Dr Ismail Aby Jamal

Dr Ismail Aby Jamal
Born in Batu 10, Kg Lubok Bandan, Jementah, Segamat, Johor

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

THE BOTTOM LINE ON ROI

THE BOTTOM LINE ON ROI


A One-Day Workshop Describing How to Calculate the

ROI in Government Training Programs

Jack J. Phillips, Ph.D.

Patti P. Phillips, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2009 ROI Institute, Inc.

No part of this may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by a means without written permission.

P.O. Box 380637

Birmingham, AL 35238

Phone: 205-678-8101 Fax: 205-678-8102

Email: info@roiinstitute.net

Web site: www.roiinstitute.net

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After completing this workshop, you should be able to:

Identify the drivers for ROI in the public sector

Make the business case for ROI in the public sector

Develop program objectives at multiple levels

Explain to clients how ROI works

Identify 7 of the 12 guiding principles

Describe the 10 steps in the ROI Methodology

Plan next steps

2

3

THE BOTTOM LINE ON ROI

The materials in this workbook are taken from the following publications:

Return on Investment Basics. Patti P. Phillips and Jack J. Phillips. Alexandria: ASTD, 2006

Return in Investment in Training and Performance Improvement Programs (2nd Edition). Jack J. Phillips.

Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003.

The Bottomline on ROI. Patti P. Phillips. Atlanta: CEP Press, 2002.

Measuring Return on Investment, Volume 3. In Action series, Patti P. Phillips (editor) Jack J. Phillips

(series editor). Alexandria: ASTD, 2001.

ROI at Work: Best Practice Case Studies from the Real World. Jack J. Phillips and Patti P. Phillips,

Editors. American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA, 2005.

CONTENT

The need for ROI

When ROI is appropriate

ROI application

ROI objectives

ROI model

ROI standards

ROI implementation

ROI benefits

4

1

Objectives

After completing this workshop, you should be able to:

Identify the drivers for ROI

Make the business case for ROI

Develop program objectives at multiple levels

Explain to clients how ROI works

Identify 7 of the 12 guiding principles

Describe the 10 steps in the ROI Methodology

Plan next steps

Shifting Paradigms

Activity Based Results Based

No business need for the

program

Program linked to specific business

needs

No assessment of

performance issues

Assessment of performance

effectiveness

No specific measurable

objectives

Specific objectives for behavior and

business impact

No effort to prepare program

participants to achieve results

Results expectations communicated

to participants

No effort to prepare the work

environment to support

transfer

Environment prepared to support

transfer

No efforts to build

partnerships with key

managers

Partnerships established with key

managers and clients

No measurement of results or

benefit-cost analysis

Measurement of results and benefitcost

analysis

Planning and reporting is input

focused

Planning and reporting is outcome

focused

Why does ROI work?

Provides a balanced set of measures

Offers a step-by-step process

Bridges business evaluation and program evaluation

Balances research/statistical methods with practical application

Flexible for all types of programs

Credible with managers and administrators

2

Got Results?

Deborah Stewart is the new director of Intelligence Academy (IA), the learning

organization for one of the top secret intelligence communities within the Department of

Defense (DOD). Matt Mathews is Chief, Strategy and Analytics.

Deborah has just returned from a meeting with the Deputy Director. There is growing

pressure to show results for funding flowing to IA programs. The Deputy Director has

reinforced with Deborah the need for IA to start showing results. IA programs are costly

and there is ongoing discussion among department leaders that IA may be a candidate

for resource reallocation.

Deborah has called a meeting with all of her department heads; this meeting includes

Matt Mathews.

Deborah: Thank you for joining me this morning. The intent of the meeting, as I

mentioned in my recent e-mail, is for each of you to brief me on your recent assessment

of your programs.

As I mentioned, IA funding is being scrutinized throughout the agency. Resources are

tight and the leadership wants to ensure that the right programs are receiving an

appropriate allocation of funding.

Each of you was asked to determine how your programs are adding value to the

mission of this department. Matt, you’re the chief of analytics; let’s begin with you. How

is IA doing as far as contributing to the mission?

Matt: Thanks Deborah. As you can see by the slide presented here and in your hand

out, IA is quite busy.

We are developing a variety of new programs; many of these programs are required to

quickly develop new hires so they can be valuable contributors. We are also about to

deploy a new professional health program that offers staff members throughout the

agency the opportunity to take unique courses they feel will help them professionally

and personally. We believe that personal development is a contributing factor to mission

success.

In the past nine months we have developed ten new programs, offered 1,200 hours of

training, taken 2,000 employees through some sort of training experience, and on

average our instructors receive a rating of 4.5 out of 5 on the program satisfaction rating

that is developed through the end-of-course evaluations.

We piloted the Human Performance Improvement (HPI) Certificate program with 18

participants. Though the end-of-course evaluations indicated minimal enthusiasm about

the course from participants, we thought we’d give it another try by offering it to a

second cohort. As far as we can tell people are somewhat excited about what we are

doing.

3

Got results? (cont.)

We are also deploying on-the-job training and one-on-one coaching. The idea is that the

people closest to the job can train others in the job. It takes up a lot of time, especially

from supervisors, but we think reducing training costs is worthy. The only uncertainty is

whether or not people are actually performing at a higher rate than when they

participate in group training efforts.

Deborah interrupts: Excuse me Matt. This does sound like you are quite busy; but,

what about results. Are we receiving any value from IA efforts?

Matt: Value? Well, yes. Participants like the programs. In most cases, supervisors like

the programs as well – especially, when they can send some of their weaker

performers. This helps with team productivity.

Deborah: Do you have any data that show what people are doing or how they are

becoming more productive in their work as a result of the IA programs?

Matt: Nothing concrete. We do hear from time to time how a tool from one of the

language courses has assisted them with translation. Also, the information assurance

team does well with the Black Hawk simulation. Through this activity, we can determine

whether or not participants know how to ward off unwanted intrusions into the computer

network.

Deborah: But do you know if those unwanted intrusions in our systems are being

detected and prevented?

Matt: Actually, I did hear there is a downward trend in intrusions. According to some of

the IA staff, we have had less downtime due to unwanted intrusions than any time in the

past.

Deborah: That’s great. But is that due to IA programs or is that due to the new system

the agency just installed?

Looking disgusted, Deborah asks for a recess and motions Matt over for a five minute

sidebar.

-------

You are Matt. What dialogue do you believe is about to occur?

You are Deborah. What are you about to say to Matt?

Would you say that Intelligence Academy is results based?

4

Case Application: United Way Agency

At the end of a monthly staff meeting, Philip Harrah, CEO of United Way Agency (UWA), asked

Gina Woolson, Manager of Learning and Development, about the Communications Workshops

that had been conducted with all supervisors and managers throughout the agency. The

workshop featured the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and showed participants how to

interact with, and understand, each other in their routine activities. The MBTI classifies people

into one of 16 personality types.

Philip continued, ―I found the workshop very interesting and intriguing. I can certainly identify

with my particular personality type, but I am curious what specific value these workshops have

brought to the organization. Do you have any way of showing the results of all 25 workshops?‖

Gina quickly replied, ―We certainly have improved teamwork and communications throughout

the agency. I hear people make comments about how useful the process has been to them

personally.‖ Philip added, ―Do we have anything more precise? Also, do you know how much

money we have spent on these workshops?‖ Gina quickly responded by saying, ―I am not sure

that we have any precise data and I am not sure exactly how much money we spent, but I can

certainly find out.‖ Philip concluded with some encouragement, ―Any specifics would be helpful.

Please understand that I am not opposing this training effort. However, when we initiate these

types of programs, we need to make sure that they are adding value to the organization. Will

you let me know your thoughts on this issue in about two weeks?‖

Gina was a little concerned about this CEO’s comments, particularly since the CEO enjoyed

the workshop and made several positive comments about it. Why was he questioning the

effectiveness of it? Why was he concerned about the costs?

These questions began to frustrate Gina as she reflected over the workshop. She recalled how

she was first introduced to the MBTI. She attended the workshop when it was conducted by a

friend, was impressed with the instrument, and found it to be helpful as she learned more about

her own personality type.

Gina thought the process would be useful to UWA managers and asked the consultant to

conduct a session internally with a group of middle-level managers. With favorable reaction,

she decided to try a second group with the top executives, including Philip Harrah. Their

reaction was favorable. Then she launched it with the entire staff. The feedback was excellent,

including feedback from the CEO.

She realized that the workshops were expensive. Over 600 managers had attended. She felt

teamwork had improved, but there was no way of knowing for sure. With some types of training

you never know if it works, she thought. Still, Gina was facing a dilemma. Should she respond

to the CEO or just ignore the issue?

Continued on the next page.

5

Questions for Discussion

1. Is this situation typical? Explain.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

2. What are the basic issues in this case?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

3. How could this situation be avoided in the future?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

4. What should Gina do? Be specific.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

5. What will Philip be expecting in the future?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

6

Public Sector Issues

(Real or Imagined)

• No profits – no ROI?

• Lack of business alignment

• Absence of hard data?

• Too much politics

• Programs are necessary

• Multiple ROI perspectives

The Money Issue in the Public Sector

• No profits

• Payoff in cost savings or cost reduction

• OR

• Payoff in cost avoidance

• Costs of program are fully loaded

• Impact on budget?

Who is Using the Methodology?

