Is training given a high rank of importance in your organization?
Or do you fly by the seat of your pants? :mg:
Wallace.

Interesting way of putting it...:D

Yes, it is important to us, no question about it. That said, there is a lot of seat of the pants flying. Training is often a pretty decentralized affair here, and we sometimes do have a problem keeping track of things, but I gather that this is a very common problem...
:rolleyes:

Still, the necessary training is provided, more or less...

/Claes

Is training given a high rank of importance in your organization?
Or do you fly by the seat of your pants? :mg:
Wallace.

Yes and yes. :D

Are you talking internal training, external training, or both?

From a safety standpoint and due diligence, training is an inherent part of my company.

Part of our foundation to our Business Management System is something called "Basic Values and Beliefs". In that, our Management (here in Cambridge and at all of our South American facilities) is a firm believer that happy people make for happy workers. Happy workers tend to be safer workers, too. Personnel development and professional development are strong encouraged.

Our internal training programme is very regimented. Training plans are developed for all new and transferred employees, with set deadlines for completion. If the deadline is not met, the supervisor is asked to provide reasons for the incomplete training...especially on safety related issues.

We have internally developed training modules, viewed prior to on-the-job training.

"One Point Lessons" are developed after an abnormality has occured. A simple one slide presentation highlighting on aspect of a task/job...showing the wrong way and the right way to complete it.

We have specific training FOR flying by the seat of your pants (VFR* only), in fact, our entire management team are certifiable pilots! :biglaugh:

*VFR = Visual Flight Rules. They can't read instruments anyway.

We have specific training FOR flying by the seat of your pants (VFR* only), in fact, our entire management team are certifiable pilots! :biglaugh:

*VFR = Visual Flight Rules. They can't read instruments anyway.

LMBO!! "VFR" :lol:

Very many organizations extoll the benefits of training and have impressive intitial training programs in place. The shortfall usually comes in some type of follow-up training or training validation process.

Training is great for redundant processes such as machining, computing, maintenance etc... But training in disciplines that require abstract thought and usually not daily use of the training in question can be a time waster unless there is a fully guided backup-up training or continuing orientation process.

Al...

We have specific training FOR flying by the seat of your pants (VFR* only), in fact, our entire management team are certifiable pilots! .
Great analogy. Of course, the real problem becomes apparent when people try to go VFR under IFR conditions and with no IFR training... Ouch!

:mg:

/Claes

Very many organizations extoll the benefits of training and have impressive intitial training programs in place. The shortfall usually comes in some type of follow-up training or training validation process.

Training is great for redundant processes such as machining, computing, maintenance etc... But training in disciplines that require abstract thought and usually not daily use of the training in question can be a time waster unless there is a fully guided backup-up training or continuing orientation process.

Al...

Very true. As a quality engineer with a teaching degree I can clearly see how important it is to note continuous progress in behaviors and personal skills, which is growing exponentially more important as our business world moves toward services. The education system understands that behavior change occurs over a long time, and has developed ways to track its progress.

Yet the Management By Objective concept is very strong in business, where training is treated like a chore that starts and stops on a schedule; measuring effectiveness is not easy, especially for small businesses headed by people without advanced business training.

Human Resource people have developed ways to measure performance change tied to training programs. I think I will develop a kit to offer as a product.

Jennifer

The curse of most MBO organizations is their "feedback" process. More often than not, it is like shouting at deaf people - no real communication - just a lot of noise.

It will be interesting to see the points you include for measuring effectiveness. Remember to keep the Red Bead lessons firmly in mind! I'm especially mindful of Willing Workers who were better than inclinometers at maintaining 47 degree position on the paddle - but what did that really have to do with the basic problem?

If our training actually matched the lip-service given to the importance of training, we'd be in great shape. Unfortunately, while we of course do provide training it is IMO too often not enough, often is corrective rather than preventive, and often not well thought-out. Another thing -- just because you know how to do somethign doesn't mean you're a good trainer.

This situation has sadly been the case in most organizations I've worked for. Ego aside, historically I am usually the guy who does more and better training than any other Manager in the organization.

The curse of most MBO organizations is their "feedback" process. More often than not, it is like shouting at deaf people - no real communication - just a lot of noise.

It will be interesting to see the points you include for measuring effectiveness. Remember to keep the Red Bead lessons firmly in mind! I'm especially mindful of Willing Workers who were better than inclinometers at maintaining 47 degree position on the paddle - but what did that really have to do with the basic problem?

Yes indeed, measuring training effectiveness is challenging and not a little subjective. The thing to remember, as you rightly remind us, is that the processes are almost never "in control" in services--nor, I argue, should they be if we are to be sensitive to our customers' needs. (This rebuts Michael Gerber's argument in The E-Myth Revisited, where he pins all hopes on making a small business run as tightly as a franchise)

Dell learned this, I understand, where the new Indian help desk personnel could not satisfactorily serve the business clients with their technical problems. Dell took so many complaints that they have switched the calls back to U.S. help people, at least until they figure out how to get the Indians up to speed.

