Three Methods to Assess Training Effectiveness in the Warehouse

The effectiveness of warehouse training can be evaluated or assessed in several ways. The following are three examples of methods.

(i) Quantitative comparison of performance or incidents
Data on an operative’s performance pre- and post-training can be compared. Data can be gathered from many sources, e.g. handheld devices, scanning records, GPS, error/duplication rates as recorded by the IMS/WMS, and KPI figures/percentages. If the operative’s post-training data shows his/her performance to be exceeding his/her pre-training performance, the causation may be attributable to the training received. Logically, if an increase in efficiency is reported by the data, it is likely that this effect is the result of the training, ergo the training has been effective. However, pure practice effects may be the cause, not the training per se. Moreover, selection of the appropriate data for measurement must be considered carefully. If the training was on a Health and Safety-related activity, then the speed or rate of certain activities may decline, possibly as a result of the operative performing in a more safety-conscious way. In such a case, the appropriate measure would be the number of accidents/incidents logged post-training, rather than the average speed of pick, which would be an entirely inappropriate metric.

(ii) Formal testing
Managers can gauge the effectiveness of training by conducting structured, scored, Learning Objective-driven pre- and post-training testing of operatives. Prior to training, trainees are tested by, for example, demonstrating or explaining a particular activity. They are then given training, and then assessed again using essentially the same test as given before. The degree to which training has influenced the operative’s performance can be ascertained from a comparison of the pre- and post-test results. Further training, if required, can be focussed on sticking points or aspects/steps of the activity identified by the comparison as negative or unchanged. The post-test-retraining cycle can then be repeated, using the testing as a diagnostic tool for pinpoint correction, until full competence is demonstrated or adequate post-training test scores are achieved.

(iii) Operative feedback
This can be gathered by formal or informal means (formal means are likely preferable if the task the operative is being trained on is important). Surveys, interviews, or feedback comment forms can be used by managers to gather operatives’ self-evaluation of their training and its effectiveness in terms of their performance of the relevant task. Weaknesses with self-reporting must be accounted for, however. Operatives may evaluate themselves too harshly or too generously, so subjectivity should, if time and costs permit, be complemented with some objective method of measuring training effectiveness, such as scored observations by supervisors – see (ii), or performance data – see (i). If managers trust the operatives’ judgement, then the operative’s self-evaluation may be sufficient.