• US Department of Defense

• National Security Agency

• Department of Veterans Affairs

• Central Intelligence Agency

• US Office of Personnel Management

• NASA

• National Science Foundation

• City of New York

• City of San Diego

• City of Richmond

• City of Denver

• State of Texas

• State of New York

• Government of New Zealand

• Government of Singapore

• Government of Poland

• Government of Australia

• Government of Canada

• British Government

• Government of Ireland

Over 200 public sector organizations

Applications

Learning and Development Organization Development

Career Development Orientation Systems

Competency Systems Recruiting Strategies

Diversity Programs Safety & Health Programs

E-Learning Self-Directed Teams

Executive Coaching

Gainsharing

Skill-Based/Knowledge-Based

Compensation

Meetings and Events

Leadership Development

Green Initiatives

Technology Implementation

Quality Management

Wellness/Fitness Initiatives

Drivers for Increased Public Sector Accountability

Regulations are requiring more accountability

Increase cost of programs

Budget shortfalls

Taxpayer pressure

Consistent lack of results

New breed of government managers

7

Is Your Organization A Candidate for ROI Implementation?

Check the most appropriate level of agreement for each statement:

1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree

Disagree Agree

1 2 3 4 5

1. My organization is considered a large organization with a wide     

variety of programs.

2. We have a large budget that attracts the interest of senior management.     

3. Our organization has a culture of measurement and is focused on

establishing a variety of measures in all functions and departments.     

4. My organization is undergoing significant change.     

5. There is pressure from senior management to measure results of our

programs.     

6. My function currently has a very low investment in measurement and

evaluation.     

7. My organization has experienced more than one program disaster in

the past.     

8. My department has a new leader.     

9. My team would like to be the leaders in our field.     

10. The image of our department is less than satisfactory.     

11. My clients are demanding that our processes show bottom-line results.     

12. My function competes with other functions with our organization for

resources.     

13. There is increased focus on linking our process to the strategic

direction of the organization.     

14. My function is a key player in change initiatives currently taking place

in the organization.     

15. Our overall budget is growing and we are required to prove the bottom

line of value of our processes.     

8

Scoring

If you scored:

15 – 30 You are not yet a candidate for ROI.

31 – 45 You are not a strong candidate for ROI, however, it is time to start

pursuing some type of measurement process.

46 – 60 You are a candidate for building skills to implement the ROI process. At

this point there is no real pressure to show the ROI, which is the perfect

opportunity to perfect the process within the organization.

61 – 75 You should already be implementing a comprehensive measurement and

evaluation process, including ROI.

Are you a candidate?

The Results

Consider your most important program (i.e., a strategic, expensive, high-profile project

that attracts management attention). Suppose you conducted an impact study to

measure the success of the program. You discover that three months after completing

the program, participants have:

reacted positively to the program and found it to be relevant to their work;

learned new skills and gained new information;

applied the skills and information routinely on the job, although they had some

difficulty in a few areas;

improved several important work unit measures, with some measures improving

as much as 30%;

achieved an impressive 105% return on investment; and

reported an increase in job satisfaction in the work unit.

Questions for discussion:

1. What issues or concerns do you have about the data?

2. What would these types of data mean for the program?

3. What would the results mean to you personally?

4. If the above items were negative, what would it mean for the program?

5. What would negative results mean to you personally?

6. How should the results be used?

9

The ROI Methodology

Generates Six Types of Measures

Reaction and Planned Action

Learning

Application and Implementation

Business Impact

Return on Investment

Intangible Measures

….and includes a technique to isolate the effects of the program or solution

Grounded in Research and Application

Approximately 5,000 impact studies are conducted each year

Over 20,000 individuals have attended a two-day ROI workshop

Over 4,000 individuals are certified to implement the ROI methodology

The ROI methodology has been adopted by hundreds or organizations

in manufacturing, service, non-profit, and government settings in 44

countries

The process has been refined over a 20-year period

30 books have been developed to support the process

ROI Network has 5,000 members

Several ROI Network conferences are conducted annually

Ongoing research on the ROI methodology is conducted by the ROI

Institute to support practitioners

The ROI Calculation

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) =

Program Benefits

Program Costs

ROI =

Net Program Benefits

X 100

Program Costs

Notes

10

ROI Framework

Level Measurement Focus

1. Reaction and Planned Action Measures participant satisfaction with the

program/project and captures planned

action.

2. Learning and Confidence Measure changes in knowledge, skills,

and attitudes.

3. Application and Implementation Measures changes in on-the-job

behavior or actions.

4. Impact and Consequences Captures changes in business impact

measures.

5. Return on Investment Compares benefits to the costs.

Questions answered at Level 1:

Questions answered at Level 2:

Questions answered at Level 3:

Questions answered at Level 4:

Questions answered at Level 5:

11

Five Levels of Measurement - Examples

Level 0 Input and Indicators

Number of projects

Audiences

Web site hits

Request

Attendance

Costs

Time to Deliver

Level 1 Reaction and Planned Action

Relevance

Importance

Usefulness

Appeal

Emotion

Brevity

Uniqueness

Concreteness

New Information

Motivation

Appropriateness

Intent to Use

Level 2 Learning and Confidence

Information

Knowledge

Understanding

Capability

Contacts

Confidence

Perceptions

Skills

Level 3 Application and Implementation

Use of Information

Use of Knowledge

Use of Skill

Completion of Actions

Completion of Tasks

Implementation of Ideas

Following the Policy

Use of Procedure

Use of Regulation

Success with Application

Barriers

Enablers

Level 4 Impact

Productivity

Quality

Errors

Incidents

Re-Work

Efficiency

Compliance Discrepancies

Citizen Complaints

Costs

Employee Engagement

Employee Retention

Service Delivery

Cycle Time

Customer Satisfaction

Intangible Measures

…. includes a technique to isolate the effects of

the communication project.

Level 5 Return on Investment

ROI (%)

Benefit Cost Ratio

Payback Period

12

Evaluation is like a Puzzle

An Evaluation

Framework

Case Applications

and Practice

A Process

Model

Operating

Standards and

Philosophy

Implementation

The purpose of each piece of the evaluation puzzle:

Evaluation Framework

Process Model

Operating Standards

Case Application

Implementation

13

Measurement in the Learning and Development Field

Level Measurement Category Current

Status

Goal in

5 Years

Comments About

Status

Coverage*

(Now)(%)

Coverage*

(Goal)(%)

O Inputs/Indicators

Measures inputs into learning and

development including the number of

programs, attendees, audience, costs,

and efficiencies

100% 100% This is being

accomplished

now

1 Reaction and Perceived Value

Measures reaction to, and satisfaction

with, the experience, contents, and value

of program

100% 100% Need more focus

on content and

perceived value

2 Learning

Measures what participants learned in the

program – information, knowledge, skills,

and contacts (takes-away from the

program)

30 – 40% 80 – 90% Must use simple

learning

measures

3 Application and Implementation

Measures progress after the program –

the use of information, knowledge, skills,

and contacts

10% 30% Need more

follow-up

4 Impact and Consequences

Measures changes in business impact

variables such as output, quality, time,

and cost-linked to the program

5% 10% This is the

connection to

business impact

5 ROI

Compares the monetary benefits of the

business impact measures to the costs of

the program.

1% 5% The ultimate level

of evaluation

*Percent of Programs Evaluated At This Level

1. Add your current status in the status column.

2. Add your goal in the goal column.

14

The ROI Methodology

Reporting Data Analysis

LEVEL 5: ROI

Data Collection

LEVEL 4:

Business Impact

LEVEL 2:

Learning and

Confidence

LEVEL 3:

Application and

Implementation

LEVEL 1:

Reaction and

Planned Action

Evaluation

Planning

Develop

Evaluation

Plans and

Baseline Data

Collect Data

During

Program

Implementation

Collect Data

After

Program

Implementation

Isolate the

Effects of

Program

Convert Data

to Monetary

Value

Calculate

the Return On

Investment

Generate

Impact

Study

Capture Costs

Of Program

Identify

Intangibles

Intangible Benefits

Develop/

Review

Objectives of

Program

ROI Calculation

ROI =

Net Project Benefits

Project Costs

Cost of project $230,000

Benefits of project (1st year) $430,000

ROI =

$430,000-$230,000

= 087 x 100 = 87%

$230,000

Evaluation Framework

Level Measurement Focus

1. Reaction & Planned

Action

Measure participant reaction to the program and

captures planned action.

2. Learning &

Confidence

Measures changes in knowledge and skills.

3. Application &

Implementation

Measures implementation, actions, and changes in

behavior on the job.

4. Business Impact Measures changes in business impact variables.

5. Return on

Investment

Compares monetary benefits of the impact of the

program.

15

Guiding Principles

1. When conducting a higher-level evaluation, collect

data at lower levels.

2. When planning a higher level evaluation, the

previous level of evaluation is not required to be

comprehensive.

3. When collecting and analyzing data, use only the most

credible sources.

4. When analyzing data, select the most conservative

alternatives for calculations.

5. Use at least one method to isolate the effects of the

program or project.

6. If no improvement data are available for a population or

from a specific source, assume that no improvement has

occurred.

7. Adjust estimates of improvements for the potential error

of the estimates.

8. Avoid use of extreme data items and unsupported claims

when calculating ROI calculations.

9. Use only the first year of annual benefits in the ROI

analysis of short-term solutions.

10. Fully load all costs of the solution, project, or program

when analyzing ROI.

11. Intangible measures are defined as measures that are

purposely not converted to monetary values.

