Ld Kirkpatrick Evaluation Plan

---
name: ld-kirkpatrick-evaluation-plan
description: Builds a Kirkpatrick Evaluation Plan planned from Level 4 down, naming the targeted result and leading indicators, the critical behaviours and required drivers, the Level 2 and Level 1 checks, and a data source, owner and date for every measure. Use for "run ld-kirkpatrick-evaluation-plan", "kirkpatrick model", "evaluation plan for this programme", "how will we know the training worked", "plan level 4 results", "leading indicators for training", "measure training impact", "evaluate before we build", part of the AI for L&D and Corporate Training Pack by Polar Bear.
---

# Kirkpatrick Evaluation Plan

## When To Use
Leadership sees a high completion rate and moves on, and nobody asks whether anyone can apply it. Use this before design, or at the latest before launch, to answer one question: what result should change, what behaviour drives it, and how will we see both, when, from which data?

## When Not To Use
If the programme ran already and you only need a better end-of-course survey, run Training Evaluation Form. If the budget holder wants a money figure after the fact, run Training ROI Estimate; this plan sets up the measures that estimate will need.

## Inputs
- The programme brief or Instructional Design Document, and the sponsor's stated reason for it
- The business measure the sponsor watches (a report, a dashboard, a KPI name), without individual data
- The on-the-job actions from your Action Map, and the checks the course already has
If you have none of this, I start from the programme title and the sponsor's one-line reason, and mark the output as a first draft.

## Approach
The Kirkpatrick Model, as set out by Kirkpatrick Partners, has four levels: reaction, learning, behaviour, results. The originators say to plan it from Level 4 down: agree the result first, then the behaviours that produce it, then the learning, then the reaction. Their newer framing adds leading indicators (short-term signs that behaviour is on track) and required drivers (what reinforces, monitors, encourages and rewards the behaviours back at work). The failure it prevents: a programme judged on a satisfaction survey because nobody agreed, before launch, what should change and who would look.

## Workflow
1. Ask three questions: what result does the sponsor expect to move, which report already tracks it, and who owns that report?
2. Level 4. Write the targeted result in the sponsor's words and the sponsor's measure. Then pick two or three leading indicators that should move within [timeframe the user sets], because results often lag and leadership moves on before they show.
3. Level 3. Name the few critical behaviours, observable and done on the job, that drive the result; three is usually plenty. For each, list required drivers in four kinds (reinforce, monitor, encourage, reward) with an owner, usually the manager. No drivers, no behaviour change: say so plainly.
4. Level 2. Map each behaviour to the course's own checks for knowledge and skill, plus confidence and commitment to apply. If a behaviour has no practice or check in the course, flag the gap to the designer.
5. Level 1. Relevance first (is this useful for my job?), then engagement. Point to Training Evaluation Form for the instrument.
6. For every measure: data source, owner, date and group size. Behaviour and learning data are reported for the group; any group smaller than [minimum group size] is suppressed.
7. Note the performance environment (tools, workload, process changes) as a factor, so a flat result is not blamed on the training or the people.

## Output Format
```markdown
# Kirkpatrick Evaluation Plan
Programme: [name] | Sponsor: [name, role] | Plan date: [date]
## Level 4 · Results
| Targeted result | Measure and report | Baseline | Target | Review date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [result in sponsor's words] | [KPI, source] | [user's figure] | [user sets] | [date] |
| Leading indicator | Source | Owner | First read | |
| [short-term sign] | [data] | [role] | [date] | |
## Level 3 · Behaviour and required drivers
| Critical behaviour | Reinforce | Monitor | Encourage | Reward | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [observable action] | [job aid, reminder] | [group-level check] | [manager conversation] | [recognition] | [role] |
## Level 2 · Learning
| Behaviour | Course check | Confidence and commitment item | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
## Level 1 · Reaction and other factors
- Relevance item: [question] | Engagement item: [question] | Instrument: Training Evaluation Form
- Outside factors: [tool, workload, process change] | Minimum reporting group: [size]
## Decision
[Sponsor name] agrees the Level 4 result, the leading indicators and the driver owners by [date], before build starts.
```

## Done When
- The Level 4 result is in the sponsor's words and tied to a report that already exists
- Every critical behaviour has at least one required driver with an owner
- Every measure has a source, an owner and a date
- Targets and baselines are the user's figures or [placeholders], never invented

## Quality Bar
- Plan top down; a plan that starts from the survey is a Level 1 plan with extra rows
- A few behaviours measured well beat a long list nobody observes; leading indicators must show before the sponsor moves on
- Never claim the training alone moved the result; name the other factors
- Behaviour and learning data are reported for the group, never used against a person

## Next
Run ld-training-evaluation-form (Training Evaluation Form) to build the Level 1 instrument properly.

## About the makers

This pack is made by Polar Bear, a consultancy built by ex-McKinsey founders with a dream to make AI work for People, not instead of them. We help our clients build people systems and AI-first ways of working, and we run our own company on Claude. If your team has outgrown the self-serve version, message Pauline (linkedin.com/in/paulinebertry).