To what extent, then, are the evaluation and monitoring strategies — the 'downstream' phases of ALT engineering — developed in Quebec? What monitoring and evaluation activities exist in Quebec firms? How do they position themselves in relation to the four levels noted above? Why are the downstream strategies concealed in certain situations and in certain companies?

The latest survey of employers subject to Bill 90 in Québec (Lapierre et al., 2005) made the following findings: in 2002, 49% of the employers who funded ALT evaluated all or some of the ALT activities, compared with 59% in 1998. In 2002, fewer than 15% of employers subject to Bill 90 frequently evaluate their activities at one or more levels of the Kirkpatrick model. Based on the results of the study by Lapierre et al. (2005), it would appear that 30% of employers evaluate satisfaction, 35% the skills acquired at the end of the training and 29% the transfer of learning to the work situation. Level 4 of the evaluation, which looks at the impact on the organization and its activities, is virtually non-existent.

It is interesting to compare these results with similar data from the United States (see Dunberry, 2006, pp. 9-10): while more American businesses report ALT activities (over 70%) than do Quebec companies, they are more inclined to limit evaluation to the first level whereas Quebec firms that conduct evaluation tend to do so at Levels 1–3, which enables the companies to better judge the benefits of their ALT activities. It should be noted that Quebec firms tend more frequently to evaluate work behaviour following the training, which testifies in many cases to the active participation by production units in the evaluation of ALT interventions.

Skip footnote section