12. Communicate the results of the ROI Methodology to all

key stakeholders.

The ROI Process

A comprehensive measurement and evaluation process

that generates six types of measures:

 Reaction and Perceived Value

 Learning and Confidence

 Application and Implementation

 Business Impact

 Return on Investment

 Intangible Measures

This balanced approach to measurement includes a

technique to isolate the effect of the program or solution.

Results-based Solutions

 Performance solutions/projects are initiated,

developed and delivered with the end in mind.

 Participants understand their responsibility to

obtain results with programs/solutions.

 Support groups (management, supervisors, coworkers,

etc.) help to achieve results from

performance solutions.

 A comprehensive measurement and evaluation

system is in place for each program/project.

 Variety of approaches utilized to measure

contribution, representing a balanced viewpoint.

 Follow-up evaluations (Application, Impact, and

ROI) are developed for targeted solutions/projects

and results are reported to a variety of

stakeholders.

16

Chain of Impact

Reaction & Planned Action

Learning

Application & Implementation

Impact

ROI

Isolate the Effects of the Program

Intangible Benefits

Notes

Multiple Stakeholders

Reaction & Planned Action

Learning

Application & Implementation

Organization

Impact

Stakeholder 2

Impact

Stakeholder 3

Impact

ROI

Intangibles

ROI

Intangibles

ROI

Intangibles

Characteristics of Evaluation Levels

Power to

Chain of Value of Show Frequency Difficulty of

Impact Information Focus Results of Use Assessment

Lowest Consumer Lowest Frequent Easy

Reaction

Learning

Application

Impact

ROI

Highest Client Highest Infrequent Difficult

Consumers: The customers who are actively involved in the process.

Clients: The customers who fund, support, and approve the project.

17

Guiding Principle #1

Guiding Principle #2

When Selecting Programs for Level 4 and Level 5 Evaluation,

Consider the Following

Benchmarking*

• Life cycle of the program 14%

• Linkage of program to operational goals and issues 29%

• Importance of program to strategic objectives 50%

• Executive interest in the evaluation 48%

• Cost of the program 52%

• Visibility of the program 45%

• Size of target audience 6%

• Investment of time required 7%

*2007 Survey of Users, N = 235

Level 5

Level 4

Level 2

Level 1

Cost-benefit

comparison

Changes in

outcome measures

Changes in

performance

Need for skills or

knowledge

Preferences

Evaluation

Purpose

Program

Need

Program

Profile

Stakeholder

Needs

Level 3

18

Evaluation Targets

Percent of Projects

Level Current Target Suggested Benchmarking*

0 Input 100% 100%

1 Reaction 90 – 100% 79%

2 Learning 40 – 60% 54%

3 Application 30 % 31%

4 Impact 10 – 20% 14.4%

5 ROI 5 – 10% 4.3%

The Evaluation Framework Serves Three Purposes

The evaluation framework serves roles beyond categorizing evaluation data. The

framework also guides the development of program objectives and ensures stakeholder

needs are clearly identified.

By beginning the needs assessment at the highest level of need, an appropriate

solution can be identified. This is the first step toward linking your programs with

business results.

By developing program objectives at each level, the program can be positioned

for success. Program objectives represent the measures to be taken during the

evaluation process, thereby, eliminating the guesswork when a senior executive

says ―Show Me the Money!‖ This is your second step toward linking your

programs with business results.

By evaluating at each of the five levels, results important to all stakeholders are

reported and business impact and ROI can be connected to what people do with

what they learned. Isolating program effect on results during the evaluation

process is the third step toward linking your programs with business results.

19

Matching Evaluation Levels with Objectives

Instructions: For each objective listed below, indicate the level of evaluation at which

the objective is aimed.

1. Reaction 4. Business Impact

2. Learning 5. Return on Investment

3. Application

Objective

Evaluation

Level

After completing this program or project, participants should:

1. Improve work group productivity by 20%

2. Initiate at least three cost reduction projects in 15 days.

3. Achieve an average cost reduction of $20,000 per project.

4. Increase the use of counseling discussion skills in 90% of situations where work

habits are unacceptable.

5. Achieve a 2:1 benefit to cost ratio one year after the new performance-based

program is implemented.

6. Develop an understanding of how the employee assistance program works.

7. Increase the job satisfaction index by 25% in 3 months.

8. Integrate patient records into new database following the 5-step process.

9. Increase research grant dollars 20%.

10. Achieve a leadership simulation score average of 75 out of a possible 100.

11. Conduct a performance review meeting with direct reports to establish

performance improvement goals.

12. Receive a 4 out of 5 rating on appropriateness of new ethics policy.

13. Decrease the time to recruit new professional staff from 35 days to 20 days.

14. Complete all steps on their action plan in 60 days.

15. Achieve a positive reaction to flextime work schedule system.

16. Be involved in career enhancement program at a participation rate of 15%.

17. Decrease the number of security breaches of patient records.

18. Achieve a post-test score increase of 30% over pre-test.

19. Utilize new software daily as reflected by an 80% score on an unscheduled audit

of use.

20. Submit ideas or suggestions for improvement in the first year (10% target).

20

The levels serve three purposes!

Evaluation

Objectives

Needs

Level 3 and 4 Objectives Provide

Direction to designers and developers

Guidance to instructors and facilitators

Goals for participants

Satisfaction for program sponsors

A framework for evaluators

How will you build your team’s capability to write Level 3 and Level 4 objectives?

21

Program Alignment

V Model

Start Here End Here

Payoff Needs 5 ROI Objectives 5 ROI

Business Needs 4 Impact Objectives 4 Impact

Performance Needs 3 Application Objectives 3 Application

Learning Needs 2 Learning Objectives 2 Learning

Preference Needs 1 Reaction Objectives 1 Reaction

Project

Initial

Analysis

Measurement

and Evaluation

Business Alignment and Forecasting

The ROI Process Model

22

Program Alignment

V Model

Start Here End Here

Payoff Needs 5 ROI Objectives 5 ROI

Business Needs 4 Impact Objectives 4 Impact

Performance Needs 3 Application Objectives 3 Application

Learning Needs 2 Learning Objectives 2 Learning

Preference Needs 1 Reaction Objectives 1 Reaction

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

Project

Initial

Analysis

Measurement

and Evaluation

Discussions between

team member and

supervisor are not

occurring when there is

an unplanned absence

Deficiency in counseling/

discussion skills

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_______________

_______________

_______________

_______________

___

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

Objectives Evaluation

Business Alignment and Forecasting The ROI Process Model

One-day counseling skills

workshop must provide usable,

necessary and relevant skills;

facilitator-led; participants are

supervisors

Unplanned absenteeism is

9% and increasing; greater

than benchmarking of 5%

Absenteeism is

costing $100,000

monthly

Needs

EXERCISE: Complete

Objectives and Evaluation

23

The Alignment Process

Start Here V Model End Here

Payoff Needs 5 ROI Objectives 5 ROI

Business Needs 4 Impact Objectives 4 Impact

Performance Needs 3 Application Objectives 3 Application

Learning Needs 2 Learning Objectives 2 Learning

Preference Needs 1 Reaction Objectives 1 Reaction

Project

Absenteeism is

costing $100,000

monthly

Unexpected absenteeism is

9 % and growing;

benchmark data is at 5%

Discussions between team

member and supervisor are

not occurring when there is

an unplanned absence

Deficiency in counseling/

discussion skills

One-day counseling skills

workshop must provide usable,

necessary and relevant skills;

facilitator-led; participants are

supervisors

_____________________

_____________________

ROI of 25%

Reduce absenteeism to

5% six months after

course

Counseling discussions

conducted in 95% of

situations when an

unexpected absence occurs

Acquisition of

counseling skills are

demonstrated

Program receives favorable rating

of 4 out of 5 on need for program,

relevance of the program and the

practicality of program

Calculate ROI;

Monitor absenteeism

records for six months

Follow-up questionnaire

to participants to check

frequency of discussions

– three months

Skills practice session

during program;

Reaction questionnaire at the

end of program

Business Alignment and Forecasting The ROI Process

Model

24

Create a Green Organization

OPCW

-Sample-

Level Needs Objectives Evaluation Level

5

Help protect the environment

Save costs

ROI target of 10%

Project benefits compared to costs

5

4

Reduce carbon emissions

High energy costs

Rising costs of operations

Reduce carbon emission by ___

Reduce energy costs by ___

Reduce materials/supplies by ____

Organization records

4

3

Not recycling materials

Need to change consumption habits

Need to use less materials and

supplies

Not making environmentally friendly

choices

Six months after the project begins, employees will

o Recycle in eight categories

o Alter consumption patterns

o Reduce usage, conserve

o Use environmentally friendly supplies

Self-assessment questionnaire

Recycle records

Records of purchasing eco-friendly products

3

2

How actions effect the environment

Specific green methods

Environmental issues

All employees will learn

o Environmental issues

o Specific green actions they can take

o How to make eco-friendly choices

Self assessment questionnaire

Environment Quiz

2

1

Employees must see project as

necessary, important, relevant

feasible

Program receives favorable rating of 4 out of 5 on:

o Necessary to OPCW

o Relevance to OPCW

o Importance of adhering concepts in support of

public good

Reaction questionnaire administered to all project

participants

1

25

Police Project (Malaysia)

UN Security

-Sample-

Level Objectives Evaluation Level

5

Police officers are causing

problems

Break-even (BCR = 1:1)

Program benefits compared to program costs

5

4

Crime is too high in four

categories

Citizen complaints about police

is excessive

In one year:

o Crime in four categories will be reduced by

___

o Citizen complaints about police officers with

be reduced by ____

City records

Country records

4

3

Not following procedures

Rule of law not followed

Conflicts not resolved properly

Actions inconsistent

Police officers will:

o Follow procedures

o Enforce laws consistently

o Resolve conflicts

Observation

Questionnaire

3

2

Legal procedures

Rule of law

Conflict resolution

Communication

Police officers will demonstrate knowledge of:

o Legal procedures

o Rule of law

o Conflict resolution

o Communication

Role plays

Demonstrations

Simple quiz

Self assessment

2

1

Police officers must see this

program as:

Necessary

Helpful

Relevant

Important to their success

Program receives favorable rating of 4 out of 5 on the

following measures:

o Necessary

o Helpful

o Relevant

o Important to their success

Reaction questionnaire administered to police officers

1

26

Recidivism Program

-Sample-

Level Needs Objectives Evaluation Level

5

Cost of housing repeat offenders is

$102,306,520.

