it is necessary to write a report on Personal development management in Russian organizations.

IMPROVING THE SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PERSONNEL TRAINING IN RUSSIAN ORGANIZATIONS Annotation The article is devoted to the problems of evaluating the effectiveness of personnel training in Russian organizations. A modified version of the Kirkpatrick methodology is proposed using a detailed formula for calculating the learning efficiency indicator. A scale for evaluating the effectiveness of training on four levels of the Kirkpatrick model is given. The necessity of developing a model of integral assessment of the effectiveness of the organization's human resource development system is substantiated. Keywords Effectiveness of training, human resource development system, Kirkpatrick methodology, Philips methodology, diagnostics of human resource development system The need for a reliable assessment of the effectiveness of training and staff development has long been an actively discussed topic among teachers and organizers of training in modern companies. The importance of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of vocational training is also determined by the requirements of the quality management system. For example, ISO/TU 16949 standards (paragraph 4.18.2), QS-9000 (paragraph 4.18.1) offer evaluation methods: "The effectiveness of personnel training can be analyzed by various methods, for example, by testing before and after training." However, the indicators that should be measured are not specified, so each organization determines the criteria and methods for evaluating the effectiveness of training in its own way. That is why the evaluation of indicators of the effectiveness of vocational training causes great difficulties. The classical method of evaluating the effectiveness of training today is the model proposed by D. Kirkpatrick, consisting of four levels: assessment of the reaction of trainees; assessment of the level of knowledge; assessment of behavior in the workplace; assessment of the impact on business results [1]. The authors support the point of view according to which the evaluation of the program according to the first level of D. Kirkpatrick's "Reaction" has nothing to do with its effectiveness it is just a feedback to the work of the training, the content of the program. A conversation about evaluating the effectiveness of the program can begin only from the second level (how well the participants of the program have mastered the acquired knowledge) [2]. D. Philips' methodology (ROI coefficient) expresses the percentage of net profit from the implementation of the program to the amount of costs. In most Russian companies, the effectiveness of training is determined from the position of assessing the assimilation of the studied material (exam results based on the results of theoretical training) and the degree of satisfaction of students with the quality of teaching, the curriculum, and the organization of the educational process. In other words, the assessment is carried out according to the 1st and 2nd levels of Kirkpatrick (Figure 1). Figure 1 - The current system for evaluating the effectiveness of training in Russian organizations 173 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL "INNOVATIVE SCIENCE" No5/2016 ISSN 2410-6070 The authors have developed a modified version of the Kirkpatrick methodology using a detailed formula for calculating the learning effectiveness indicator. The methodology provides a generalizing quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of training at four levels. It is recommended to calculate the efficiency indicator (E) according to the following formula: E = K1*B1+K2*B2+K3*B3+ K4* B4 , where B1, B2, B3, B4 is a quantitative assessment in points, respectively, according to the levels "reaction", "learning", "behavior", "results". K1, K2, K3, K4 the coefficients of the significance of the assessment for each of the levels determined by the expert the method for the training program [3]. It is recommended to evaluate each of the levels using a five-point scale based on the E.S. Harrington desirability scale [4]. Table 1 shows the standard marks of this scale with interpretation in relation to the evaluation of effectiveness by Kirkpatrick levels. The authors have developed an assessment scale with descriptive characteristics of five gradations on four levels of the Kirkpatrick model for use in order to diagnose the state of the system according to the parameter "Effectiveness of training programs" (Table 2). As can be seen from the table, the level 4 assessment (results) is also based on the Harrington desirability scale, which can be applied as follows. If it is possible to convert the performance indicators into a monetary (financial) equivalent, the ROI is determined with the subsequent conversion of the values obtained into points (according to the Harrington scale). In other cases, an individual scale is developed with descriptions for each indicator measuring the result. Harrington's desirability function can be used to convert ROI into points. Table 1 Standard marks on the Harrington Desirability scale with interpretations Desirability Very good Very good Satisfactorily Bad Very bad Marks on the desirability scale 1,00 - 0,80 0,80 - 0,63 0,63 - 0,37 0,37 - 0,20 0,20 - 0,00 Gradations of Schkala A B C D E Interpretation in relation to the Kirkpatrick level performance assessment The most effective personnel training program for the company The training costs are fully justified Expenses can be justified by adjusting the methods and forms of organizing and conducting the educational process Very low learning efficiency The budget for staff education has been wasted In the case when the estimated parameter (optimization parameter) has only one restriction (either by minimum or maximum), the following desirability function is used: where y / is the formula used The ROI in points on the desirability scale will be It should be noted that in the case of the translation of the parameter deey/ , (1) the encoded value of the particular parameter y, i.e. its value on a conditional scale; d is the desirability value on the Harrington scale. (1), since there is only one restriction (at the minimum the lower the limit of tolerance for the value of this indicator). The value of the lower tolerance limit determined by experts. 174

