Ryan Door Company: Learning Process Improvement

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Abstract

The purpose of this report is to identify ways of improving the training process at Ryan Door. Also, the report covers the types of outcomes to use in evaluating the improved training process and the evaluation by considering appropriate ways to minimize threats to validity and practical considerations.

Ryan Door will use a training program to enhance efficiency, reduce turnover and realize cost-savings. The training program must have clearly defined goals and objectives in line with the long-term strategic goals of the company.

Evaluation instruments should be valid. Therefore, the company will use pre-tests and post-tests to ensure the validity and practical application of the evaluation design. Also, Ryan Door will use feedback to enhance future training for employees.

Outline

The types of outcomes to use in evaluating the improved training process
Improving the training process
The evaluation design for validityConclusion

Introduction

Ryan Door has human resource problems. Poor collaboration between departments such as door-design affects product quality and increases costs. Mistakes are costly for the company. The company lacks a training manual for employees, except out-of-date provisions on job descriptions. It does on-the-job training for recruits in which employees quitting the company train the recruits for one or two weeks during overlap time or other employees take the role of training recruits when such overlap periods are not available.

Improving the training process

First, Ryan Door must update its job description and develop a new training manual for employees. These are basic human resource tools, which any company should not lack.

The company must also identify training needs. It must first evaluate three critical human resource elements, which include the entire company, job characteristics and specific needs of employees and recruits. Through this process, Ryan Door will know exactly where training is required, elements that employees must learn in training to enhance productivity and specific employees who require training.

Ryan Door must assess the status of its operations. For instance, it must evaluate its overall practices, best practices and abilities of employees and recruits to do the job. From the assessment, the company will get some standards in which the efficacy of a training program can be assessed. Ryan Door should develop a long-term strategic plan alongside a training program to realize the deliverables.

Ryan Door must also consider resources available and commitment to supporting employee training programs. A lack of resources and commitment from the CEO would fail.

Ryan Door must also identify specifically where training is necessary. For instance, the door-design department is a critical area that requires training. Mistakes made in this department are costly to the company and therefore, the employee training program must focus on this department and other departments too. These areas need resources the most perhaps than other departments of the company. A thorough analysis of the organization is required to identify areas that are most likely to benefit from training programs. The company must also use skill inventory to identify skill gaps among employees. It will assist the company to know employee existing skills and identify expertise that they require to develop for success (Werner & DeSimone, 2011).

Ryan Door must also select employees for training. This is important for a small company like Ryan Door that has a high rate of employee turnover. Training is expensive and thus selecting employees to be trained is important.

The training program for Ryan Door should be designed to incorporate the abilities of the targeted departments. For instance, the door-design department should get specific training on designs and the importance of collaboration with other employees, both internal and external. Training must be designed to meet adult learning needs so that employees can learn materials well, use them effectively and use available resources efficiently.

It is also important that employees be motivated by the training experience (Roberts, 2004). This should ensure that no employee fails in the training program. Therefore, Ryan Door must choose the right employee or department for training on specific, identified areas of skill gaps.

Training programs must have goals and objectives. Ryan Door must ensure that training goals and objectives relate specifically to the skill gaps identified during the assessment process. Training objectives must clear identify skills that employees must acquire and behaviors that must be changed after the training. Also, Ryan Door training program objectives must relate to the overall mission and long-term strategic plan of the organization.

These objectives must have milestones to assist the company to track outcomes on skill acquisition among employees. By setting goals and objectives for the training program, Ryan Door will be able to evaluate impacts on the program. At best, employees should take part in developing their training needs and setting objectives.

Training methods are also fundamental for improving the training program at Ryan Door. For the company, two major types of training are available for consideration. One method is on-the-job training while the second option is off-the-job training. These methods would be applied based on the training needs of employees.

Although Ryan Door currently uses the on-the-job training technique, the technique has critical flaws, rendering it ineffective. Ryan Door should have regular employees or supervisors to deliver on-the-job training to other newly hired employees (Streumer & Klink, 2002). However, for a company with a high rate of turnover, this method may not meet its needs. Nevertheless, there should be an effective plan for this training method. That is, training contents should be available and employees must know the details.

The company should introduce an on-the-job training schedule supported with periodic assessments to ensure that employees understand the relevance of training. On-the-job training should cover orientation for newly hired employees and specifically focus on fundamental aspects of the company. Specific senior employees should be identified to lead on-the-job-training.

Ryan Door can also use the off-the-job method. These approaches may involve the use of trainers, simulated programs, workshop training, conferences, and programmed instructions.

