Critical Justification Report

Introduction

The issue that is the core of the following discussion is the inability of the current management information system to complete the task of keeping a record of all customers’ data related to the bar, restaurant, and spa services. Therefore, the line managers of the Loch View Hotel is in need to receive a detailed understanding of the new system to store the data. Line managers are responsible for maintaining effective workflows in the workplace (Wallbridge, 2020). The intervention design, the implementation plan, and the evaluation plan for the purpose of educating the management were already developed by the author of this have.

They need to be assessed by conducting a justification report to critically evaluate all three major parts of the intervention. McQuerrey (2018, para. 1) notes that “the justification report should be detailed and accurate, and provide supporting documentation that backs up your argument.” Therefore, the following critical justification report will provide evidence in order to justify and comment on the arguments provided in the intervention design, the implementation plan, and the evaluation plan.

The Intervention Design

It is necessary to clarify what an interventional design is. It can be said that intervention design is a detailed plan that is created with the purpose of changing human behavior or provoking a specific action (Riley-Tillman, Burns, and Kilgus, 2020). The challenges of interventional design depend on many different parameters, such as population size (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al., 2018). Market and financial factors are also influencing parameters (The Economics of Intervention, 2016). Developing the interventional design is essential in case an individual or an organization desires to achieve positive results and influence other people.

Concerning the developed intervention design, it can be stated that it is detailed and structured. The conceptual elements of interventional design, such as education, development, learning, and training, as well as the three main types of activity, namely introductory activities, learning activities, and climax, are described in detail. The learning intervention outcomes, aims, and objectives are also identified, which provides managers with an understanding of what the intervention tries to achieve and what results are expected.

Kirkpatrick’s Model became the theoretical basis for interventional design. The researchers note that it “delineates four levels of training outcomes that successively build upon each previous one: reaction, learning, behavior, and results” (Lin and Cantoni, 2017, p. 131). The author’s choice of the model is because it is a relevant and well-developed theoretical framework that has a refuting potential for valid criticism (Moreau, 2017). The justification for decisions made in the interventional design is presented.

The Implementation Plan

The definition of the implementation plan must be provided to justify it adequately. Colorado Department of Transportation (n.d., para. 3) notes that “the tool allows for both planning and monitoring progress and is critical to the success of your project.” Honey and Mumford’s learning styles guided the author of the learning intervention. The author considered line managers as Activists when developing learning activities. The emphasis on questionnaires, surveys, group discussions, and online games as puzzles indicates it (Honey and Mumford, n.d.). It is justified that the use of learning styles as tools for adapting learning interventions increases the learning process’s effectiveness (Drissi and Amirat, 2016).

However, E-learning is only useful if the training group is Reflectors or Theorists (Baharudin, Sahabudin, and Kamaludin, 2017). Yet, the popularity of e-learning is snowballing, especially nowadays (Bezovski and Poorani, 2016). It still makes the choice of online games as a learning method questionable.

The Evaluation Plan

It is safe to say that without a duly drafted evaluation plan, the learning intervention or interventional study may be considered incomplete or flawed. Researchers (Evaluation Plan, 2018, para. 1) note that “an evaluation plan sets out the proposed details of an evaluation – what will be evaluated, how and when.” The author of the learning intervention for line managers of the Loch View Hotel chose Kirkpatrick’s Model to evaluate the intervention’s success. It was done because, according to Jones, Fraser, and Randall (2018), this model provides a universal basis for measuring success across all industries. However, Kirkpatrick’s Model is very hierarchical, especially the older version, and may create inequality in the value of the levels that could lead to author bias toward lower levels (Reio et al., 2017). It could distort the results of the intervention and the interpretation process and, therefore, research outcomes.

Conclusion

In this critical justification report, the author provides evidence to justify the intervention design, the implementation plan, and the evaluation plan presented in the intervention training and PowerPoint presentation. The use of Kirkpatrick’s Model in intervention design is conditioned by the fact that it is a contemporary and well-developed theoretical basis. This model was also applied in the evaluation plan, and the versatility of Kirkpatrick’s Model justifies such a decision.

Doubts were expressed about the unbiasedness of the hierarchical nature of Kirkpatrick’s Model. Honey and Mumford learning styles, namely the Activists’ concept, were applied to develop the implementation plan. It is because, as the core of the implementation plan, adapted learning styles increase learning efficiency. It is essential to mention that the author of this paper also comments on the three major proposed intervention points. The critical justification report is backed up by many scholarly and online sources.

Reference List

Baharudin, A. F., Sahabudin, N. A. and Kamaludin, A. (2017). ‘Behavioral tracking in e-learning by using learning styles approach’, Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 8(1), pp. 17-26. Web.

Bezovski, Z. and Poorani, S. (2016). ‘The evolution of e-learning and new trends’, Information and Knowledge Management, 6(3), pp. 50-57.

Colorado Department of Transportation (n.d.). Implementation plan. Web.

Drissi, S. and Amirat, A. (2016) ‘An adaptive e-learning system based on student’s learning styles: An empirical study’, International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 14(3), pp. 34-51. Web.

Evaluation plan. (2018). Web.

Honey and Mumford. (n.d.). Web.

Jones, C., Fraser, J. and Randall, S. (2018). ‘The evaluation of a home-based paediatric nursing service: Concept and design development using the Kirkpatrick model’. Journal of Research in Nursing, 23(6), pp. 492-501.

Lin, J. and Cantoni, L. (2017). ‘Assessing the performance of a tourism MOOC using the Kirkpatrick model: A supplier’s point of view’, Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2017, pp. 129-142. Web.

McQuerrey, L. (2018). How to write a justification report. Web.

Moreau, K. A. (2017). ‘Has the new Kirkpatrick generation built a better hammer for our evaluation toolbox?’. Medical Teacher, 39(9), pp. 999-1001. Web.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine et al. (2018). Improving health research on small populations: Proceedings of a workshop. Washington: National Academies Press.

Reio, T. G. et al. (2017). ‘A critique of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model’. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 29(2), pp. 35-53. Web.

Riley-Tillman T. C., Burns, M. K. and Kilgus, S. P. (2020). Evaluating educational interventions, second edition: Single-case design for measuring response to intervention. New York: Guilford Publications.

The economics of intervention. (2016). Web.

Wallbridge, A. (2020) What is a line manager?. Web.