Inarguably, qualitative growth in bankers' training programmes, especially in most public sector banks, has not kept pace with the explosion in banking services. With the exception of a few banks like the State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Union Bank of India and some others which are making their training programmes more meaningful and need-based, post-training utilisation at the lower and middle levels in most public sector banks is still an abysmal 15-17 percent simply because they are not need-based.

This is mostly because of the convivial attitude harboured towards such programmes, which are still regarded by large sections of bankers as paid holidays and junkets to escape from the rigour of operations, as used to happen in the good old days prior to 1991.

So, who goes for training is often decided on the basis of "equitable distribution" (what the trade unions decide often prevails) of these freebies, rather than considerations such as whom the bank would benefit by sending. Compounding these attitudinal problems are poor management information systems (MIS) that have spawned a colossal trainee-training mismatch.

That the stress is still on the quantitative is clear from the fact that annual reports on training submitted by banks to the banking division and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) highlight the large number of bankers attending such programmes during the year. What is conveniently glossed over - and the RBI does not insist otherwise, either - isa statistical analysis of how meaningful the programmes actually were, in terms of post-training utilisation, effectiveness and trainee-training programme match/mismatch.

In terms of sheer numbers, growth has been impressive after nationalisation: Today, there are 52 training colleges (taking public and private sector banks and financial institutions into account) and 256 centres in India, apart from apex colleges such as the National Institute of Bank Management (NIBM), College of Agricultural Banking, Bankers' Training College, the zonal training centres, not to speak of the quality programmes organised by Euromoney (which come at a price that very few public sector banks would be able to afford). Ballpark estimates put annual investment growth in training programmes at 25 per cent. "But much more needs to be done about training needs at the individual bank level," points out Jacob Mankidy, professor, HRM, at the NIBM.

This is especially true of lower to middle level training programmes that cater tothe needs of clerical staff, up to, say, branch managerial level at the smaller branches (this is nevertheless a critically important position in banking operations). Bankers at this level usually have to rely on their inhouse training colleges, as many of the apex college programmes are targeted at senior level officers.

The crux of the problem is that there is no well thought-out plan of deputation - zonal officers who decide do so on the basis of rotation, where a trainee could end up attending diverse programmes with multiple objectives, resulting in zero training utilisation. Also, intervention from trade unions often prevents a trainee who may need a meaningful follow-up from attending another course in quick succession. The upshot is that those who need to go do not get to go, and those who do not need it get sent, by a simplistic principle of rotation.

Linked closely to the incorrect choice of trainees is inadequate MIS which has led to piquant situations like where a zonal manager, in the absenceof traceable information on which courses a particular employee had attended, actually ended up sending a trainee to a basic course on forex a year after he attended the advanced forex course.

An HRD manager concedes that proper post-training utilisation -- which is possible only when trainees can continue to use the knowledge gained at a training programme for two years at least without getting transferred immediately - is very low because of poor MIS. "Even in a scenario of cost consciousness, this situation continues only because it is difficult to work out a hard-hitting cost-benefit analysis in a services industry," says a public sector banker.

Change is coming in, but gradually. The State Bank of India, with its 2.35 lakh staff, is developing a strong human resources MIS from its annual training outlay of Rs 40-50 crore. The bank is also working out a cluster approach to make cost-benefit analysis feasible, and introducing modular courses and training courses and career incentives for facultymembers.

Bank of Baroda, another training-conscious bank, has brought down training utilisation wastage to around 5 per cent, and is evolving a system where branch managers who know employees closely are also consulted about the selection of trainees. The more progressive banks are also evolving methods where bankers selected as members of faculty are given intensive training to groom them for their new assignments. Will this enthusiasm catch on? "No, unless the RBI initiates the process by making qualitative analysis of training programmes mandatory, to begin with," affirms an executive of a Mumbai-based public sector bank.