Of that amount $17,179,441

is dedicated to repeat drug related

offensives.1

1:1 BCR or 0% ROI

Program costs compared to

monetary benefits of program.

Monetary benefit determined by

costs savings of housing repeat

offenders.

5

4

Reduce recidivism of drug related

offenders

Reduce # of rearrests

Reduce # of convictions

Increase time period of rearrests

or reconviction

Monitor performance of measures

Compare to group not

participating in program

4

3

Offenders continue to engage in drugrelated

crimes after incarceration.

Engage in treatment early in

process

Attend treatment sessions

Appear in status hearings

Eliminate drug use

Identify barriers to participating in

program

Monitor performance records

Self report via questionnaire

3

2

Offenders do not take seriously the

need to change

Offenders do not fully understand the

continued consequence of their

ongoing behavior

Offenders do not know of a support

system that will assist them in

modifying their behavior

Upon introduction to the drug court

program:

Offenders understand costs and

benefits of participation in the

program

Offenders understand program

process and the requirements

they must meet

Offenders understand the

consequences of their not

participating in the program

Verbal acknowledgement

obtained by judge and parole

officer

2

1

Drug Court Program

Offenders recognize the program

as relevant and important to their

future success

Offenders commit to participation

Verbal acknowledgement

obtained by judge and parole

officer

1

According to the State of Alabama Department of Corrections October 2005 status report, there are currently 8,504 habitual offenders housed in State facilities; there are 1,428 habitual offenders

associated with drug crimes. The cost of housing inmates is $12,030.40 per year. http://www.communitycorrectionsworks.org.

26

27

Key Alignment Questions

Is this a problem worth

solving?

Is there a potential pay

off?

How should the solution

be structured?

What is the specific

measure?

What happens if we do

nothing?

What is occurring or not

occurring on the job that

influences the business

measure?

What skills or

knowledge is needed to

support the job

performance need?

Which business

measure improved?

How much is related to

the program?

What has changed?

Which skills/knowledge

have been applied?

What did they learn?

Who did they meet?

What was the reaction

to the program?

Do we intend to

implement the program?

What is the actual ROI?

What is the BCR?

Needs Program

Assessment Objectives Evaluation

Business Impact Business

Needs Objectives Impact

Job Performance Application Application &

Needs Objectives Implementation

Skills/Knowledge Learning Learning &

Needs Objectives Confidence

Satisfaction Reaction &

Preferences Objectives Planned Action

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

Potential ROI ROI

Payoffs Objectives

5 5

28

Developing Reaction Objectives

Measuring Reaction and Satisfaction

Reaction objectives are critical in this measurement chain because they:

• Describe expected immediate and long term satisfaction

• Describe issues that are important to the success of the program

• Provide basis for evaluating the beginning of the measurement chain of impact

• Place emphasis on planned action, if feasible

The best reaction objectives:

• Identify issues that are important and measurable

• Are attitude-based, clearly worded, and specific

• Specify the participant has changed in thinking or perception as a result of the

program

• Underscores the linkage between attitude and the success of the program

• Represent a satisfaction index from key stakeholders

• Have the capability to predict program success

Key questions are:

• How relevant is this program?

• How important is this program?

• Are the facilitators effective?

• How appropriate is this program?

• Is this new information?

• Is this program rewarding?

• Will you implement this program?

• Will you use the concepts/advice?

• What would keep you from implementing objectives from this program?

• Would you recommend the program to others?

Examples of Level 1 Objectives

1.

2.

3.

29

Developing Learning Objectives

Measuring Skills and Knowledge Enhancement

Learning objectives are critical to measuring learning because they:

• Communicate expected outcomes from instruction

• Describe competent performance that should be the result of training or learning

• Provide basis for evaluating learning

• Focus learning for participants

The best learning objectives:

• Describe behaviors that are observable and measurable

• Are outcome-based, clearly worded and specific

• Specify what the learner must do (not know or understand) as a result of the

training

• Have three components:

1. Performance—what the learner will be able to do at the end of the training

2. Condition—circumstances under which the learner will perform the task

3. Criteria—degree or level of proficiency that is necessary to perform the job

Three types of learning objectives are:

• Awareness — familiarity with terms, concepts, processes

• Knowledge — general understanding of concepts, processes, etc.

• Performance — able to demonstrate the skill (at least at a basic level)

Examples of Level 2 Objectives

1. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

2. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

3. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

30

Developing Application Objectives

Measuring on the Job Application and Implementation

Application objectives are critical to measuring application of skills and knowledge

because they:

• Describe expected intermediate outcomes

• Describe competent performance that should be the result of the program

• Provide basis for evaluation of on the job performance changes

• Place emphasis on applying what was learned

The best application objectives:

• Identify behaviors that are observable and measurable

• Are outcome-based, clearly worded and specific

• Specify what the participant will change or has changed as a result of the

program

• May have three components:

1. Performance – what the participant has changed/accomplished at a specified

follow-up time after the program

2. Condition – circumstances under which the participant performed the task

3. Criteria – degree or level of proficiency under which the task or job was

performed

Two types of application objectives are:

• Knowledge based – general use of concepts, processes, etc.

• Behavior based – able to demonstrate the use of the skill (at least at a basic

level)

Key questions are:

• What new or improve knowledge will be applied on the job?

• What is the frequency of skill application?

• What new tasks will be performed?

• What new steps will be implemented?

• What new action items will be implemented?

• What new procedures will be implemented or changed?

• What new guidelines will be implemented or changed?

• What new processes will be implemented or changed?

Examples of Level 3 Objectives

1. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

2. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

3. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

31

Developing Impact Objectives

Measuring Business Impact

Impact objectives are critical to measuring business performance because they:

• Describe expected outcomes

• Describe business unit performance that should be the result of training or

instruction

• Provide basis for measuring the consequences of application of skills and

knowledge

• Place emphasis on achieving bottom line results

The best impact objectives:

• Must contain measures that are linked to the skills and knowledge taught in the

program

• Describe measures that are easily collected

• Are results-based, clearly worded and specific

• Specify what the participant has accomplished in the business unit as a result of

the training

Four types of impact objectives involving hard data are:

• Output focused

• Quality focused

• Cost focused

• Time focused

Three common types of impact objectives involving soft data are:

• Customer service focused

• Work climate focused

• Job satisfaction focused

Examples of Level 4 Objectives

1. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

2. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

3. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

32

Developing Level 3 and 4 Objectives

Think of a program that is linked to important organizational goals. Develop at least two

Level 3 and Level 4 objectives for the program. Make any assumptions you need to

complete the objectives.

Program Title:

Target Audience: Duration:

Level 3 Objectives:

After completing this program, participants will:

1. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

2. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Level 4 Objectives:

After participants apply learned skills/behavior, their performance will impact:

1. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

2. ___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

33

Plan Your Project Evaluation

Program: _______________________________________________________

Evaluation Team: ________________________________________________

Expected Date of Completion: ______________________________________

1. What is your purpose in conducting an evaluation on this program?

2. What are the program objectives at each level of evaluation?

Level 1 ______________________________________________________

Level 2 ______________________________________________________

Level 3 ______________________________________________________

Level 4 ______________________________________________________

Level 5 ______________________________________________________

3. What are your measures of success for each objective?

Level 1 ______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

Level 2 ______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

Level 3 ______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

Level 4 ______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

Level 5 ______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

34

Data Collection Plan

Program: ______________________________ Responsibility: _________________________ Date: ____________

Level Broad Program Objective(s) Measures

Data Collection

Method/Instruments Data Sources Timing Responsibilities

1

REACTION AND

PLANNED ACTION

2

LEARNING AND

CONFIDENCE

3

APPLICATION AND

IMPLEMENTATION

4

BUSINESS IMPACT

5 ROI Comments:__________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

35

ROI Analysis Plan

Program:______________________________ Responsibility:_________________________ Date:____________

Data Items

(Usually

Level 4)

