Yesterday, we were discussing how a regulatory agency could become a learning organization.
I was thinking of a parsimonious indicator. Why not resources spent on learning/training activities? How much did the organization spend on activities associated with training/learning? Actual money spent on fees, travel, per diems etc. plus opportunity costs borne because staff were sent for training/learning activities (lost days of regular work, etc).
Any organization that claims to be a learning organization should report these numbers. Then one would be able to compare across time and across organizations.
Should the number of days spent on training be reported or the per-day costs of having senior and junior officers be away from their desks at training activities be spent? The latter. Because the costs of sending a senior person is more than what is spent on training a junior person. So an organization that send only its junior staff for training should get a lower score than one that send out its senior staff.
Hopefully, we at LIRNEasia will start reporting our training/learning outlays from next year.
Comments are closed.