Authors' recommendations: Phillips and Phillips (2009) found the most common reason for why training/learning fails was because the wrong solution was identified for the particular issue:“Executives often request a learning solution when they see a problem. If something is not working in the organization, those executives assume employees don’t have the knowledge or skills. Research continues to show that when there’s a dysfunctional or ineffective process, the most appropriate solution is a non-learning solution.”Arthur (2003) found that needs assessment was underreported in the extant literature, despite assertions from academicians that they are performed frequently in organizations. Therefore, a logical first step for a learning organization would be to identify the core problem or need, and match it with the best possible solution. Whether that solution should be mandated learning or another solution cannot be determined from the evidence in this review.Finally, there are important lessons to be learned and recommendations for future research from the two qualitative systematic reviews (Greenhalgh, 2004; Rashman, 2009) with regard to approaches for studying, synthesizing and interpreting evidence from a diverse and expansive literature base such as OL. These lessons may be helpful to a learning organization trying to develop and implement effective evidence-based learning strategies: Research should use the best method(s) designed to provide the most useful and valid answer(s) (Sackett and Wennberg, 1997). While there are calls for higher quality studies of effectiveness, experimental and quasi-experimental studies often control for the very factors (context and confounders) that are essential to understanding the diffusion, dissemination and implementation of complex learning strategies. Future research should be undertaken to better understand the effects of training on organizational-level outcome. Mixed methodology that includes interpretive approaches may be needed to create a more complete picture of process and impact in complex organizations. Future research is needed to better understand organizational response to external mandates, and how and when organizations learn from failure. Future research on knowledge transfer should consider the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge in understanding how knowledge is transferred. Future research and policymakers should take into account the time, opportunities and supportive conditions for the development and study of learning between individuals and groups. Factors that motivate employees’ engagement in self-directed learning are not well understood. Future research is needed on the similarities and differences between private and public sector learning organizations to understand what lessons can be applied inter-organizationally. Applying classical evidence-based medicine systematic review methodology to literature in the social sciences and management sciences may require modification in situations where perspectives, concepts, theories, definitions and interpretations vary widely. Both qualitative systematic reviews in this report employed a combination of transparent and replicable methods found in traditional systematic review methodology, as well as narrative techniques for identifying and tracing theoretical development and empirical work across a range of research traditions over time. Rashman (2009) referred to their narrative approach as “conceptual synthesis” and Greenhalgh (2004) referred to theirs as “metanarrative mapping.” These authors argued that blending both traditional and narrative synthesis techniques was necessary for identifying and synthesizing such diverse and complex subject matter as OL.

Project Status: Completed

URL for project: http://www4.va.gov/VATAP/docs/MandatoryTrainingf2010.pdf

Year Published: 2010

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Not Assigned

Country: United States

Organisation Name: VA Technology Assessment Program

Contact Address: Liz Adams, VA Technology Assessment Program, Office of Patient Care Services (11T), VA Boston Healthcare System Room 4D-142, 150 South Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02130 USA Tel: +1 617 278 4469; Fax: +1 617 264 6587;

Contact Name: elizabeth.adams@med.va.gov

Contact Email: elizabeth.adams@med.va.gov

Copyright: VA Technology Assessment Program (VATAP)