Methods for

Isolating the

Effects of the

Program/

Process

Methods of

Converting Data

to Monetary

Values

Cost

Categories

Intangible

Benefits

Communication

Targets for Final

Report

Other

Influences/

Issues During

Application Comments

36

Collecting Post Program

Data

The Methods: Level 3 Level 4

Follow-up Surveys 

Follow-up Questionnaires  

Observation On the Job 

Interviews with Participants 

Follow-up Focus Groups 

Program Assignments  

Action Planning  

Performance Contracting  

Program Follow-up Sessions  

Performance Monitoring 

Factors to Consider

When selecting data collection methods

Type of data

Time – Participant / Supervisor

Costs

Accuracy – Validity / Reliability

Utility

Culture / Philosophy

When determining timing of follow-up

Availability of data

Ideal time for behavior change (Level 3)

Ideal time for business impact (Level 4)

Convenience of collection

Constraints on collection

Option 1, When You Don’t Have a Clue

1. How did you use the material from this project or program?

2. What influence did it have in your work? Team?

3. What specific measure was influenced? Define it.

4. What is the unit value of the measure? (Profit or Cost)

5. What is the basis of this value?

6. How much did the measure change since the project was implemented?

7. What is the frequency of the measure? Daily, weekly, monthly, etc.

8. What is the total annual value of the improvement?

9. List the other factors that could have caused this total improvement?

10. What percent of the total improvement can be attributed to this project?

11. What is your confidence estimate, expressed as a percent, for the above data?

0% = no confidence; 100% = certainty

37

Option 2, When the Measure Is in a Defined Set

1. To what extent did this project or program positively influence the following measures:

Significant

Influence

No

Influence

5 4 3 2 1 n/a

productivity      

sales      

quality      

cost      

efficiency      

time      

employee satisfaction      

customer satisfaction      

other      

2. What other measures were positively influenced by this project?

3. Of the measures listed above, which one is most directly linked to the project? (check

only one)

 productivity  sales  quality

 cost  efficiency  time

 employee satisfaction  customer satisfaction  other

4. Please define the measure above.

5. Indicate the specific unit of measurement.

6. How much did this measure improve since you began this project?

7. What is the frequency of the measure?  daily  weekly  monthly  annually

8. For this measure, what is the monetary value of improvement for one unit of this

measure? Although this is difficult, please make every effort to provide the value.

9. Please state your basis for the estimated value of one unit of improvement you

indicated above.

10. What is the total annual value of improvement in the measure you selected above?

38

Option 2 (cont.)

11. List the other factors that have caused this total annual improvement.

12. Recognizing that other factors may have caused this improvement, estimate the

percent of improvement related directly to this project of program?

%

13. What confidence do you place in the estimates you have provided in the prior

questions? (0% is no confidence, 100% is certainty.)

%

Option 3, When the Measure Is Known

1. Please define the first measure connected to your project.

2. Define the unit of measure.

3. For this measure, what is the monetary value of improvement for one unit of this

measure?

4. Please state your basis for the value of the unit of improvement you indicated above.

5. For the measure listed as most directly linked to the program, how much has this

measure improved in performance?

6. Indicate the frequency base for the measure. Daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly.

7. What is the annual value of improvement in the measure you selected above?

Multiply the increase (Question 5) by the frequency (Question 6) times the unit of

value (Question 4).

8. List the other factors that could have influenced these results.

9. Recognizing that the other factors could have influenced this annual value of

improvement, please estimate the percent of improvement that is attributable (or

isolated) to the program. Express as a percentage out of 100%.

10. What confidence do you place in the estimates you have provided in the questions

above? A 0% is no confidence, a 100% is certainty.

Increasing Questionnaire Response Rates

Provide advance communication about the questionnaire

Clearly communicate the reason for the questionnaire

Indicate who will see the results of the questionnaire

Show how the data will be integrated with other data

Keep the questionnaire simple and as brief as possible

Keep questionnaire responses anonymous – or at least confidential

Make it easy to respond; include a self-addressed, stamped envelope/e-mail

Use the local manager to distribute the questionnaires, show support, and

encourage response

If appropriate, let the target audience know that they are part of a carefully

selected sample

Use one or two follow-up reminders

39

Increasing Questionnaire Response Rates (cont.)

Have the introduction letter signed by a top executive

Enclose a giveaway item with the questionnaire (pen, money, etc.)

Provide an incentive (or chance of incentive) for quick response

Send a summary of results to target audience

Distribute questionnaire to a captive audience

Consider an alternative distribution channel, such as e-mail

Have a third party gather and analyze data

Communicate the time limit for submitting responses

Consider paying for the time it takes to complete the questionnaire

Review the questionnaire at the end of the formal session

Carefully select the survey sample

Allow completion of the survey during work hours

Add emotional appeal

Design questionnaire to attract attention, with a professional format

Let participants know what actions will be taken with the data

Provide options to respond (paper, email, web-site)

Use a local coordinator to help distribute and collect questionnaires

Frame questions so participants can respond appropriately and make the

questions relevant

Methods to Isolate

Program Effects

Use of a control group arrangement

Trend line analysis of performance data

Use of forecasting methods of performance data

Participant’s estimate of program impact (percent)

Supervisor’s estimate of program impact (percent)

Manager’s estimate of program impact

Use of expert/previous studies

Calculate/estimate the impact of other factors

Customer input

40

Use of Control Groups Example

Retention Solution at the Federal Information Agency

An opportunity to participate in a master’s degree program at agency expense and

agency time.

 One hundred high-potential employees chosen for program for a three year

masters program in information science

 Experimental group of one hundred were involved, another one hundred in

control group were not involved

 Observed employee turnover performance of both groups during the same time

 Collected evaluation data for both groups at the same time

 Neither group is aware of the control group arrangement

How would you select the control group?

Criteria for Selecting the Control Group:

 ____________________________________________________________________

 ____________________________________________________________________

 ____________________________________________________________________

 ____________________________________________________________________

 ____________________________________________________________________

Control Group Method

What is the difference in improvement?

M1 M2

Control

Group

M1 Program M2 Experimental

Group

41

Example of Trend Line Analysis

Example of Estimation

Factor that

Influenced

Improvement

Percent of

Improvement

Caused By

Confidence

Expressed as a

Percent

Adjusted

Percent of

Improvement

Caused By

Program 60% 80% 48%

System Changes 15% 70% 10.5%

Environmental

Changes 5% 60% 3%

Compensation

Changes 20% 80% 16%

Other _______% _______% _______%

Total 100%

18.5% Pre Program Six-Month

Average

20%

10%

Projected Average —

Using Pre Data as a

Base 14.5%

7% Post

Program Six-

Month Average

Fraud Program Conducted

Fraud

Incidents

Rates

J F M A M J J A S O N D J

MONTHS

42

The Wisdom of Crowds*

One day in the fall of 1906, British scientist Francis Galton left his home in the town of

Plymouth and headed for a country fair. Galton was eighty-five years old and beginning

to feel his age, but he was still brimming with the curiosity that had won him renown—

and notoriety—for his work on statistics and the science of heredity. On that particular

day, what Galton was curious about was livestock.

Galton’s destination was the annual West of England Fat Stock and Poultry Exhibition, a

regional fair where the local farmers and townspeople gathered to appraise the quality

of each other’s cattle, sheep, chickens, horses, and pigs. Wandering through rows of

stalls examining workhorses and prize hogs may have seemed a strange way for a

scientist to spend an afternoon, but there was certain logic to it. Galton was a man

obsessed with two things: the measurement of physical and mental qualities and

breeding. And what, after all, is a livestock show but a big showcase for the effects of

good and bad breeding?

Breeding mattered to Galton because he believed that only a very few people had the

characteristics necessary to keep societies healthy. He had devoted much of his career

to measuring those characteristics, in fact, in order to prove that the vast majority of

people did not have them. His experiments left him with little faith in the intelligence of

the average person, ―the stupidity and wrong-headedness of many men and women

being so great as to be scarcely credible.‖ Galton believed, ―Only if power and control

stayed in the hands of the select, well-bred few, could a society remain healthy and

strong.‖

As he walked through the exhibition that day, Galton came across a weight-judging

competition. A fat ox had been selected and placed on display, and members of a

gathering crowd were lining up to place wagers on what the weight of the ox would be

after it had been slaughtered and dressed. For sixpence, an individual could buy a

stamped and numbered ticket; fill in their name, occupation, address, and estimate.

The best guesses would receive prizes.

Eight hundred people tried their luck. They were a diverse lot. Many of them were

butchers and farmers, who were presumably expert at judging the weight of livestock,

but there were also quite a few people who had no insider knowledge of cattle. ―Many

non-experts competed,‖ Galton wrote later in the scientific journal Nature. ―The average

competitor was probably as well fitted for making a just estimate of the dressed weight

of the ox, as an average voter is of judging the merits of most political issues on which

he votes.‖

* Taken from The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective

Wisdom Shapes Business, Economics, Societies and Nations. James Surowicki. New York.

Doubleday, 2004

43

Galton was interested in figuring out what the ―average voter‖ was capable of because

he wanted to prove that the average voter was capable of very little. So he turned the

competition into an impromptu experiment. When the contest was over and the prizes

had been awarded, Galton borrowed the tickets from the organizers and ran a series of

statistical tests on them. Galton arranged the guesses (totaling 787 – thirteen were

discarded because they were illegible) in order from highest to lowest and graphed

them to see if they would form a bell curve. Then, among other things, he added all the

contestants’ estimates, and calculated the mean of the group’s guesses. That number

represented, you could say, the collective wisdom of the Plymouth crowd. If the crowd

were a single person, that was how much it would have guessed the ox weighed.

