Performance Management.

Automated, comparable

& integrated.

Performance Management Entity (PERMANENT)

One of the key learnings from “Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation”, the de-facto global standard of measuring training effectiveness, is that training only becomes valuable to an organisation if the training is actually applied on the job with measurable improvement of results.

 

Most LMS's measure only the learner reaction (level 1) and learning results (level 2). Changes in learner behaviour effected by training (level 3) and results such as return on expectations (level 4) are seldom measured due to the complexity of this environment. The most value is however gained by measuring Kirkpatrick Level 3 items.

Studies have shown that only 15% of all learners manage to apply what they had learned during training. It appears that many training departments would benefit from help in facilitating the measurement of Kirkpatrick Level 3 items.

 

The KMS aims to provide tools to help measure Kirkpatrick Level 3 items via the Performance Management Entity (PERMANENT), which may be used to track and develop performance of individual staff members, groups and departments as well other environments that require ongoing performance tracking and development.

  • Integrated into the KMS

  • Built-in performance management compiler

  • On demand, scheduled and repeat performance assessing

  • Single / Dual party workflow options

  • Different scoring metrics, including numeric, weighting etc.

  • Moderation enabled for disagreement resolution

  • Final result expressed in percentages to ensure comparability

  • Notification alerts and warnings

  • Extensive reporting options, including graphs

PERMANENT Workflow

  • Before performance can be measured it is necessary to define a set of indicators, such as KPI's and KPA's - this set of indicators is known as a PIDS (Performance Indicator Definition Set).

 

  • Each PIDS may contain any number of individual performance indicators. Indicators are defined using a number of different scoring attributes to facilitate a wide range of options, such as “below standard”, “meets expectations” or “above expectations”.

  • Scoring can be captured by means of multiple “tick boxes”, indicating a number of items performed i.e. "competent / not yet competent", scale from 1 - 10 etc.

  • Scoring mechanisms are customisable, which may include numeric data. Numeric data can also be captured and expressed in a non-linear format.

 

  • Each PIDS is created as one of two different types, depending on the measuring objectives. The type options are as follows:

 

  • Single Person Workflow: the data for this type is supplied either by the specified staff member or by a manager.

  • Dual Party Workflow: Both a specific staff member and the respective manager are requested to provide data. Neither party can see the answers of the other party until both parties have completed their entries. When both parties are done with data entry, each party can see the other party’s entries and the next step is to create a 3rd (and final) data set using moderation where necessary.

 

  • Once a PIDS has been created, it may be used to create any number of ”Performance Indicator Measurement Sets” (PIMS). A PIMS is always associated with a single staff member and if multiple staff members are evaluated on the same PIDS, then multiple PIMS will be created to hold the individual data.

 

  • The PIMS is rolled out either on demand or via scheduled and/ or repeated intervals. A further roll out option is the previously mentioned single (employee or manager) workflow or dual party workflow.

 

  • Once completed, and considering that moderation has been completed (if applicable), the results are expressed in a percentage to ensure comparability from which detailed reports can be generated.