So the company in question must answer some hard questions first, including how consistently the process elements are being approached between groups and from one time period to the next. The company must have enough control to ensure, as closely as possible (it would never be 100%) that the training element is the only dependent variable in job performance.

Once that (small feat, heh) is done, measuring effectiveness is best performed in more than one way. A rubric of scaled peformance measures can take the before and after picture. There is also, for something countable or quantifiable, a formula that HR people use:

KC+Ka/Kb.....or, Sc=Sa/Sb.....or, Pc=Pa/Pb....where:

a=After training
b=Before training
c=Change
K=Knowledge
S=Skills
P=Performance

The trick is to make this teachable so people will see its value and practice it.

Anybody got a magic wand? :rolleyes:

Jennifer

Great question! It's funny how we claim to train, train, and train (at my company) but the answer to most Corrective Actions is lack of training!?!?!?! This question really is good food for thought.

I suppose the cause of nonconformity is identified as operator error? It sounds to me like the corrective action system isn't really identifying the true systemic causes of nonconformities. :nope:
:soap:

... measuring effectiveness is best performed in more than one way....
Jennifer,

Your "rubric of scaled performance measures" OR HR Formula caught my interest. How do you divide "Knowledge After Training" by "Knowledge Before Training" to come up with the "Knowledge Change"? I would like to learn how to apply that mathematical process.

[Did I mess-up the equation in KC+Ka/Kb or did you mean Kc = Ka/Kb (similar to the Skill Change and Performance Change)?]

Thanks,
Doug

Doug,

I noticed this too but I'm sure there was just a minor shift-key error (I do it all the time) and it was supposed to be KC =

I suppose the cause of nonconformity is identified as operator error? It sounds to me like the corrective action system isn't really identifying the true systemic causes of nonconformities.

We do have some people in the organization who are very adept at root cause analysis. I guess the CARs that are handled by those who are not as strong are the ones that stick out. BTW...my company is investing in 8D training for all folks who are responsible for Corrective Action response and leadership. Whew!
:applause:

Hi, everyone. I'm Korean so my english is not so good. If this contribution could not make effect to you. But I'd like to share with you all what I earned from this Cove Forum as much as.
Actually, it is very difficult to understand thread initiate "Do you fly by the seat of your pant?" to me. :confused: But finally I got it.

The formula which HR people used is very useful to me.
I'm now considering effectiveness of training and that concept is attracted to me and I will use it as deploying my concept for training as well. :agree1:

I'd like to introduce one idea or theory to you all.
That is, so called 'The 100th Monkey'. :mybad: And another one is 'Initiative Group' concept leaded by Jack Welch.

My point is training shall be obtained certain effectiveness and it must be measured by before and after. Before do that training must be identified as "training needs" and/or "right to know" to whole employee.

And quality system shall be focusing on the product (activities) or effectiveness at the standpoint of training.

'The 100th Monkey' theory is that it is too enough to get effectiveness after verified or validated thru experiencing but the status is not much spreading or extending as a common sense. People wouldn't apply or agree with you before experiencing such like the Copernican theory Vs. the Geocentric theory. I'll try to be the 10th Monkey.

Jack Welch might be the 1st Monkey like Galileo. And he also accomplished his intention and business with creating 'Initiative Groups' like breeding the 10th Monkey prior to it is spreading and become common sense. (The initiative group is the standpoint of preparation for his future blueprinting. That is Training):thanks: :bigwave:

I'm little worry about my English to give proper concept of "The 100th Monkey" which I got it. :frust:

I'm little worry about my English to give proper concept of "The 100th Monkey" which I got it. :frust:
Interesting post Alex.

Don't worry about the english, I think we understand what you mean, and I promise that we will ask if we do not...

Besides, I am not a native english speaker myself. :D

/Claes

Doug,

I noticed this too but I'm sure there was just a minor shift-key error (I do it all the time) and it was supposed to be KC =

But I would like to know how to divide "after training" by "before training." Do they mean divide or compare?

Doug

Jennifer,

Your "rubric of scaled performance measures" OR HR Formula caught my interest. How do you divide "Knowledge After Training" by "Knowledge Before Training" to come up with the "Knowledge Change"? I would like to learn how to apply that mathematical process.

[Did I mess-up the equation in KC+Ka/Kb or did you mean Kc = Ka/Kb (similar to the Skill Change and Performance Change)?]

Thanks,
Doug

I am sorry I haven't checked in lately to find this sooner. You are correct, the formula should read KC=Ka/Kb. I apologize for the confusing error!