Galton undoubtedly thought that the average guess of the group would be way off the

mark. After all, mix a few very smart people with some mediocre people and a lot of

dumb people, and it seems likely you’d end up with a dumb answer. But Galton was

wrong. The crowd had guessed that the ox, after it had been slaughtered and dressed,

would weigh 1,197 pounds. After it had been slaughtered and dressed, the ox weighed

1,198 pounds. In other words, the crowd’s judgment was essentially perfect. The

―experts‖ were not close. Perhaps breeding didn’t mean so much after all. Galton wrote

later: ―The result seems more creditable to the trustworthiness of a democratic

judgment than it might have been expected.‖ That was, to say the least, an

understatement.

What Francis Galton stumbled on that day in Plymouth was the simple, but powerful,

truth: under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often

smarter than the smartest people in them. Groups do not need to be dominated by

exceptionally intelligent people in order to be smart. Even if most of the people within a

group are not especially well-informed or rational, they can still reach a collectively wise

decision.

Questions for discussion:

1. What implications does this concept have in evaluation?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

2. Can you cite other examples?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

44

Credibility of Data is

Influenced by

Reputation of the source

o Source of data

o Source of the study

Biases

o Motives of the researcher

o Personal bias of the audience

Methodology Used

o Assumptions made in the analysis

o Realism of the outcome data

o Type of data

Scope of analysis

Data are Converted by

Converting output to contribution – standard value

Converting the cost of quality – standard value

Converting employee’s time – standard value

Using historical costs

Using internal and external experts

Using data from external databases

Linking with other measures

Using participants’ estimates

Using supervisors’ and managers’ estimates

Using staff estimates

Example

Cost of One Turnover from External Database

Salary of Middle Manager $70,000/annually

Value of Turnover* 150% of annual salary

Cost of Turnover $105,000

*Value obtained from industry-related study (external data)

45

Cost of a Sexual Harassment Complaint using Historical Costs and

Expert Input

Cost per complaint

$852,000

= $24,343

35

To Convert or Not Convert

Is there a standard value?

Is there a method to get there?

Can we get there with minimum resources?

Can we convince our executive in two minutes that the value is credible?

5-Step Data

Conversion

Step 1: Focus on a unit of measure

Step 2: Determine the value (V) of each unit

Step 3: Calculate the change in performance (ΔP)

Step 4: Determine the annual amount of change (AΔP)

Step 5: Calculate the total annual value of the improvement (AΔP x V)

35 Complaints

Actual Costs from

Records

Additional Estimated Costs

from Staff

Legal Fees, Settlements,

Losses, Material, Direct

Expenses

EEO/AA Staff Time,

Management Time

$852,000 Annually

46

Example using

Internal Experts

Step 1: One grievance

Step 2: V = $6,500 (from Director of Nursing and HR experts)

Step 3: ΔP = average of 7 out of 10 grievances prevented per month

due to program

Step 4: Annual ΔP =

Step 5: AΔP x V =

Which cost category is appropriate for ROI?

A B

Operating Costs

Support Costs

Administrative Costs

Participant Compensation and

Facility Costs

Classroom Costs

C D

Program Development Costs

Administrative Costs

Classroom Costs

Participant Costs

Analysis Costs

Development Costs

Delivery Costs

Overhead/Administrative Costs

Evaluation Costs

Notes

47

Fully-Loaded Cost

Profile

Assessment costs (prorated)

Development costs (prorated)

Program materials

Instructor/Facilitator costs

Facilities costs

Travel/Lodging/Meals

Participant salaries and benefits

Administrative/Overhead costs

Evaluation costs

Potential

Intangible

Benefits

Increased job satisfaction

Increased organizational commitment

Improved teamwork

Improved customer service

Reduced complaints

Reduced conflicts

Reduced stress

ROI is reported in two ways

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) =

Program Benefits

Program Costs

ROI (%) =

Net Program Benefits

X 100

Program Costs

Notes

48

Calculate the ROI

Costs per program (25 participants) – $80,000

Benefits per program (1st year) – $240,000

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) =

ROI =

X 100 =

What is an

acceptable

ROI?

Set the value as with other investments – 15%

Set the value slightly above other investments – 25%

Set at break even – 0%

Set at client expectations

When properly implemented, high ROI values can be achieved with

programs on:

Leadership

Team Building

Management Development

Supervisor Training

Sales Training

100% to 700% ROI is not

uncommon

49

Healthcare Organization

Sexual Harassment Prevention Workshop

Target Group: All supervisors and managers (655) with subsequent meetings with all

employees (6,844)

Data Collection

(3) Self Assessment Questionnaire – 6 months after program

(3) Employee Survey (25% sample) – 6 months after program

(4) Complaint and Turnover Records – 12 months after program

Isolating the Effects of the Program

Complaints – Trendline Analysis

Turnover – Forecasting

Converting Data to Monetary Values

Complaints – Historical costs and input from experts (internal EEO/AA staff)

Turnover – External studies within industry

Program Costs

Fully loaded to include needs assessment, development, coordination, participant

salaries and benefits, and evaluation

Total Costs = $277,987

Intangible Benefits

Job Satisfaction, absenteeism, stress reduction, community image, and recruiting

ROI Calculation

Monetary benefits from complaint reduction

Value of one internal complaint = $24,343

Annual improvement related to program = 14.8 complaints (prevented)

_______________________________________________

Monetary benefits from turnover reduction

Value of one turnover statistic = $20,887

Annual improvement related to program = 136 turnovers (prevented)

________________________________________________

Calculate the following:

BCR =

Total Benefits

=

Program Costs

ROI =

Total Benefits – Program Costs

X 100 =

Program Costs

50

Communication

Why the concern?

Measurement and evaluation are meaningless without communication

Communication is necessary for making improvement

Communication is a sensitive issue

Different audiences need different information

Principles

Keep communication timely

Target communication to specific audiences

Carefully select communication media

Keep communication consistent with past practices

Incorporate testimonials from influential individuals

Consider the training function’s reputation when developing the overall

strategy

Reports

There are four types

1. Complete report

2. Executive summary

3. General audience summary

4. Streamlined report

The complete report includes the details

General information

Methodology for impact study

Data analysis

Costs

Results

Barriers and enablers

Conclusions and recommendations

Exhibits

51

Sample Table of Contents for an ROI Impact Study

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Exhibits

Part I The Challenge and The Approach

Section 1: Introduction

Section 2: The Program

Section 3: Model for Impact Study

Section 4: Data Collection Strategy

Part II The Results

Section 5: Reaction and Satisfaction

Section 6: Learning

Section 7: Application and Implementation

Section 8: Business Impact

Section 9: Program Costs

Section 10: ROI and Its Meaning

Section 11: Intangible Benefits

Part III Recommendations

Section 12: Barriers and Enablers

Section 13: Suggestions for Improvement

Section 14: Conclusions

Section 15: Recommendations

52

ROI is Credible for Public Sector

• Common categories of data

• Systematic, step-by-step process

• Conservative standards

• Results-based approach

• High level of use

• Client focused

Satisfies all stakeholders

ROI is Feasible for Public Sector

• Not very expensive

• Many shortcut methods

• Time requirement can be managed

• Fits all types of programs

• Technology helps with costs/time

• Implementation is planned/systematic

Have No Fear

• ROI is a process improvement tool – designed to improve projects and programs

• ROI is not designed for performance review for individuals

• Every study reveals opportunities for changes

• Negative results represent the best opportunity to learn

• Negative results have a positive story

• Don’t wait for a sponsor to ask for Impact and ROI

Implementation Strategies in the Public Sector

• Brief, train, educate

• Involve the staff – early and often

• Emphasize process improvement

• Explain why – routinely

• Build it into programs – not add it on

• Provide resources

• Use the results appropriately

• Celebrate and recognize

ROI Best Practices

1. The ROI methodology is implemented as a process improvement tool and not a

performance evaluation tool for the staff.

2. ROI impact studies are conducted very selectively, usually involving 5-10% of

projects and programs.

3. A variety of data collection methods are used in ROI analysis.

4. For a specific ROI evaluation, the effects of the program are isolated from other

influences.

5. Business impact data are converted to monetary values.

6. ROI evaluation targets are developed, showing the percent of programs evaluated at

each level.

7. The ROI methodology generates a micro level scorecard.

53

8. ROI methodology data are being integrated to create a macro scorecard for the

learning/ development function

9. The ROI methodology is being implemented for about 3-5% of the budget.

10. ROI forecasting is being implemented routinely.

11. The ROI methodology is used as a tool to strengthen/improve the programs and

processes.

*Based on benchmarking with over 200 organizations using ROI routinely

Cost-Saving Approaches to ROI

• lan for evaluation early in the

process

• Build evaluation into the process

• Share the responsibilities for

evaluation

• Require participants to conduct

major steps

• Use short-cut methods for major

steps

• Use sampling to select the most

appropriate programs for ROI analysis

• Use estimates in the collection and

analysis of data

• Develop internal capability to

implement the ROI process

• Streamline the reporting process

• Utilize web-based software to reduce

time

Status of ROI Use*

Is your leadership and/or clients asking about ROI?

1. Yes

2. No

Does your organization have a measurement/evaluation strategy?

1. Yes

2. No and no plans for it in the

near future

3. No, but is it in process of being

developed

54

Does your organization have a measurement or evaluation function?

1. Yes

2. No and no plans for it in the near

future

3. No, but being developed

How many ROI studies has your organization completed to date?

