SHOULD A COMPANY INVEST IN TRAINING

Costs/Benefits of PMP Certification on a Construction Project

Malgorzata Plaza, Komal Naz and Anthony Sangra

TRSM, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, M5B 2K3, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Keywords: Training, Project Management, Construction, Progress Curve.

Abstract: Training is an attractive solution in times where economy experiences a decline in the supply of skilled

workers, which is the current trend in the Canadian construction industry. Regardless of its form,

employee’s training is expensive, so its benefits should be carefully assessed to assure a proper return from

the investment. Research offers several methods, which can be used to measure the outcomes of training.

Neither of those methods includes the non-linear changes of performance due to the “learning on the job”

effect, which can be depicted by an employee’s progress curve. This paper explores various training

assessment approaches and offers analytical decision model. The model can be used to evaluate the impact

of employee’s progress curve on the time after which the benefits of training balance its costs. The model is

illustrated with a real case of a construction project, in which cost effectiveness of hiring a senior PM is

compared to training of a senior and a junior PMs, who are with the company for a number of years. The

results of the study demonstrate that training of a senior PM is the most beneficial option.

1 INTRODUCTION

According to Statistics Canada, the construction

industries employed about 1.2 million people in

2008, which accounts for 7.2% of all jobs in Canada

and 30.6% of those in the goods-producing sector.

The workers consisted of managerial, clerical and

administrative personnel in various occupations.

Any decline in the construction sector would have a

huge effect on the economy, so the industry has to

be carefully managed to ensure the well-being of

Canadians as a whole (Clikeman 1999).

The construction firms experience continuous

decline in the supply of qualified workers, which is

one of the reasons why labour productivity has

fallen in the industry ("Construction"). Training

seems to be a proper solution; since it delivers the

various skills to the candidates seeking employment

and therefore carries a promise to increase the

overall productivity of a Canadian workforce.

Training is expensive and takes time.

Accountants can easily estimate its various costs but

cannot with the same degree of confidence assess

the value and future benefits of various training

programs. It remains up to HR department to supply

that information. HR, which aspires to become a

strategic part of the organization, must fully

understand the labour requirements and be able to

evaluate various training strategies (Rowden 2001).

Research emphasizes the importance of training

and offers a variety of assessment methods to

measure its outcomes. However, the available

methods do not include the impact of an employee’s

progress curve on his/her performance. As a result,

the management cannot compare the two most

common options, which are: (1) allowing an

employee to “learn on the job”, or (2) sending an

employee to an external partner for a formal training

(Plaza, Ngwenyama et al. 2010). There is also very

limited discussion on the pros and cons of training a

company’s staff versus hiring a new employee.

This paper explores the available training

assessment approaches and methods and closes the

gap in the extant literature by offering an analytical

decision model as its research contribution. The

model can be used to assess the impact of a progress

curve on the time, after which the benefits of

training balance its costs. The model is illustrated

with a real case study of a Construction Project. The

Cost/Benefit analysis is conducted for a Project

Manager (PM), who earns a Project Manager

Professional (PMP) certification through a

professional training.

371

Plaza M., Naz K. and Sangra A..

SHOULD A COMPANY INVEST IN TRAINING - Costs/Beneﬁts of PMP Certiﬁcation on a Construction Project.

DOI: 10.5220/0003718803710379

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems (ICORES-2012), pages 371-379

ISBN: 978-989-8425-97-3

 2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

The paper is organized as follows: the next

section discusses the role of training and various

approaches used to evaluate its benefits, including

the Return on Training Investment methods. The

analytical model is presented in Section 3.2 and its

application to a Construction Project is discussed in

Section 3.3. The future directions are outlined in the

concluding Section.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The Significance of Training

People are the most critical resources for any

organization and must be managed effectively.

Training is a big part of resource management, since

companies invest approximately $750 billion around

the globe on training alone, which roughly makes

2% of payroll (Stewart 2007).

A study conducted jointly by the American

Society for Training and Development (ASTD) and

Saba Software in 2000 ranked organizations

according to how much they spent on training. The

researchers found that the firms in the top half had a

shareholder return of 86% higher than firms in the

bottom half and 45% higher than the market

average. Furthermore, firms in the top quarter had a

24% higher profit margin and their price to book

ratio was also 26% higher (Stewart 2007).