The orientation program is important for newly hired employees. At present, the system is not effective and as a result, many employees quit the company. For Ryan Door, orientation training must cover its history and mission, senior management and supervisors, critical departments and their managers and rules and regulations of the company. Ryan Door should introduce a written employee handbook and use direct orientation so that newly hired employees will understand their roles in the organization.

The types of outcomes to use in evaluating the improved training process

For the training outcome measures, Ryan will focus on two critical areas, which include assessment of employee competency learning and assessment of competency application (Carr, 2000). Ryan Door will have to evaluate whether employees have learned training materials, which will be done at an individual level. The obtained information will indicate the effectiveness of the training program and delivery method used. To get this information, the company will use the following approaches. First, Ryan Door will use questionnaires to gather both quantitative and qualitative data concerning workers’ reactions to training programs. Second, the company will use a knowledge review as an objective approach to assessing whether employees have learned training content. A question and answer technique will be used in this process. Third, the trainer will use the observation method to evaluate employee acquisition of the learning contents. For instance, the management team will observe the level of design-door department “engagement with architects, observe employee output, interaction and response to learning materials” (Carr, 2000, p. 3).

To determine changes in employees, the company will conduct portfolio analysis. Employee portfolio will yield useful information for employees and supervisors regarding their skills acquisition, mastery and application of such skills on the job after training.

Further, Ryan Door will conduct a skill gap analysis to determine skill development after training programs. Supervisors will conduct an assessment on levels of employees’ knowledge needed to accomplish tasks in various departments at Ryan Door and ensure that employees understand their strengths and weaknesses (Reddy, 2004).

Ryan Door will conduct a competency application assessment to “determine whether employees and recruits have used their newly acquired knowledge to enhance performance and justify training program investments” (Carr, 2000, p. 3). The company will conduct this evaluation at the organizational level to assess changes in performances and compare them against costs.

Also, Ryan Door will conduct organizational performance measures to evaluate all departments on improvements. As such, the company can track improvements and changes in performances and identify specific areas for further training.

Finally, Ryan Door will also perform an analysis of training return on investment to assess monetary impacts after employee training (Zinovieff, 2008).

The evaluation design for validity

While there is no perfect evaluation design for outcome assessment, some designs are better than others are because they reduce threats to validity and enhance the practical application of results. On this note, Ryan Door will design assessment instruments that are valid by conducting a pre-test to determine validity. The company will also use pre-tests and post-tests for comparison.

Ryan Door must use logic to design an effective evaluation program. The evaluation design should allow the company to make inferences from the obtained data. Also, it will consider an evaluation at the levels of employee reaction to training programs, attitudes, motivation and skills and return on investment (Miner, 2005).

There must be a clear link with training objectives and evaluation design while the outcome measures must also reflect similar content through the chosen strategy (Schiemann, 2002).

Conclusion

Ryan Door will greatly benefit from an improved training program. The company will have a pool of readily available employees to replace others who will quit. However, Ryan Door will realize the reduced rate of attrition after implementing a training program. Training will also enhance Ryan Door’s abilities to adapt to ongoing changes in the industry because of well-trained, skilled knowledgeable employees. It will also create more efficient and extremely motivated employees across all departments to enhance its competitive edge. Ryan Door will have enough employees to handle all roles effectively.

Thus, the company will realize direct benefits from increased productivity, reduced rate of attrition, improved efficiency at the design-door department and cost-saving (Khan, Khan, & Khan, 2011).

Ryan Door will have to evaluate its training program regularly to ensure that employees have achieved the intended training objectives. Newly mastered knowledge must be evaluated against areas of weaknesses identified during assessment. Ryan Door will use feedback to improve future training programs (Seifert, Yukl, & McDonald, 2003).

References

Carr, W. F. (2000). Designing an Effective Training Evaluation Process. Web.

Khan, R., Khan, F., & Khan, M. (2011). Impact of Training and Development on Organizational Performance. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 11(7), 1-7.

Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational behavior I: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Reddy, R. (2004). Personnel Management. Darya Ganj, Delhi: APH Publishing.

Roberts, J. (2004). The Modern Firm: Organizational Design for Performance and Growth. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schiemann, W. (2002). Creating the Measurement-Managed Organization. Branchburg, NJ: Metrus Group, Inc.

Seifert, C., Yukl, G., & McDonald, R. (2003). Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence of behavior of managers toward subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 561–569.

Streumer, J. N., & Klink, M. R. (2002). Effectiveness of on-the-job training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(2-4), 196-199.

Werner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. L. (2011). Human Resource Development (6th ed.). Nashville, TN: South-Western College.

Zinovieff, M. (2008). Review and Analysis of Training Impact Evaluation Methods, and Proposed Measures to Support a United Nations System Fellowships Evaluation Framework. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!