1. 1

2. 2 – 3

3. 4 – 8

4. 9 – 15

5. 16 or more

*2007 Survey of Users, N = 235

What happens if we do nothing?

ROI Reality

• Impact/ROI information is desired by clients/ executives

• The impact/ROI process provides a balanced, credible approach with six types of

data

• All types of organizations are routinely using impact/ROI

• The impact/ROI process can be implemented without draining resources

• The impact/ROI process is a long-term goal for many organizations.

• Budget?

• Influence?

• Support?

• Other Issues?

55

Impact/ROI Standards*

1. When a higher-level evaluation is conducted, data must be collected at lower levels.

2. When an evaluation is planned for a higher level, the previous level of evaluation

does not have to be comprehensive.

3. When collecting and analyzing data, use only the most credible source.

4. When analyzing data, choose the most conservative among the alternatives.

5. At least one method must be used to isolate the effects of the solution.

6. If no improvement data are available for a population or from a specific source, it is

assumed that little or no improvement has occurred.

7. Estimates of improvements should be adjusted for the potential error of the

estimate.

8. Extreme data items and unsupported claims should not be used in ROI calculations.

9. Only the first year of monetary benefits should be used in the ROI analysis for shortterm

solutions.

10. Costs of the solution should be fully loaded for ROI analysis.

11. Intangible measures are defined as measures that are purposely not converted to

monetary values.

12. The results from the ROI methodology must be communicated to all key

stakeholders.

* Developed by the ROI Institute with input from users.

The standards are used by more than 5,000 organizations in 52 countries.

56

ROI Quiz

True or False? Please choose the answer you feel is most correct

T F

1. The ROI Methodology generates just one data item, expressed as a percentage.  

2. A program with monetary benefits of $200,000 and costs of $100,000 translates

into a 200% ROI.

 

3. The ROI Methodology is a tool to improve process and projects,

learning/development process.

 

4. After reviewing a detailed ROI impact study, senior executives will usually require

ROI studies on all programs.

 

5. ROI studies should be conducted very selectively, usually involving 5-10% of

programs.

 

6. While it may be a rough estimate, it is always possible to isolate the effects of a

program on impact data

 

7. A program costing $100 per participant, designed to teach basic skills with job

related software, is an ideal program for an ROI impact study.

 

8. Data can always be converted to monetary value, credibly.  

9. The ROI Methodology contains too many complicated formulas.  

10. The ROI Methodology can be implemented for about 3-5% of my budget.  

11. ROI is not future oriented; it only reflects past performance.  

12. ROI is not possible for soft skills programs.  

13. If an ROI impact study, conducted on an existing program, shows a negative ROI,

the client is usually already aware of the program’s weaknesses.

 

14. The best time to consider an ROI evaluation is three months after the program is

completed.

 

15. In the early stages of implementation, the ROI Methodology is a process

improvement tool and not performance evaluation for the team.

 

16. If senior executives are not asking for ROI, there is no need to pursue the ROI

Methodology.

 

57

So, how did you do?

Now that the answers to the quiz have been explained, see how you fared. Tally

your scores. Based on the interpretations below, what is your ROI acumen?

No. of Correct

Responses Interpretation

14-16 You could be an ROI consultant

10-13 You could be a speaker at the next ROI Conference

7-9 You need a copy of a thick ROI book

4-6 You need to attend a two-day ROI workshop

1-3 You need to attend the ROI certification

58

Sample of Published ROI Studies

Measuring the ROI: Key Impact Measures: ROI

Performance Management

(Restaurant Chain)

A variety of measures, such as productivity, quality,

time, costs, turnover, and absenteeism

298%1

Process Improvement Team

(Apple Computer)

Productivity and labor efficiency 182%1

Skill-Based Pay

(Construction Materials Firm)

Labor costs, turnover, absenteeism 805%2

Sexual Harassment

Prevention (Health Care

Chain)

Complaints, turnover, absenteeism, job satisfaction 1052%2

Safety Incentive Plan (Steel

Company)

Accident frequency rate, accident severity rates 379%2

Diversity (Nextel

Communications)

Retention, employee satisfaction 163%6

Retention Improvement

(Financial Services)

Turnover, staffing levels, employee satisfaction 258%3

Absenteeism

Control/Reduction Program

Absenteeism, customer satisfaction 882%2

Stress Management Program

(Electric Utility)

Medical costs, turnover, absenteeism 320%2

Executive Leadership

Development (Financial)

Team projects, individual projects, retention 62%2

E-Learning (Petroleum) Sales 206%2

Internal Graduate Degree

Program (Federal Agency)

Retention, individual graduate projects 153%4

Executive Coaching (Nortel

Networks)

Several measures, including productivity, quality, cost

control, and product development time

788%5

Competency Development

(Veteran’s Health

Administration)

Time savings, work quality, faster response 159%4

First Level Leadership

Development (Auto Rental

Company)

Various measures – at least two per manager 105%7

59

References for Published Studies

1. In Action: Measuring Return on Investment, Volume 3. Patricia P. Phillips, Editor; Jack J. Phillips,

Series Editor. Alexandria: ASTD, 2001.

2. The Human Resources Scorecard: Measuring the Return on Investment. Jack Phillips, Ron D. Stone,

Patricia P. Phillips. Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001.

3. In Action: Retaining Your Best Employees. Patricia P. Phillips, Editor; Jack J. Phillips, Series Editor.

Alexandria: ASTD and the Society for Human Resource Management, 2002.

4. In Action: Measuring ROI in the Public Sector. Patricia P. Phillips, Editor. Alexandria: ASTD, 2002.

5. In Action: Coaching for Extraordinary Results. Darelyn J. Mitch, Editor; Jack J. Phillips, Series Editor.

Alexandria: ASTD, 2002.

6. In Action: Implementing Training Scorecards. Lynn Schmidt, Editor; Jack J. Phillips, Series Editor.

Alexandria: ASTD, 2003.

7. The Leadership Scorecard, Jack J. Phillips and Lynn Schmidt, Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann,

2004.

Additional Resources

Measuring for Success: What CEOs Really Think About Learning Investments. Jack J. Phillips and Patti

P. Phillips. ASTD, 2010.

Beyond Learning Objectives: Develop Measurable Objectives That Link To The Bottom Line. Jack J.

Phillips and Patti P. Phillips. ASTD, 2008.

The Measurement and Evaluation Series. ROI Fundamentals: Why and When to Measure Return on

Investment; Data Collection: Planning For and Collecting All Types of Data; Isolation of Results:

Defining the Impact of the Program; Data Conversion: Calculating the Monetary Benefits, Costs and

ROI: Evaluating at the Ultimate Level; Communication and Implementation: Sustaining the Practice.

Patricia P. Phillips and Jack J. Phillips. Pfeiffer, 2008

ROI In Action Casebook. Patricia P. Phillips and Jack J. Phillips. Pfeiffer, 2008.

The Value of Learning: How Organizations Capture Value and ROI and Translate It into Support,

Improvement, and Funds. Jack J. Phillips and Patricia P. Phillips. Pfeiffer, 2007.

Show Me the Money. Jack J. Phillips and Patricia P. Phillips. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, 2007

Return on Investment in Training and Performance Improvement Programs,2nd Edition, Jack J. Phillips.

Woburn: Butterworth Heinemann, 2003.

How to Measure Training Results: A Practical Guide to Tracking the Six Key Indicators. Jack J. Phillips

and Ron D. Stone. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 2002.

In Action: Measuring Intellectual Capital. Patricia P. Phillips, Editor; Jack J. Phillips, Series Editor.

Alexandria: ASTD, 2002.

The Bottomline on ROI. Patricia P. Phillips, Atlanta: CEP Press, 2002.

The Consultant’s Scorecard. Jack J. Phillips, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 2000.

In Action: Performance Analysis and Consulting. Jack J. Phillips, Editor and Series Editor, Alexandria:

ASTD, 1999.

60

Origin/Development/History

The ROI Methodology™ was developed by Dr. Jack J. Phillips in the 1970s, refined through application and use in the 1980s, and

implemented globally during the 1990s.

First impact study – 1973, Measuring the ROI in a Cooperative Education Program, for Lockheed-Martin

First public presentation on the methodology – 1978, ASTD Annual Conference

First book published to include methodology – 1983, Handbook of Training Evaluation and Measurement Methods, Gulf Publishing (this was

the first USA book on training evaluation)

First one-day public workshop –1991, Birmingham, Alabama

First two-day public workshop –1992, Johannesburg, South Africa

First case study book published – 1994, Measuring Return on Investment, ASTD

First international partnership established – 1994, Indonesia

First public certification workshop – 1995, Nashville, Tennessee

ROI Network organized - 1996

First ROI Network Conference –1997, New Orleans, Louisiana

First international ROI Network Conference – 2002, Toronto, Canada

First ROI in Government Conference – 2003, Gulfport, Mississippi, Co-sponsored by the University of Southern Mississippi

First ROI software release – 2003, Knowledge Advisors

Distinguished contribution to workplace learning and performance awarded by ASTD to Jack Phillips for the work on ROI - 2005

On-line ROI Certification launched – 2006, University Alliance-Villanova University

ROI Certification offered as part of Master’s and Ph.D. degree – Capella University, 2006

ROI Methodology adopted by the United Nations for system implementation- 2008

Use

More than 4,000 organizations are using the ROI Methodology, through planned implementation

3,000 organizations have formally implemented the methodology through ROI Certification™ conducted by the ROI Institute

Approximately 5,000 impact studies are conducted annually in learning and development and human resources

At least 300 public sector governmental units are using the methodology

ROI implementation was first pursued in manufacturing, then moved to service, healthcare, non-profits, governments, and is now in

educational systems

Applications

Typical applications include:

Leadership Development

Career Management

Competency Systems

Diversity

E-Learning

Coaching

Consulting

Ethics/Compliance

Meetings and Events

Management Development

Marketing

Organization Development

Orientation

Recruiting/Selection

Knowledge Management

Safety and Health Programs

Communications

Skill-Based/Compensation

Technology Implementation

Quality/Six Sigma

Wellness/Fitness Initiatives

Articles and Publicity

More than 100 articles have been published on the ROI Methodology in major publications in 30 countries

The ROI Methodology has been a cover story on at least 15 publications, magazines, and journals

At least 100 interviews in major global business and professional publications

More than 25 radio and TV interviews in different countries

The ROI Fact Sheet

: 205-678-8101  Fax: 205-678-8102

: info@roiinstitute.net

Copyright©2009, ROI Institute, Inc.