When providing up to date training the

companies keep workers engaged, motivated and

productive. More and more organizations recognize

the need for skills improvement, which is added to

the experience gained during the work engagements.

The management appreciates how training is linked

to work, so it comes as no surprise that statistics

provided by almost all national organizations show

continual increases in monies invested in its various

forms (Murray and Efendioglu 2007).

Canada follows the global trend. According to a

Conference Board, leading-edge Canadian

companies regard training as an investment, not as a

cost, so businesses spend about $859 per employee

each year on formal training (Stewart 2007). Nearly

half the respondents in the Conference Board survey

reported that their training budgets are increasing as

they are recognizing employees as the source of

their competitive advantage (Stewart 2007).

Investment in training is significant and must be

managed accordingly. The companies need tools and

methods to properly evaluate their training

strategies. The traditional HR processes and policies

are adjusted, so that training alternatives can be

evaluated before the commitment is made. The

management of the respective departments must

develop the clear objectives for training programs,

explain how they address organization’s

requirements for resources, and list the expected

benefits (Dipietro 2006). In the next section we

discuss the methods, which are frequently used to

evaluate training.

2.2 The Evaluation of Training

Measuring the return on training investment is

complex. The previous section already established

that the cumulative effect of training on a bottom

line must be calculated. There are many different

models, which can be used to assess the impact of

development programs on employee’s behaviour on

the job, and on the company’s performance. Some

organizations consider the costs of not training

employees as it often leads to a loss of valuable

resources. The company must then consider a cost

associated with finding and training the replacement,

a possible loss of any trade secrets, the loss of clients

associated with the employee, etc. (Stewart 2007).

The three most popular training evaluation

methods, which are discussed in this Section, are:

Kirkpatrick’s model, 360 degree feedback Method

and Balanced Scorecard.

2.2.1 Kirkpatrick’s Model

The model classifies training outcomes into four

levels: reaction, learning, behaviour change, and

results. Each level is evaluated by the following

methods (Rowden 2001):

Level 1. The reactions of participants are

evaluated first. Since “Happy trainees” are more

likely to focus on the key concepts of a program and

correctly apply the information on the job, the level

of satisfaction must be measured right after the

training is completed (Stewart 2007).

Specific feedback is important, so the

participants must be given a chance to provide

insights into the content and techniques that were

helpful to them. Although positive reactions do not

guarantee the success of training, the evaluation at

this level allows screening any changes experienced

by participants during the program.

Level 2. The knowledge of participants is

evaluated second. The method assesses the content

and outcomes of learning. Many organizations give

exams before and after training to evaluate the

improvement in employee’s knowledge.

ICORES 2012 - 1st International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

372

Level 3. Behaviour change, which is evaluated

third, refers to the effective application of the

material and principles learned in the training

sessions on the job. The method evaluates the extent,

to which the attitudes have changed and the new

skills were gained.

Level 4. Finally, the financial results are

measured. The method evaluates the costs versus

benefits of training. Return from training can be seen

in several areas, such as: increased productivity,

decreased waste, improved quality or increased

sales. (Stone 2005) believes that ROI is a most

appropriate tool, particularly when the investment is

made by a company with limited funds.

Kirkpatrick model is not overly expensive to use,

provides immediate feedback and examines the

impact of training on a personal level. If reliable,

clear scoring metrics are established, the model

gives accurate assessment of the knowledge gained

and skills, which still need to be learned. The results

are shared with both instructors and students, so the

obstacles to performance improvements are

identified and accountability is established.

The main drawback of this model is its

complexity. Many organizations pick and choose the

levels they want to apply, often leaving out a few

levels and thus missing vital information. It has

recently become apparent that managers are

effective in evaluating Levels 1 and 2, but are still

challenged by the assessment on Levels 3 and 4. The

model must be applied comprehensively in order to

draw the most benefits and get the real picture of the

effectiveness of training.

2.2.2 360 Degree Feedback Method

The method offers as accurate view of performance

as possible, since the input comes from all angles:

supervisors, peers, team members, customers, and so

forth. Evaluation revolves around self-assessment. It

was demonstrated that such feedback improves

behaviour and increases performance, which in turn

has a positive impact on Return on Investment (ROI)

(Rowden 2005). The method has the following

advantages (Stewart 2007):

1) It is very comprehensive since responses

are gathered from multiple perspectives.

