The definition of training provided by Armstrong resembles most definitions of training found in reference works. Training is, accordingly, “the planned and systematic modification of behaviour through learning events, programmes and instruction which enable individuals to achieve the levels of knowledge, skill and competence needed to carry out their work effectively.” Two aspects of this definition could be highlighted as the most characteristic and distinctive elements of training as opposed to other methods in the wider field of learning. First, training is planned and systematic; and secondly, it aims at the improvement of defined abilities related to work. The systematic training cycle is a model reflecting these characteristics. It emphasises that training is a continuous process, a circle in which the end leads back to the beginning, rather than a single linear and isolated event with a defined start and finish. In its classical form the systematic training cycle consists of four stages. In the first stage, the training needs on organisational or job level are identified and specified. This needs analysis tries to establish the training gap. The second stage of the systematic training cycle is designing a training programme. The third training cycle stage which mainly consists of the implementation of training. The fourth and last stage of the systematic training cycle is the evaluation of training. The systematic training cycle is a well-structured and internally logical model serving as a theoretical and practical guide for professionals concerned with training. Taylor states, with a touch of irony, that training cycles “must have been created by a superior intelligence, being so neat and logical and all.” He indicates that they tend to be simplistic and ignorant towards the complex reality in organisations. In the following, a number of critical variations of the systematic training cycle will be presented. These variations address several shortcomings of the traditional model and suggest improvements on different stages, from pre-assessment considerations at the very beginning of the cycle over needs analysis, training design, plan and implementation to new methods of evaluation.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: The Systematic Training Cycle
2. Critique and Variations of Systematic Training
2.1 Pre-assessment Considerations
2.2 Needs Analysis
2.3 Design
2.4 Plan and Implementation
2.5 Evaluation
3. Substantial Critique and Alternative Approaches
3.1 Assumption of Mutuality
3.2 Training versus Learning
3.3 Training versus Development
3.4 The Learning Organisation
3.5 Shared Responsibility for Learning
3.6 Training and Business Strategy
4. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the limitations of the traditional systematic training cycle model in modern organizational contexts. The primary research goal is to critically evaluate whether the orthodox, stage-based training approach remains a valid and effective tool for human resource development, or if it requires a fundamental shift toward broader concepts of continuous learning and strategic integration.
- Evaluation of the classical four-stage systematic training model
- Critique of needs analysis, design, and evaluation processes in practice
- Distinction between traditional training, individual learning, and organizational development
- The concept of the "Learning Organisation" as a systemic alternative
- Integration of training initiatives with long-term business strategy
Excerpt from the Book
3.2 Training versus Learning
The reference material on training partly experienced a change in terminology by the introduction of the term ‘learning’, which replaced in some contexts the term ‘training’. Harrison (1992: XIII), for instance, cancelled the expression ‘training event’ and replaced it by ‘learning event’, which “applies to any planned learning experience … whereby people’s behaviour and performance is to be developed and/or changed.”
This change in terminology indicates that the focus is shifting from the trainers and the delivery of training towards the participants and their learning styles and learning characteristics (Kenney and Reid 1986: 116). It is more and more recognised that people learn in different ways and at a different speed, and that their motivation to learn varies (Taylor 1991: 265). The process of learning and the “activities of the learner” (Kenney and Reid 1986: 129) are placed in the foreground. Accordingly, the individual is seen more as a customer of the learning process than as a mere recipient. At the same time, more responsibility for learning is assigned to the individual (Walton 1999: 69), as it is expected to engage in “self-directed and self-managed learning” (Kenney and Reid 1986: 129) supported by the trainer and new learning devices such as computer-assisted programmes.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The Systematic Training Cycle: Provides a definition of training and introduces the classic four-stage systematic training cycle model.
2. Critique and Variations of Systematic Training: Discusses refinements to the training model, including pre-assessment, needs analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation.
3. Substantial Critique and Alternative Approaches: Examines fundamental shortcomings of the model, specifically questioning the assumption of mutuality and exploring the shift from training to broader learning and development concepts.
4. Conclusion: Summarizes the limitations of the systematic approach and advocates for an integrated view where training is embedded into a wider organizational learning system.
Keywords
Systematic Training Cycle, Human Resource Development, Needs Analysis, Learning Organisation, Training Transfer, Evaluation, Learning Styles, Self-directed Learning, Organisational Learning, Training Strategy, Management Responsibility, Skill Development.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The paper explores the limitations of the classic systematic training cycle, arguing that it is often too simplistic for modern organizational complexities and may hinder more holistic development.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The work covers training models, needs analysis techniques, the transition from "training" to "learning," the role of the "Learning Organisation," and the strategic alignment of human resource development.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine if the traditional training cycle remains valid or if organizations should adopt more flexible, integrated approaches to employee and organizational growth.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The study employs a literature-based analytical approach, critiquing existing management theory and evaluating various conceptual models proposed by HR theorists.
What does the main body of the text discuss?
It details the stages of the traditional training cycle, highlights their practical and theoretical flaws, and presents alternative paradigms like the learning organization and continuous development.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
Key terms include Systematic Training Cycle, Human Resource Development, Needs Analysis, Learning Organisation, and Organisational Learning.
How does the author define the "Achilles Heel" of the training cycle?
The evaluation stage is termed the "Achilles Heel" because it is often conducted on a superficial basis, making it difficult to isolate and quantify the specific benefits of training.
What role do managers play in the proposed alternative approaches?
Managers are seen as central figures whose attitudes determine whether development is a major resource or a disability; they are expected to foster learning on the job through coaching and mentorship.
- Quote paper
- Marco Köster (Author), 2002, Human resource development:The limitations of the systematic training cycle, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/25300
