Using the Critical Outcome Technique to Demonstrate Financial and Organizational Performance Results

Abstract

The problem and the solution. It has been shown that managers prefer results-type evaluation when making decisions about how to invest in human resource development (HRD) activities. Unfortunately, in the absence of using rigorous, front-end performance analysis to identify outcomes for evaluation, most practitioners are faced with a complex array of tools and techniques to perform post-hoc analyses of their HRD efforts. This article demonstrates how Critical Outcome Technique can be used as a simple and effective way to demonstrate the effectiveness of HRD programs. Of importance in program evaluation are the constructs of the evaluation process, organizational culture, evaluation context, and decision-maker perceptions of the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of evaluation reports.

Keywords

HRD evaluation Critical Outcome Technique COT

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Carnevale, B. , & Schulz, E. (1990). Technical training in America: How much and who. Training and Development Journal, 42(11), 18-32.

Cronbach, L. J. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hronec, S. M. (1993). Vital signs: Using quality, time, and cost performance measurements to chart your company’s future. New York: Amacom.

Kaplan, R. S. , & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Kusy, M. (1988). The effects of types of training evaluation on support of training among corporate managers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1(2), 23-30.

Macy, B. , & Mirvis, P. (1982). Organizational change efforts: Methodologies for assessing organizational effectiveness and program costs versus benefits. Evaluation Review, 6, 310-372.

Mattson, B. W. (2000). Development and validation of the critical outcome technique. Human Resource Development International, 3(4), 465-488.

Mattson, B. W. (2003). The effects of alternative reports of human resource development results on managerial support. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(2), 127-152.

10.

Mattson, B. W. , Quartana, L. J. , & Swanson, R. A. (1998). Assessing the business results of management development using the critical outcome technique. In J. J. Phillips (Ed.), In action: Measuring return on investment(pp. 211-227). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

11.

Patton, M. Q. (1987). Creative evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

12.

Sackett, P. R. , & Mullen, E. J. (1993). Beyond formal experimental design: Towards an expanded view of the training evaluation process. Personnel Psychology, 46, 613-627.

13.

Swanson, R. A. (1989). Everything important in business and industry is evaluated. In R. O. Brinkerhoff (Ed.), Evaluating training programs in business and industry: New directions for program evaluation(pp. 71-82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Swanson, R. A. (1996). Performance-learning-satisfaction evaluation system: The application of the three-domain evaluation model to performance improvement, human resource development, organization development, and personnel training and development. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Human Resource Development Research Center.

15.

Swanson, R. A. , & Mattson, B. W. (1997). Development and validation of the critical outcome technique. Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference Proceedings, pp. 64-71.

16.

Wang, G. (2002). Control groups for human performance technology evaluation and measurement. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(2), 34-48.

17.

Zigon, J. (1994). Performance management training: Yellow freight system. In J. J. Phillips (Ed.), In action: Measuring return on investment(pp. 253-269). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.