2) The quality of information is better and it

provides data for developmental purposes.

3) The emphasis is placed on internal and

external customers and teams, so it compliments

TQM initiatives.

4) It reduces bias and prejudice since

feedback comes from several and not just one

individual.

5) It provides more consistent information on

behaviours and actions.

6) Feedback from peers and others increases

employee self-development.

The main drawback of the method is its

administrative complexity. The method combines

more information than a typical performance

appraisal, so companies use Web technology to

compile and aggregate the information. The other

drawbacks are as follows (Stewart 2007):

1) Employees might feel overwhelmed and in

shock from the information they receive.

2) There may be conflicting opinions, though

they may all be accurate.

3) Employees may collude the system by

giving invalid evaluations of one another. As a

result, the feedback provided might be intimidating

and may cause resentment. The evaluation may be

seen as a popularity contest.

2.3 Measuring the Return from

Training

There is an increasing trend to assess training as a

long term strategy, rather than the short-term

financial returns from investments. Unfortunately,

four out of five organization do not even measure

the ROI on their training dollars (Stewart 2007). The

two ROTI methods presented below are suitable for

analysis of strategic implications of training.

The first method was developed by Service

Strategies. It is a spreadsheet guide that allows a

user to insert organizational metrics related to

strategic goals and training costs. The system

calculates the bottom line financial results, which

must be accomplished to justify the investment. The

method encourages the use of metrics derived from

Customer Relation Management (CRM) and an

organizational budgeting system. The model consists

of a 5 step process described below (Stewart 2007):

1. Supply basic investment and cost

information (average class cost and other variables)

2. Calculate/estimate the value of estimated

increased productivity

3. Calculate/estimate the value of increased

customer retention (if applicable)

4. Calculate the value of reduced recruitment

and retraining costs

5. Calculate the ROI and months required to

payback the training investment

SHOULD A COMPANY INVEST IN TRAINING - Costs/Benefits of PMP Certification on a Construction Project

373

The second method, which was developed by

FutureEd, uses the following approach to calculate

the ROTI (Barker 2001):

1. Focus on a single unit, e.g., sales, product

defects, employee turnover.

2. Determine a value for each unit, e.g., cost

per item.

3. Calculate the change in performance

attributable to training.

4. Obtain an annual amount.

5. Determine the annual value of

improvement: the annual performance change

multiplied by the unit value. ROTI then equals the

net annual value of improvement less the program

cost.

The second method is more suitable for a

manufacturing industry while the first is adequate

for a service firm, such as a construction company.

The critical drawback of both methods is that the

non-linear changes in performance due to learning

on the job, which is a typical process on any project

(Vandevoorde and Vanhoucke 2006) are not

included. The next section discussed the learning

curve theory, which is used to model and track the

non-linear performance changes.

2.4 Learning Curve Theory

The learning curves have been used for decades to

model the productivity improvements due to

learning (Yelle 1979; Mazzola and McCardle 1997;

Blancett 2002) and are most commonly associated

with production rates and costs (Teplitz 1991).

Learning curve is also used in relation to project

management, where it is called a progress curve. For

example, (Jackson 1998) applies a progress curve to

financial analysis of technology implementations

and (Ngwenyama, Guergachi et al. 2007) uses the S-

curve to track the performance of a company after

the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) project

implementation.

An S-curve shaped progress curve were used to

track the progress of projects by Cioffi (Cioffi 2005;

Cioffi 2006). (Vandevoorde and Vanhoucke 2006)

evaluated the application of various methods used to

track the project schedule on three Construction

Projects and came to the conclusion that S-curve

based method would provide the best results.

Neither of the above mentioned methods allows

tracking the impact of training on the project

performance. (Plaza 2008) closes that gap and offers

a model, which calculates the costs/benefits of

training on ERP projects. Unfortunately, the model

can only be applied to the teams and does not allow

calculating the benefits of training the individual

members.

The decision model, which is the contribution of

this paper, addresses the above mentioned

limitations. The model integrates a ROTI method

with a progress curve, so it includes the non-liner

changes of performance due to learning effects.

Therefore, it can be used to assess the impact of a

progress curve on the time, after which the benefits

of training balance its costs.

