This study explores the impact of two management interventions, a pre‐training expectations discussion and an after‐training follow‐up discussion, on the transfer of skills from training programs to the work situation. Ninety‐one trainees in five skill development courses in a Fortune 200 company in Michigan participated in this study. For each course, the trainees were randomly assigned to two groups: (1) those whose managers provided the specified pre‐ and postsession interventions and (2) those whose managers did not provide them. Comparisons were made to see which group reported more instances of training transfer and selected transfer‐related factors. The results showed significantly higher training usage and a more positive perception regarding the forces that encourage transfer of training within the work environment among the trainees who received the management support interventions. On the other hand, the trainees who did not receive management support reported lower training usage and perceived more forces mitigating against transfer. The findings provide further evidence that support provided by managers before and after training leads to greater transfer of training. The study recommends building strong trainer‐manager‐trainee partnerships in the phases before, during, and after training.

The problem and the solution. Despite the fact that effective human resource development (HRD) operations are vital to overall organization success, most organizations fail to evaluate the impact and return on training investments that they could and should. Traditional evaluation models and methods, with their focus on simply assessing the scope of training's effect, do little to help reap greater performance and organizational impact from HRD and, in fact, can even undermine this purpose. This article argues that it is performance, not HRD, that achieves (or does not achieve) results, and thus impact evaluation must inquire more broadly into the performance management context. Consequently, the Success Case Method (SCM) is presented and discussed. The final portion of the article presents a case study derived from a recent SCM evaluation project for a major business client that demonstrates and illustrates the working of the method.In today's globally competitive changing market and constant technological advancement, training is a given. Doing training well-getting results from learning investments-is a must, not a choice. The pace of change persistently shortens the "shelf life" of employee capability. Organizations must continuously help employees master new skills and capabilities. The central training challenge for organizations today is how to leverage learningconsistently, quickly, and effectively-into improved performance.Responsibility for creating and maintaining performance improvement does not typically lie with any one individual or organization unit; rather, it is a diffuse responsibility shared among senior executives, line manage-

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide training and human resources development practitioners with a practical, credible and strategically‐useful training evaluation method.Design/methodology/approachThe suggested evaluation strategy and method are based on the author's experience as a thought leader and consultant with hundreds of organizations world‐wide.FindingsHuman resources development practitioners need a more practical, simple, valid and actionable approach to evaluation.Practical implicationsEvaluation should focus on the entire training and performance improvement process, not solely on training events. Leverage for making improvements to training impact is found in the performance management system factors in the larger organization outside the boundaries of the training department or function.Originality/valueThe paper proposes a new, more simple and valid approach to measurement of training impact that has been tried successfully in several dozen leading companies.

Training professionals have long acknowledged the necessity of conducting behavior-based (Level 3) and results-based (Level 4) evaluations, yet organizations do not frequently conduct such evaluations. This research examined training professionals' perceptions of the utility of Level 3 and Level 4 evaluations and the factors that facilitate or obstruct their attempts to perform them. The research was conducted using Brinkerhoff's Success Case Method and Gilbert's BehaviorEngineering Model as its frameworks. The three key factors identified by study participants as having an impact upon their ability to conduct Level 3 and Level 4 evaluations were the availability of resources such as time and personnel, managerial support (organizational) and expertise in evaluative methodology (individual). The research findings indicated a need to further explore how training professionals interpret Level 3 and Level 4 and how they can better develop their evaluative expertise, which in turn may increase effectiveness in gaining organizational support for evaluation efforts.

No abstract