A comparative analysis of end‐user training methods

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study is to evaluate effectiveness of several end‐user training methods during the deployment of a new information system in an Israeli financial institution. Design/methodology/approach Four training methods, namely, frontal (lectures), simulator (e‐learning), mentor (personal guidance), and hybrid (mix of the three aforementioned methods) were all compared in terms of the number of referrals to an online helpdesk following training sessions. Findings A pair‐wise analysis to pinpoint the source of the differences between the various training methods indicates that all training methods are significantly different except for frontal and simulator and therefore an organization considering these two methods can select them indifferently. A combination of mentor and simulator was found to be significantly inferior to the frontal and simulator hybrid method. Research limitations/implications The main limitation of the study is that evaluation was based on data associated with a specific organization, and thus external validity to other industries or countries is somewhat limited. Among other limitations are cross‐organizational differences in terms of: difficulty of calls, individual experience in the IS/IT area, and prior exposure to similar technologies. Practical implications Although this research does not recommend a specific training method, our findings suggest that deploying a new software system is a matter that requires early assessment by the organization and that the best results are obtained by employing the hybrid training approach. Originality/value The use of the number of referrals to an online helpdesk is a novel metric for measuring training effectiveness. The study also investigates the decline of the number of referrals over time.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.