3 TRAINING COSTS/BENEFITS

MODEL

3.1 Research Method

In this paper we present a ROTI model developed

from application of learning curve theory to project

management. The main objective of the model is to

support evaluation of various training strategies

offered to a project manager, in order to improve the

profit generated by a Cost Centre under his

responsibility. The model can be applied to any of

the evaluation methods discussed in Section 2.

We follow a design science research

methodology, which is comprised of the four key

stages (Hevner, March et al. 2004). First, the

constructs or the vocabulary for the problem are

selected. The model, which is an analytical

representation of a problem domain, is created from

the constructs next. The instantiation of a model is

its implementation, for example a prototype system,

which would automate and streamline the

calculations. It is developed in the third stage. A

method, which offers a guideline of how the model

should be applied to a problem domain, is proposed

in the fourth stage.

The problem domain revolves around

costs/benefits of training. The constructs, which we

selected for the model, include accumulative cost

function and a performance function. The cost

function depicts training costs, expenses and salaries

of a PM incurred before, during and after the

training. The PM’s performance changes due to

learning are depicted by a progress curve.

The model is derived using a 5-step process after

(Stewart 2007). It integrates the cost and

performance functions. We use a linear function to

represents an accumulative daily costs and expenses.

Earned Value (EV) delivered during the progression

of a project represents PM’s performance and S-

shaped progress curve is used to depict the changes

ICORES 2012 - 1st International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

374

of EV as a function of time after (Cioffi 2006;

Vandevoorde and Vanhoucke 2006; Plaza 2008). A

project is a Cost Centre, so the changes of EV are

substituted with a profit generated by a Cost Centre

in a period of time similarly like in (Ngwenyama,

Guergachi et al. 2007). The constructs and model are

further discussed in Section 3.2.

The instantiation of a model is a prototype

decision system developed in Excel. The system

includes several graphs, which depict an impact of

PM experience, learning ability, salary scale and

training costs on the time after which investment in

training is returned. The system was developed

using a similar approach as discussed in (Plaza and

Turetken 2009).

We selected a real life construction project as a

most suitable Case Study to illustrate the application

of our model. The problem domain includes analysis

of timing and benefits of PMP designations

subsidized for PMs by a construction company. In

our case, the PM is responsible to generate a fixed

amount of profit during a year. The company

expects that amount to be increased after PM

successfully completes the training and receives a

PMP designation. The Case Study and a method, in

which the model can be applied to a real life

situation is discussed in Section 3.3.

3.2 Basic Concepts and Formal

Description of the Model

Let’s assume that i is PM’s salary grade and is equal

to 1 (before training) or equal to 2 (after training and

promotion to the next level). If C

(t) represents a cost

of a PM incurred over time, r

is PM’s daily rate, T

represents the number of days of training and r

the total cost of training, than a cost function can be

depicted by Eq. (1), assuming that the individual is

not producing profit while in formal training.

⎩

⎨

⎧

++=

trrTrC

trC

TT 212

(1)

The total cost of training includes course fees

and expenses if training is provided out of a place of

employment. We are also assuming that training is

taken on company’s time and therefore wages paid

to PM during training are included.

Let’s also assume that P

(t) is a performance

function (Figure 1), which takes a form of an S-

curve (Eq. (2)) and represents the changes in profit

delivered by a PM over time.

(t)

Value after the trainin

Value before the training

2MAX

Time after which Costs

invested in Training are

recovered

Figure 1: The Performance Functions of a PM before and

after training.

∫

−

−+

iMAXi

)1(1

(2)

where:

k is a Progress Curve Coefficient

iMAX

is the asymptote to the Progress Curve or

a maximum profit generated by a PM

is the minimum profit, and

iMAX

is a Profit Increase Coefficient.

Note, that a Progress Curve Coefficient

represents the gradual performance changes due to

experience accumulated on the job. However, the

maximum profit and a Profit Increase Coefficient

represent the shift of performance expected from

training. Therefore, the investment in training will

be recovered when the difference in profits before

and after training will balance the difference in costs

incurred, which can be expressed as:

)()()()(

1212 rrrr

TCTCTPTP −

−

(3)

where T

is the number of days, after which an

investment in training is recovered. When Eqs. (1)

and (2) are substituted into Eq. (3) it can be

transformed into:

rTT

MAX

TrrrTr

)(

)1(1

121

−++=

−+

−

−+

∫

−

(4)

SHOULD A COMPANY INVEST IN TRAINING - Costs/Benefits of PMP Certification on a Construction Project

375

which after integration can be rearranged as:

TTr

MAX

rTrTrrk

+=−+

+−

−

+−

112

)(

(5)

Equation (5) cannot be solved explicitly for the

critical points, so we use a Goal Seek function in

Excel to numerically derive a time of investment

recovery, T

The simple system, which is comprised of

several graphs supporting training strategy selection,

was developed in Excel as an instantiation of the

model. The application of a model is illustrated

using a real construction company, which needs to

analyze an investment in a PMP certification. PMP

training and a Case Company are introduced in the

next section.

3.3 Case Study

3.3.1 PMP Training and Certification

Due to the investments in new infrastructure and

buildings, the construction industry has seen

enormous rise in employment, which doubled

between 2000 and 2008 ("Construction"). It became

extremely difficult to find the suitable resources.

The companies have the most difficulties to hire

experienced and qualified managers for their

projects. Training and promotion of internal

qualified staff is a preferred choice under the

circumstances.

The PMP program was developed by a Project

Management Institute to train and certify Project

Managers. The students gain knowledge in the

following areas, which are fundamental for a

successful project planning and execution (Madore

and Ó Conchúir 2011):

• Risk Management Processes – In this area

students learn how to identify and avoid or mitigate

risks and how to take advantage of opportunities.

• Human Resource Management Processes –

Students learn how to empower resources, delegate

tasks and find the right people for the job.

• Procurement Management Processes –

Students learn about buy/make decisions, how to

write a request for quotations, how to structure and

execute bidding processes, etc.

• Quality Management Processes – This area

involves planning and evaluating quality through

inspection, benchmarking national standards,

establishing the right metrics and using the right

tools such as histograms, and cause and effect

diagrams.

• Time Management Processes – Students learn

how to ensure that the project is on time.

• Cost Management Processes – This area

revolves around estimating and managing costs

including indirect costs. Identification of cost

synergies and how to stay on/under budget are

critical here.

The cost of PMP training is significant and

includes: course fees ($5,200) and examination fee

($400). The training is often subsidized by a

company and it is completed on a company’s time.

Although there are several qualified provider

available in almost every part of the world, in the

case of a construction company the training would

most likely be provided out of the place of

employment. Additional costs might therefore

include a two weeks of salary (the duration of a

typical PMP course is 10 days) and travel/ living

expenses.

3.3.2 Background of a Project/company

A Canadian Construction Company, which is based

in Alberta, delivers projects, such as: Hospitals,

airports, universities and shopping malls. Due to the

confidentiality agreement we will not disclose the

name of the company and refer to it as “CCC”. The

company is a large mechanical contractor and is a

privately held firm. The service offering includes

any commercial mechanical work, except for the

sprinkler systems.

PMP is one of the key professional designations,

which CCC expects their PMs to get. The company

supports the suitable candidate by covering the costs

of PMP training, examination and allowing him/her

to work toward the designation on a company time.

Currently, the support is provided without the

adequate analysis of when training should be offered

and when CCC should expect the return of that

investment.

The Cost Centre, for which a PM would be

responsible, is a construction of a new morgue in a

hospital. The project is a Bid Spec job, where a

budgeted price of 3 million dollars was accepted by

the client. The project is expected to be completed

during 14 months. CCC reviews PM’s at the end of

every year in order to assess their value. Each PM is

expected to bring in a flat line of yearly profit, which

in our case is $1 million. With any additional profit a

bonus program is implemented in order to

ICORES 2012 - 1st International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

376

compensate successful PM’s at the end of the year.

The costs of training and hourly rates for a senior

PM, who would be a proper candidate to manage the

project, are summarized in Table 1. For comparison

purposes, we added rates for a junior PM, who could

also be considered in that situation.

Table 1.