61

Books

30 books have been published on the ROI Methodology and its application (www.roiinstitute.net)

Primary reference – Return on Investment in Training and Performance Improvement Projects, 2nd Edition, Jack J. Phillips, Butterworth-Heinemann,

Woburn, MA, 2003 (originally published in 1997)

Award winning book – Bottomline on ROI, Patricia Pulliam Phillips, CEP Press, 2002 (received ISPI award)

General application – Show Me the Money, Jack J. Phillips and Patricia Pulliam Phillips, Berrett-Koehler, 2007

Most comprehensive work – Measurement and Evaluation Series, Jack J. Phillips and Patricia Pulliam Phillips, Pfieffer, 2008

Case Studies

More than 200 case studies published in books, journals, and industry publications

Four-volume set published by ASTD in 1994, 1997, 2001, and 2005

First public sector case book – 2002, published jointly by the International Personnel and Management Association and the American Society for

Training and Development

First International case book – 2005, Ireland published by Skillnets

International case studies under development in 12 countries

Workshops (One-Day, Two-Day, and Three-Day)

Approximately 200 one-day workshops conducted with more than 8,000 participants

Approximately 500 two-day workshops conducted with more than 15,000 specialists and managers attending (offered in almost every major

international city)

Routine schedules of one-day, two-day, and three-day workshops offered in the USA by ASTD (www.astd.org) and through partners around the world

ROI Certification™

Five-day workshop plus two work products lead to certification for ROI implementation

More than 4,000 professionals have attended certification, representing more than 3,000 organizations in at least 50 countries

Certifications offered routinely about 25 times per year both internally and publicly by the ROI Institute (www.roiinstitute.net)

On-line certification begins every month-six months duration (www.roiinstituteonline.com)

Global Implementation

First implementation of the ROI Methodology outside the USA – 1992, South Africa

First certification in non-English language – 1995, Italy

Implementation is accomplished through partners in various countries

Implementation is currently occurring in 51 countries, with additional implementations planned in other countries

Books published in 33 languages

12 international case study books in development or in the planning stages

The ROI Fact Sheet

: 205-678-8101  Fax: 205-678-8102

: info@roiinstitute.net

Copyright©2009, ROI Institute, Inc.

62

Jack J. Phillips, Ph.D.

Jack J. Phillips is a world-renowned expert on accountability, measurement and evaluation. Phillips

provides consulting services for Fortune 500 companies and major global organizations. The author or

editor of more than fifty books, he conducts workshops and presents at conferences throughout the

world.

Phillips has received several awards for his books and work. On three occasions, Meeting News

named him one of the 25 Most Influential People in the Meetings and Events Industry, based on his

work on ROI. The Society for Human Resource Management presented him an award for one of his

books and honored a Phillips ROI study with its highest award for creativity. The American Society for

Training and Development gave him its highest award, Distinguished Contribution to Workplace

Learning and Development for his work on ROI.

His expertise in measurement and evaluation is based on more than 27 years of corporate experience

in the aerospace, textile, metals, construction materials and banking industries. Dr. Phillips has served

as training and development manager at two Fortune 500 firms, as senior human resource officer at

two firms, as president of a regional bank and as management professor at a major state university.

Dr. Phillips regularly consults with clients in manufacturing, service and government organizations in

52 countries in North and South America, Europe, Africa, Australia and Asia.

Phillips and his wife, Dr. Patti P. Phillips, recently served as authors and series editors for the

Measurement and Evaluation Series published by Pfeiffer (2008), which includes a six-book series on

the ROI Methodology and a companion book of 14 best-practice case studies. Other books recently

authored by Phillips include ROI for Technology Projects: Measuring and Delivering Value

(Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008); Return on Investment in Meetings and Events: Tools and Techniques

to Measure the Success of all Types of Meetings and Events (Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008); Show

Me the Money: How to Determine ROI in People, Projects, and Programs (Berrett-Koehler, 2007); The

Value of Learning (Pfeiffer, 2007); How to Build a Successful Consulting Practice (McGraw-Hill, 2006);

Investing in Your Company’s Human Capital: Strategies to Avoid Spending Too Much or Too Little

(Amacom, 2005); Proving the Value of HR: How and Why to Measure ROI (SHRM, 2005); The

Leadership Scorecard (Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004); Managing Talent Retention (Pfeiffer,

2009); Return on Investment in Training and Performance Improvement Programs, 2nd ed. (Elsevier

Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003); The Project Management Scorecard, (Elsevier Butterworth-

Heinemann, 2002); Beyond Learning Objectives (ASTD, 2008); The Human Resources Scorecard:

Measuring the Return on Investment (Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001); Measuring for Success

(ASRD, 2010) and The Consultant’s Scorecard (McGraw-Hill, 2000). Phillips served as series editor

for ASTD’s In Action casebook series, an ambitious publishing project featuring 30 titles. He currently

serves as series editor for Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann’s Improving Human Performance series.

Dr. Phillips has undergraduate degrees in electrical engineering, physics and mathematics; a master’s

degree in Decision Sciences from Georgia State University; and a Ph.D. in Human Resource

Management from the University of Alabama. He has served on the boards of several private

businesses and several nonprofits and associations, including the American Society for Training and

Development and the National Management Association. He is chairman of the ROI Institute, Inc., and

can be reached at (205) 678-8101, or by e-mail at jack@roiinstitute.net.

63

Patti P. Phillips, Ph.D.

Dr. Patti P. Phillips is president and CEO of the ROI Institute, Inc., the leading source of ROI

competency building, implementation support, networking, and research. A renowned expert in

measurement and evaluation, she helps organizations implement the ROI Methodology in

countries around the world, including India, Indonesia, South Africa, Australia, Chile, Brazil,

Romania, Ireland, Canada, and the United States.

Since 1997, following a 13-year career in the electric utility industry, Phillips has embraced the ROI

Methodology by committing herself to ongoing research and practice. Dr. Phillips has implemented

ROI in private sector and public sector organizations. She has conducted ROI impact studies on

programs such as leadership development, sales, new-hire orientation, human performance

improvement, K-12 educator development, and educators’ National Board Certification mentoring.

Her current work includes research and application of the ROI Methodology in workforce

development, community development, and social sector programs as well as corporate initiatives

such as learning and development, human resources, and meetings and events.

Dr. Phillips teaches others to implement the ROI Methodology through the ROI Certification

process, as a facilitator for ASTD’s ROI and Measuring and Evaluating Learning Workshops, and

as visiting professor at The University of Southern Mississippi for graduate-level evaluation

courses. She also serves as faculty for the United Nations System Staff College Evaluation and

Impact Assessment course and their Results-Based Measurement Course. She serves on

numerous doctoral dissertation committees, assisting students as they develop their own research

on measurement, evaluation, and ROI.

Phillips speaks on the topic of ROI and accountability at conferences and symposia in countries

around the world. She is often heard over the internet as she presents the ROI Methodology to a

wide variety of audiences via webcasts.

Dr. Phillips’s academic accomplishments include a Ph.D. in International Development and a

master’s degree in Public and Private Management. She is a certified in ROI evaluation and has

been awarded the designations of Certified Professional in Learning and Performance and

Certified Performance Technologist. She contributes to a variety of journals and has authored a

number of books on the subject of accountability and ROI, including Data Conversion (Pfeiffer,

2008); ROI Fundamentals (Pfeiffer, 2008); Return on Investment in Meetings and Events: Tools

and Techniques to Measure the Success of All Types of Meetings and Events (Elsevier, 2008);

Show Me the Money: How to Determine ROI in People, Projects, and Programs (Berrett-Koehler,

2007); The Value of Learning (Pfeiffer, 2007); Return on Investment Basics (ASTD, 2005); Proving

the Value of HR: How and Why to Measure ROI (SHRM, 2005); Make Training Evaluation Work

(ASTD, 2004); The Bottom Line on ROI (Center for Effective Performance, 2002), which won the

2003 ISPI Award of Excellence; ROI at Work (ASTD, 2005); the ASTD In Action casebooks

Measuring ROI in the Public Sector (2002), Retaining Your Best Employees (2002), and

Measuring Return on Investment Vol. III (2001); the ASTD Infoline series, including Planning and

Using Evaluation Data (2003), Managing Evaluation Shortcuts (2001), and Mastering ROI (1998).


Dr. Phillips can be reached at patti@roiinstitute.net.

No comments: