http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

Calculating return on investment of training using process variation

Calculating return on investment of training using process variation

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
$19.95
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for $120.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
IET Software — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

Organisations have relied on training to increase the performance of their workforce. Also, software process improvement models suggest that training is an effective tool for institutionalising a development process. Training evaluation becomes important for understanding the improvements resulting from the investments in training. Like other production process, the software development process is subject to natural and special causes of variation, and process improvement models recommend its statistical management. Return on investment (ROI) has already been proposed as an effective measure to evaluate training interventions. Nevertheless, when applying ROI in production environments, practitioners have not taken into consideration the effects of variation in production processes. This study presents a method for calculating ROI that considers process variation; the authors argue that ROI results should be understood in accordance to statistical management guidance. The proposed method has been piloted at a software factory. The results of the case study are reported. These results show how to calculate ROI by taking into account the variation in a production process.

References

    1. 1)
      • M.B. Chrissis , M. Konrad , S. Shrum . (2007) CMMI: guidelines for process integration and product improvement.
    2. 2)
      • (2000) Quality management systems – requirements.
    3. 3)
      • (2004) Information technology process assessment. Part 1: concepts and vocabulary.
    4. 4)
      • Murugappan, M., Keeni, G.: `Quality improvement – the Six sigma way', Proc. First AsiaPacific Conf. Quality Software, 2000, p. 248–257.
    5. 5)
    6. 6)
    7. 7)
      • J.J. Phillips . (2003) Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs: improving human performance.
    8. 8)
      • R.W. Glover . (1999) Return-on-investment (ROI) analysis of education and training in the construction industry.
    9. 9)
    10. 10)
      • W.A. Shewhart . (1980) Economic control of quality of manufactured product.
    11. 11)
    12. 12)
    13. 13)
    14. 14)
      • T. Hodges . (2002) Linking learning and performance.
    15. 15)
      • D. Kirkpatrick . Four-level training evaluation model. US Train. Dev. J. , 9 - 21
    16. 16)
      • D.L. Kirkpatrick , J.D. Kirkpatrick . (2006) Evaluating training programs: the four levels.
    17. 17)
    18. 18)
    19. 19)
      • S. Shelton , G. Alliger . Who's afraid of level 4 evaluation? A practical approach. Train. Dev. , 6 , 43 - 46
    20. 20)
    21. 21)
    22. 22)
      • Ilian, H.: `Levels of levels: making Kirkpatrick fit the facts and the facts fit Kirkpatrick', Proc. 6th Annual Human Services Training, 2004.
    23. 23)
    24. 24)
      • R.A. Swanson , E.F. Holton . (2009) Foundations of human resource development.
    25. 25)
    26. 26)
      • Card, D.: `Building a business case for process improvement', Proc. Europe SEPG, 2008.
    27. 27)
    28. 28)
      • W.S. Humphrey . (2001) Winning with software: an executive strategy.
    29. 29)
      • J. Herbsleb , A. Carleton , J. Rozum , J. Siegel , D. Zubrow . (1994) Benefits of CMM-based software process improvement: initial results.
    30. 30)
    31. 31)
      • W.S. Humphrey . (1999) Introduction to the team software process.
    32. 32)
      • W.E. Deming . (2000) Out of the crisis.
    33. 33)
      • Goldenson, D.: `The state of software measurement practice', Proc. Europe SEPG 08, 12–14 June 2008, Munich, Germany.
    34. 34)
      • Radice, R.: `Survey results of baselines and models used by level 4 and 5 organizations', Proc. SEPG, 2010.
    35. 35)
      • D.J. Wheeler . (1993) Understanding variation: the key to managing chaos.
    36. 36)
      • W.A. Florac , R.E. Park , A.D. Carleton . (1997) Practical software measurement: measuring for process management and improvement.
    37. 37)
    38. 38)
    39. 39)
      • Matalonga, S., SanFeliu, T.: `Linking return on training investment with defects causal analysis', Proc. 20th Conf. on Software Engineering Theory and Practice, 2008, p. 42–47.
    40. 40)
      • V.R. Basili . (1992) Software modeling and measurement: the goal/question/metric paradigm.
    41. 41)
      • T. Pyzdek . (2003) The six sigma handbook: the complete guide for greenbelts, blackbelts, and managers at all levels.
    42. 42)
      • W. Dettmer . (2007) The logical thinking process: a systems approach to complex problem solving.
    43. 43)
      • Matalonga, S., Feliu, T.S.: `Using defect data to drive organizational training efforts', Proc. Int. Conf. on Software Engineering Theory and Practice, 2008, p. 61–68.
    44. 44)
      • Matalonga, S., San Feliu, T.: `Defect driven organizational training', Proc. Europe SEPG, 2008.
    45. 45)
      • Mizukami, D.: `Analyzing defects can tell a LOT about a company', Proc. SEPG Conf., 26–29 March 2007.
    46. 46)
      • D.T. Campbell , J.C. Stanley . (1963) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching.
    47. 47)
      • C. Wohlin , P. Runeson , M. Höst , M.C. Ohlsson , B. Regnell , A. Wesslén . (2000) Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction.
    48. 48)
      • A. Field , G. Hole . (2003) How to design and report experiments. (7).
    49. 49)
      • G. Glass , R.M. Jager . (1997) Interrupted time series quasi-experiments: complementary methods for research in education.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2011.0024
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen.2011.0024
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address