Before Training After Training

Senior

Junior

Senior

Junior PM

3 10 2 5

$ 60 $55 $ 66 $60

iMA

9% 8% 13% 9%

5200 + 400

10 days

In Table 1 the profit (P

iMAX

) was calculated by

prorating the amount of an expected flat yearly

profit to the PM’s daily rate. Note, that although a

junior PM is less expensive, he also delivers a lower

profit and has a lower starting performance (m=10)

than a senior PM (m=2). The PMP course is 2 weeks

(10 days) and although the travel and living

expenses are not included, the 2-week salary is

included in the training costs.

The cost of promoting from within a company is

preferable and more secure to that of hiring a new

PM. The company has a variety of management and

accounting systems that are tailored for their outfit.

A new PM would have to gain an intimate

knowledge of the company’s protocols and systems,

so the initial learning process is long.

Although it is the least desirable option for a

company, hiring a new senior PM is also included in

the analysis. Based on the industry rates; we

estimated that hiring a new PM would cost the

company an additional 3-month salary. We assumed

that his rates will be the same as for the Senior PM

after the training however his initial performance

will be similar to a junior PM.

3.4 Analysis

In our case study we evaluated the following three

options, which were considered by CCC:

• Option 1 – CCC will train a senior PM, who

will be promoted and will receive a 10% raise

upon receiving a PMP certification. A certified

PM will be expected to deliver at least 4% more

profit than before training.

• Option 2 – CCC will train a junior PM, who has

a lower hourly rate but is expected to bring in a

lower profit after training. He will also receive a

10% raise upon successful PMP examination.

• Option 3 – CCC will hire a new senior PM. The

time required to recover the costs associated with

hiring a new senior PM are compared to the costs/

benefits associated with assigning a senior PM,

who did not complete PMP training, to the project.

• Option 4 – is the same as Option 1, but

calculates the time after the investment is return

assuming that a senior PM does not deliver the

expected profit, which after the training is only

2% higher than before.

The goal of the evaluation was to answer the

following three questions, which had to be addressed

before the company committed its resources to train

an internal candidate:

(1) How do learning abilities of a candidate

impact the recovery time (ROTI)?

(2) What is a profitability, which PM must

demonstrate before he is granted the opportunity?

How should it improve after the training?

(3) Would it be more beneficial to hire a new

PM, who already has the certification and will have

the potential to deliver the improved profit, or to

train the promising internal resource?

The results of evaluation are summarized in

Figure 2, where the times, after which the

investment is recovered are depicted as functions of

a Progress Curve Coefficient, k.

Figure 2: Times required to recover an investment in

training as a function of PM’s learning abilities.

The following critical trends can be derived from

the analysis of the options available in the Case

Study:

1. The recovery time is very short (around 50

days) if a PM demonstrates a high Progress Curve

Coefficient (above 1.5) due to either sufficient

experience or other significant training.

SHOULD A COMPANY INVEST IN TRAINING - Costs/Benefits of PMP Certification on a Construction Project

377

2. The most beneficial option would be to train a

senior PM, even if he fails to deliver the required

profit after the training (option 1 and 4 gives shorter

times of recovery than option 2).

3. Hiring a new senior PM is more beneficial than

training a junior PM but less beneficial than training

a senior PM even if he does not complete the

program or does not deliver the expected profits

(option 1 and 4 gives shorter times of recovery than

option 3).

The analysis presented in this section clearly

points to option 1 as the most beneficial choice.

Assuming the average learning abilities (k=2), the

investment in training will be recovered after 60 –

70 days for a PM who can deliver a profit ranging

from 11-13% of his salary upon a successful

completion of a PMP program.

4 CONCLUSIONS

As demonstrated in the Case Study discussed in this

paper, training proves to be the best option, which

not only improves a performance of a PM but also

outweighs hiring a new PM. Many companies are

looking at hiring as the less desirable choice. Their

decision, however, could not be justified with the

accurate ROTI analysis due to the lack of analytical

decision models.

Our decision model was developed in an attempt

to address the very issue. We are planning to extend

the model discussed in this paper into the decision

support system for human resource management and

develop a policy, which will offer guidelines and

recommendations for providing training to

employees.

However, before we can move in that direction

we must address the following two key limitations

of our model:

1. The limits for Progress Curve Coefficient (from

0.5 to 3.5 in Figure 4) were established from the

research on training provided to a project team prior

to implementation of an Enterprise Resource

Planning system (Plaza, Ngwenyama et al. 2010).

The testing procedures and a set of data for assessing

k must be established for a given industry sector

before the model can be used to support

development of a training policy.

