I’m sensing a bit of panic in your note. I understand your concerns and thank you for expressing them to me at this stage of the process.
Your concern that the evaluation will take time away from creating the simulations and is wasteful in regards to time and money. “However, a more critical issue is whether evaluation can improve service in the long run” (Posavac, 2007, p. 41). Without an evaluation of the simulations we run a risk of blindly spending money towards programs or items that are not in the company’s best interest. You also have concerns that the results may not come back positive and evaluations in general do not have much impact with anyone who matters in the company. I hope to assure you that if the results come back in a less than positive light that does not mean that future funding will be cut. The findings may actually attract more support and resources (Posavac, 2007, p. 41) as the maintenance of the large blast furnaces is an important operational standard. I see research and or evaluation critical to any future decision-making by upper management on an organizational level (Chapman, 2004, p.44).
I also want to remind you that an evaluation is required as a stipulation of the grant. The funders want an account of the effectiveness of the training to continue their support.
Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Best, Tai Day
Chapman, D. D. (2004). Preferences of Training Performance Measurement: A Comparative Study of Training Professionals and Non-training Managers.Performance Improvement Quarterly. Volume 17, Issue 4, pages 31–49.
Posavac, E. J., & Carey, R. G. (2007). Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.