•The HRD department is held accountable for its activity & not for its results. – Number of programs offered, number of participants who attend a, cost of equipment etc. There is no accounting of the results of those activities and costs. Managers are left to deduce their own opinions about payback.
•The HRD department is held accountable for design and delivery of training program. The more activity completed the better. In some companies trainers have to spend 80% of their time in training delivery. There is little time to do needs assessment or research, which require out of classroom time. In Cinescape it is generally believed that if one is called a trainer, one should be in the classroom; otherwise one is not really working.
•Skill transfer from the classroom to the job is unknown or absent. The purpose of the training department is to deliver courses that provide attendees with skills and knowledge in a high quality learning environment. The end of course evaluation is often the only evaluation tool. While they do provide valuable information about the program, such evaluations do not collect data about application of the new knowledge or skill to the job. The implementation strategy is very ambiguous. On-the-job application is viewed as the responsibility of the participant and his/her department head.
•There is a lack of clear alignment with the business needs. There are a lot of unconnected courses offered for a variety of reasons. Maybe the HRD department thinks that a particular course is beneficial to employees or everyone in the industry is conducting that course. Absent from all this rationales is the direct link to a business problems (reduced market share, increasing customer complaints) or a business opportunity (launching of a new servi ...