Training evaluation in Italian corporate universities: A stakeholder-based analysis

International Journal of Training and Development

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 291-308

  Guerci, Marco ^a   Bartezzaghi, Emilio ^a   Solari, Luca ^a  

^a POLITECNICO DI MILANO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649466686     PISSN: 13603736     EISSN: 14682419     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2010.00359.x     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Abernathy, D. J. (1999), 'Thinking outside the evaluation box', Training & Development, 53, 19-23.
2. Alkin, M. C., Hofstetter, C. H. and Ai, X. (1998), 'Stakeholder Concepts in Program Evaluation', in A. Reynolds and H. Walberg (eds), Advances in Educational Productivity, Vol. 7 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), pp. 87-113.
3. Allen, M. (2002), The Corporate University Handbook (New York: American Management Association).
4. Alliger, G. M. and Janak, E. A. (1989), 'Kirkpatrick's levels of training criteria: thirty years later', Personnel Psychology, 42, 331-42.
5. Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., Traver, H. and Shotland, A. (1997), 'A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria', Personnel Psychology, 50, 341-58.
6. Altschuld, J. W. and Zheng, H. Y. (1995), 'Assessing the effectiveness of research organizations: an examination of multiple approaches', Evaluation Review, 19, 2, 197-216.
7. Andresen, M. and Lichtenberger, B. (2007), 'The corporate university landscape in Germany', Journal of Workplace Learning, 19, 2, 109-23.
8. Barley, K. (2002), 'Corporate Universities Structures that Reflect Organizational Cultures', in M. Allen (ed.), The Corporate University Handbook (New York: American Management Association), pp. 43-66.
9. Barley, K. (2007), 'Learning as a Competitive Business Variable', in M. Allen (ed.), The Next Generation Corporate University (San Francisco, CA: Wiley), pp. 39-61.
10. Bassi, L., Benson, G. and Cheney, S. (1996), 'The top ten trends', Training & Development, 50, 29-33.
11. Bates, R. (2004), 'A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence', Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 341-7.
12. Bates, R. A., Holton, E. F. III, Seyler, D. A. and Carvalho, M. A. (2000), 'The role of interpersonal factors in the application of computer-based training in an industrial setting', Human Resource Development International, 3, 19-43.
13. Blass, E. (2001), 'What's in a name? A comparative study of the traditional public university and the corporate university', Human Resource Development International, 4, 2, 153-72.
14. Bober, C. and Bartlett, K. (2004), 'The utilization of training program evaluation in corporate universities', HR Development Quarterly, 5, 363-84.
15. Brown, D. C. (1994), How managers and training professionals attribute causality for results: implications for training evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
16. Bryk, A. S. (ed.) (1983), 'Stakeholder-Based Evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation, Vol. 17 (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
17. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I. and Mathieu, J. E. (1995), 'Toward theoretically based principles of training effectiveness: a model and initial empirical investigation', Military Psychology, 7, 141-64.
18. Carnevale, A. P. and Schulz, E. R. (1990), 'Economic accountability for training: demands and responses', Training & Development, 44, 7, 1-32.
19. Collins, D. (2002), 'Performance-level evaluation methods used in management development studies from 1986 to 2000', Human Resource Development Review, 1, 91-110.
20. Cousins, J. B. and Earl, L. M. (1992), 'The case for participatory evaluation', Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 4, 397-418.
21. Dealtry, R. (2000), 'Case research into corporate university developments', Journal of Workplace Learning, 6, 342-57.
22. Dealtry, R. (2005), 'Achieving integrated performance management with the corporate university', Journal of Workplace Learning, 17, 1/2, 65-78.
23. Dixon, N. M. (1996), 'New routes to evaluation', Training & Development, 50, 5, 82-7.
24. Eccles, G. (2004), 'Marketing the corporate university or enterprise academy', Journal of Workplace Learning, 16, 7, 410-18.
25. ECUANET (2006), An Overview of Corporate Universities (Birmingham: European Corporate Universities and Academies Network).
26. El-Tannir, A. A. (2002), 'The corporate university model for continuous learning, training and development', Education & Training, 44, 76-81.
27. Fitz-enz, J. (1988), 'Proving the value of training', Personnel, 3, 17-23.
28. Flynn, D. J. (1992), Information Systems Requirements: Determination and Analysis (London: McGraw-Hill).
29. Ford, J. K. and Kraiger, K. (1995), 'The application of cognitive constructs and principles to the instructional systems design model of training: implications for needs assessment, design, and transfer', International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10, 1-48.
30. Ford, J. K., Quinones, M., Sego, D. and Sorra, J. (1992), 'Factors affecting the opportunity to use trained skills on the job', Personnel Psychology, 45, 511-27.
31. Garavan, T. N. (1995), 'HRD stakeholders: their philosophies, values, expectations and evaluation criteria', Journal of European Industrial Training, 19, 17-30.
32. Garvin, D. A. (1995), 'Building a Learning Organization', in D. A. Kolb, J. Osland and I. M. Rubin (eds), The Organizational Behavior Reader (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall), pp. 96-109.
33. Geber, B. (1995), 'Does your training make a difference? Prove it!', Training, 3, 27-34.
34. Gold, N. (1983), 'Stakeholders and Program Evaluations: Characterizations and Reflections', in A. S. Bryk (ed.), Stakeholder-Based Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, Vol. 17 (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), pp. 63-72.
