or a Masters in Business (MBA).

Most courses were offered as a work-based learning approach and were comprised of

monthly residential and open-learning sessions for 24 months. Most managers were

encouraged to develop their own perso

A Study of Training Program Characteristics and Training Effectiveness Among Organizations Receiving...

Documents

Transcript of A Study of Training Program Characteristics and Training Effectiveness Among Organizations Receiving...