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL "INNOVATIVE SCIENCE" No5/2016 ISSN 2410-6070 Table 2 Scale for evaluating the effectiveness of training at four levels of the Kirkpatrick model with descriptions Scale gradation Descriptive characteristics Level 1 Reaction A Full satisfaction of students with the quality of teaching, curriculum, organization of training Students' satisfaction with the quality of teaching and the curriculum. Some problems with the organization of training C Students' satisfaction with the curriculum. Shortcomings in the quality of teaching and problems with the organization of training D Insufficient satisfaction of students with the curriculum. Significant shortcomings in the quality of teaching and problems with the organization of training E Absolute dissatisfaction of students with the quality of teaching, curriculum and organization of training Level 2 Learning (assimilation) And an exceptionally high assessment of the level of assimilation of knowledge, skills, skills. Significantly exceeds the company's expectations C Very high assessment of the level of assimilation of knowledge, skills, skills (complete absence of comments). Meets the high expectations of the company With good assimilation of knowledge, skills, skills. Absence of obvious mistakes and management claims D The presence of minor gaps in knowledge, the need for monitoring E Negative assessment of the level of assimilation of knowledge, skills, skills. Additional efforts are required to master the taught material Level 3 Behavior C Demonstration of the application of the acquired knowledge, skills and abilities in professional activity. The presence of innovations in the work with a cautious (negative) assessment by subordinates, colleagues, managers D The absence of positive changes in the behavior of the employee. The acquired knowledge and skills are not applied in practice. Lack of innovations, rationalization activities E Negative assessment of employee behavior by colleagues, subordinates, direct supervisors But Demonstration of the application of the acquired knowledge, skills and abilities in professional activity. Clear positive changes in employee behavior. Trained personnel engaged in innovation and inventive activities. The training contributed to the improvement of the student's work both from the point of view of subordinates, as well as colleagues and direct supervisors. The trainee may be assigned the role of mentor in Demonstration of the application of acquired knowledge, skills and abilities in professional activity. Positive changes in employee behavior. The presence of innovations in the work with a neutral assessment by subordinates, colleagues, managers A B C D E Level 4 Results If it is possible to convert the performance indicators into a monetary (financial) equivalent, the ROI is determined with the subsequent conversion of the obtained values into points (a five-level scale). In other cases the development of an individual scale for each indicator measuring the result According to the authors, the concept of efficiency in relation to the development of human resources should be considered in an extended interpretation, namely as the effectiveness of the human resources development system of the organization as a whole. This means that the specified assessment must be multi-criteria. The authors have identified several projections recommended for inclusion in the model of integrated assessment of the effectiveness of the organization's human resource development system: assessment of learning processes; assessment of the effectiveness of servicing business needs in training and development activities; evaluation of the economic efficiency of training and development programs based on business indicators [5]. The state of the organization's human resource development system, as well as the three components of the quantitative evaluation indicator, can be in the normalized range from 0.20 to 1.00. To translate descriptive gradations of evaluation parameters by projections (denoted by the letter symbols "A", "B", "C", "D", "E") into normalized quantitative values, the principle 175 can be used

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL "INNOVATIVE SCIENCE" No5/2016 ISSN 2410-6070 based on the use of the Harrington nomogram.