2. The simple prototype system developed in

Excel in order to test the model must be expanded

into a decision support system, which will offer a

selection of graphs and reports required during a

comprehensive analysis. The system must be

properly tested by a wide group of managers and HR

personnel to demonstrate its real value and potential.

The results of this study are encouraging, so we

are planning development of a decision support

system as the natural next step.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding was generously provided by the Ryerson

Summer Assistant Program.

REFERENCES

"Construction". "A Guide to the BC Economy and Labour

Market." Retrieved July 17, 2011, from http://www.

guidetobceconomy.org/major_industries/construction.

htm.

Barker, K. (2001). "Return on Training Investment: An

Environmental Scan and Literature Review."

FutureEd. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://futured.

com/audited/returned.htm.

Blancett, R. S. (2002). "Learning from productivity

learning curves." Research Technology Management

45(3): 54-58.

Cioffi, D. (2006). "Completing projects according to

plans: An earned value improvement index." Journal

of the operational research Society 57(3): 290-295.

Cioffi, D. F. (2005). "A tool for managing projects: an

analytic parameterization of the S-curve."

International Journal of Project Management 23: 215-

222.

Cioffi, D. F. (2006). "Designing project management: A

scientific notation and improved formalism for earned

value calculations." International Journal for Project

Management 24(2): 136-144.

Clikeman, P. M. (1999). "Improving information quality."

The Internal Auditor 56(3): 32-33.

Dipietro, R. (2006). "Return on Investment in Managerial

Training." Journal of Foodservice Business Research

7(4): 79-96.

Hevner, A. R., S. T. March, et al. (2004). "Design Science

in Information Systems Research." MIS Quarterly

28(1): 75-105.

Jackson, D. (1998). Technological change, the learning

curve and profitability. and Northampton, Mass.,

Elgar; distributed by American International

Distribution Corporation, Williston, Vt.

Madore, O. and D. Ó Conchúir (2011). Overview of the

PMBOK guide : short cuts for PMP certification.

Heidelberg Germany, Springer.

Mazzola, J. B. and K. F. McCardle (1997). "The stochastic

learning curve: Optimal production in the presence of

learnin." Operations Research 45(3): 440.

Murray, L. W. and A. M. Efendioglu (2007). "Valuing the

investment in organizational training." Industrial and

Commercial Training 39(7): 372-379.

Ngwenyama, O., A. Guergachi, et al. (2007). "Using the

learning curve to maximize IT productivity: a decision

ICORES 2012 - 1st International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems

378

analysis model for timing software upgrades."

International Journal of Production Economics

105(2): 524-536.

Plaza, M. (2008). "Team performance and IS

Implementations: Application of progress curve to the

Earned Value Method during IS project." Information

Systems Frontiers 10(3): 347-359.

Plaza, M., O. K. Ngwenyama, et al. (2010). "A

comparative analysis of learning curves: Implications

for new technology implementation management."

European Journal of Operational Research 2010(2):

518-528.

Plaza, M. and O. Turetken (2009). "A Model-based DSS

for integrating the impact of learning in project

control." Decision Support Systems 47(4): 488-499.

Rowden, R. W. (2001). "Exploring Methods to Evaluate

the Return-on-Investment from Training." Business

Forum 27(1): 31 - 36.

Rowden, R. W. (2005). "Exploring Methods to Evaluate

the Return-on-Investment from Training." Business

Forum 27(1): 31-36.

Stewart, E. B., M. Belcourt, G. Bohlander, S. Snell (2007).

Essentials of Managing Human Resources. Toronto,

Nelson.

Stone, P. W. (2005). "Return-on-investment models."

Appl Nurs Res 18(3): 186-189.

Teplitz, C. J. (1991). The learning curve deskbook: A

reference guide to theory, calculations, and

applications. New York, Quorum Books.

Vandevoorde, S. and M. Vanhoucke (2006). "A

comparison of different project duration forecasting

methods using earned value metrics." International

Journal of Project Management 24(4): 289-302.

Yelle, L. E. (1979). "The learning curve: historical review

and comprehensive survey." Decision Sciences 10(2).

SHOULD A COMPANY INVEST IN TRAINING - Costs/Benefits of PMP Certification on a Construction Project

379