35. Greene, J. C. (1988), 'Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluation', Evaluation Review, 12, 91-116.
36. Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1989), Fourth Generation Evaluation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).
37. Hashim, J. (2001), 'Training evaluation: client's roles', Journal of European Industrial Training, 25, 7, 374-80.
38. Jarvis, P. (2001), Universities and Corporate Universities (London: Kogan Page).
39. Kearsley, G. (1982), Costs, Benefits, and Productivity in Training Systems (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
40. Kirkpatrick, D. (1975), Evaluating Training Programs (Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development).
41. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994), Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler).
42. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1996), 'Great ideas revisited', Training & Development, 50, 1, 54-9.
43. Kontoghiorghes, C. (2001), 'Factors affecting training effectiveness in the context of the introduction of a new technology - a US case study', International Journal of Training and Development, 5, 4, 248-60.
44. Lewis, P. (1997), 'A framework for research into training and development', International Journal of Training and Development, 1, 2-8.
45. Lewis, T. (1996), 'A model for thinking about the evaluation of training', Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9, 1, 3-22.
46. Lien, B. Y-H., Hung, R. Y. and McLean, G. N. (2007), 'Training evaluation based on cases of Taiwanese benchmarked high-tech companies', International Journal of Training and Development, 11, 1, 35-48.
47. McLean, G. N. (2005), 'Examining approaches to HR evaluation: the strengths and weaknesses of popular measurement methods', Strategic Human Resources, 4, 2, 24-7.
48. McLinden, D. J. (1995), 'Proof, evidence, and complexity: understanding the impact of training and development in business', Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8, 3, 3-18.
49. Macpherson, A., Homan, G. and Wilinson, K. (2005), 'The implementation and use of e-learning in the corporate university', Journal of Workplace Learning, 17, 1/2, 33-48.
50. Mark, M. and Shotland, R. L. (1985), 'Stakeholder-based evaluation and value judgments', Evaluation Review, 9, 5, 605-26.
51. Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T. and Julnes, G. (2000), Review of Evaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Policies and Programs (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
52. Meister, J. C. (1998), Corporate University (New York: McGraw Hill).
53. Michalski, G. V. and Cousins, J. B. (2000), 'Differences in stakeholder perceptions about training evaluation: a concept mapping/pattern matching investigation', Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 211-30.
54. Noe, R. (2000), 'Invited reaction: development of generalized learning transfer system inventory', Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 4, 361-6.
55. Paton, R. (2005), 'Reviewing and Reporting Results', in R. Paton, G. Peters, J. Storey and S. Taylor (eds), Handbook of Corporate University Development (Aldershot: Gower), pp. 123-33.
56. Patton, M. Q. (1997), Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text, 3rd edn (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
57. Phillips, J. (1997), Handbook of Training Evaluation and Measurement Methods (Houston, TX: Gulf).
58. Phillips, P. P. and Phillips, J. J. (2001), 'Symposium on the evaluation of training: editorial', International Journal of Training and Development, 5, 4, 240-7.
59. Preskill, H. (1997), 'Using critical incidents to model effective evaluation practice in the teaching of evaluation', Evaluation Practice, 18, 1, 65-71.
60. Prince, C. (2003), 'Corporate education and learning: the accreditation agenda', Journal of Workplace Learning, 15, 174-85.
61. Prince, C. and Beaver, G. (2001), 'Facilitating organizational change: the role and development of the corporate university', Strategic Change, 10, 189-99.
62. Prince, C. and Stewart, J. (2002), 'Corporate universities: an analytical framework', Journal of Management Development, 21, 10, 794-811.
63. Robinson, D. G. and Robinson, J. C. (1989), Training for Impact: How to Link Training to Business Needs and Measure Results (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
64. Russ-Eft, D. and Preskill, H. (2001), Evaluation in Organizations: A Systematic Approach to Enhancing Learning, Performance and Change (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
65. Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001), 'The science of training: a decade of progress', Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 471-97.
66. Stake, R. E. (1983), 'Stakeholder Influence in the Evaluation of Cities in Schools', in A. S. Bryk (ed.), Stakeholder-Based Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), pp. 15-30.
67. Swanson, R. A. and Holton, E. F. (1999), Results: How to Assess Performance, Learning, and Perceptions in Organizations (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler).
68. Tannenbaum, S. I. and Yukl, G. (1992), 'Training and development in work organizations', Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399-441.
69. Tesoro, F. (1998), 'Implementing an ROI measurement process at Dell Computer', Performance Improvement Quarterly, 11, 4, 103-14.
70. Tracy, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I. and Kavanaugh, M. J. (1995), 'Applying trained skills on the job: the importance of work environment', Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 239-52.
71. Weiss, C. H. (1983), 'The stakeholder approach to evaluation: origins and promise', New Directions for Program Evaluation, 17, 3-14.
72. Wognum, I. and Lam, J. F. (2000), 'Stakeholder involvement in strategic HRD aligning: the impact on HRD effectiveness', International Journal of Training and Development, 4, 2, 98-110.
73. Yin, R. K. (1984), Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).