This article reviews theories and conceptual frameworks necessary to describe three factors affecting transfer of training. This information helps HRD pro- fessionals understand why people wish to change their performance after attending a training program, what training design contributes to people's ability to transfer skills successfully, and what kind of organizational environment supports the transfer. This article also provides HRD imple- mentation strategies to help organizations achieve a high level of transfer. Today we believe that an organization's competitive success is achieved through people (Pfeffer, 1994). It follows, then, that the skills and performance of peo- ple are critical. Many organizations spend much money on training, believing that training will improve their employees' performance and hence the firm's productivity. In 1997, organizations with more than one hundred employees were estimated to have spent $58.6 billion in direct costs on formal training. And with the inclusion of indirect costs, informal on-the-job training, and costs incurred by small organizations, total training expenditures could easily reach $200 billion or more annually (Holton, Ruona, and Leimbach, 1998). However, unsettling questions continue to be raised about the return on this investment. There is strong consensus that acquisition of knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes through training is of little value if the new characteristics are not generalized to the job setting and are not maintained over time (Kozlowski and Salas, 1997). In other words, training is useless if it cannot be translated into performance. According to Swanson (1995), for HRD to become a core business process, performance is the key. Transfer of training is a core issue with respect to linking individual change to the requirements of the organiza- tional system. Therefore, if we believe