OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to decode the activity of Human Resources (HR) professionals responsible for evaluating continuing vocational training. It is based on the understanding of the different "time frames" involved in the development of the evaluation process as well as the reasons that justify the options for different implementation methods in the world of work. METHODS: Document analysis of the training evaluation process implemented in two companies and comparison of the results obtained in the evaluation of a specific training session using two different evaluation methods. RESULTS: In both cases the companies largely adopted the Kirkpatrick's model to evaluate training, although they hardly exceed the evaluation level reaction to training. One of the two companies offered the opportunity to carry out an evaluation procedure inspired in an alternative model that confirms that different evaluation methods lead to different analysis produced by the trainees regarding the process they have experienced. CONCLUSIONS: The choice for a specific training evaluation model usually depends on administration "time frames" and options and it usually entails a consensus that considers training evaluation as the fulfillment of previously determined standard procedures. Nevertheless, the use of alternative evaluation methods, as a complement to that already in use, may be the right way to revisit the questions which originated the training course and rethink not only its original design but also the working conditions associated to it.
OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to decode the activity of Human Resources (HR) professionals responsible for evaluating continuing vocational training. It is based on the understanding of the different "time frames" involved in the development of the evaluation process as well as the reasons that justify the options for different implementation methods in the world of work. METHODS: Document analysis of the training evaluation process implemented in two companies and comparison of the results obtained in the evaluation of a specific training session using two different evaluation methods. RESULTS: In both cases the companies largely adopted the Kirkpatrick's model to evaluate training, although they hardly exceed the evaluation level reaction to training. One of the two companies offered the opportunity to carry out an evaluation procedure inspired in an alternative model that confirms that different evaluation methods lead to different analysis produced by the trainees regarding the process they have experienced. CONCLUSIONS: The choice for a specific training evaluation model usually depends on administration "time frames" and options and it usually entails a consensus that considers training evaluation as the fulfillment of previously determined standard procedures. Nevertheless, the use of alternative evaluation methods, as a complement to that already in use, may be the right way to revisit the questions which originated the training course and rethink not only its original design but also the working conditions associated to it.