I have accessed this information through an excellent book by Jac Fitz-enz titled "How to Measure Human Resources Management". The book is packed with sensible approaches to measuring human performance and effectiveness of intervention efforts that can so vex HR and quality management.

Like Donald Kirkpatrick does in "Evaluating Traiing Programs" (another book I recommend) Jac Fitz-end asserts that change can be measured both at individual levels and across groups. I would set up spreadsheets to tally, compute with formulae and display results in graphs: knowledge change, behavior change etc. Of course the cost of training should be considered and the training should be planned toward specific objectives: error reduction, cycle time reduction, repeat sales for intensive customer service positions.

But we mustn’t put the cart before the horse. Wes very correctly points out that there may be environmental influences to the testing. That is why some scientists argue that "social science" can never be considered true science; people have so many shifting influences to behavior that dependent variables are difficult to measure and prove.

So, trainers--and quality people looking into training for corrective action-- should strive to eliminate environmental changes during this cycle as much as possible, or at least note the environmental differences between performance cycles that could be contributing to the measured "results". This could include supervisors/managers arriving, leaving or reassigned, other program changes, introductions or eliminations that may cause disruptions in the employee routines, even including changes in employee benefits programs. Layoffs, new product/service introductions and even changes in suppliers can also influence behavior results so this can become quite tricky and I would try to time the training cycle to suit and not let too much time elapse before taking measurements, lest the data be called into question.

I would certainly advocate taking in employee suggestions for the causes of errors, slowdowns, or lost customers/sales and maybe using a cause-and-effect analysis to approach the process. One should eliminate all practical material and environmental opportunities for variation before pursuing behavior intervention.

Once environmental and material causes have been ironed out and training is planned to pursue specific, goal-oriented changes in behavior that have real meaning to the organization, it makes sense to establish expectations for measuring success.

Both books note four basic evaluation levels:

(1) Trainee reaction (Smile sheet)
(2) Knowledge test (given after the program, it does not "prove" training effectiveness)
(3) Performance test (also given after the program, it does not "prove" the training had effects)
(4) Results test (before-and-after testing goes farthest to "prove" training effects and should be followed up some months later, to assess long-term impact.

#1 is an important starting point. If the trainees react favorably to the training, they are more likely to use it. Furthermore, good educators are sensitive to both their students' performance and perceptions, and will alter training styles, materials or programs to "tune in" to their students.

I would naturally advocate #4, using the formulae I already listed, but error reduction, problem-solving ability and cycle time improvements could lead to eventual measures such as repeat sales or customer satisfaction data, which would be target judgments for results that connect the training to strategic goals.

I hope this wasn’t too long! :o
Jennifer

But I would like to know how to divide "after training" by "before training." Do they mean divide or compare?

Doug

This is a worthy question, and I apologize, I think I should have been more clear. :(

We can think of Kc, Ka and Kb as averages that show per-unit (per-person) impact or change that can be compared against pre-training levels. I would use the same test if at all possible. Kirkpatrick also advocates using a "control group" if practical.

I would thus use the formulae to take comparison snapshots, but the numbers you would use for comparison (against pre-training levels) are Kc, Ka and Kb.

I've looked at the books again, and I want to clarify their distinction between levels (2) and (3) evaluation and level (4), results. Whereas in an earlier post I inferred that levels (2) and (3) did not use before-and-after data, Kirkpatrick says to use before-and-after data "where practical" in both learning and behavior level evaluations. Level (4) is meant to connect the dots between the performance, knowlege/behavior and organizational goals.

I, for one can't imagine not taking "before" measurements and trying to honestly claim a training initiative worked, or not. I guess I am rather a purist...

Jennifer

Jennifer,
Do you have any examples of these theories in practice. I would be interested in viewing actual case studies. Are you able to acuarately measure motivation using the formulae posted.
Wallace.

Jennifer,
Do you have any examples of these theories in practice. I would be interested in viewing actual case studies. Are you able to acuarately measure motivation using the formulae posted.
Wallace.

Ah Wallace, here we are where the theory hits the road.

In my experience, pretty pitifully.

In spite of all the opportunities availed to me, I have not encountered a properly executed training system since I left Naval service in 1995. Since then I have worked in a small machine shop that perfectly reflected Juran's assessment of jobshop quality, and in more advanced places where one would really expect a functioning program in place.

Very troubling, but in fact not so very surprising given a recent article reflecting a survey to 100 area businesses. Training and development was said to be spotty, including for managers. Further, as an examiner for our local Baldrige award process I learned that training effectiveness measurement is a point upon which improvement is certainly opportune, ahem..

So I regret to tell you that my offerings are based less on found realism and more on a target I want to help area businesses achieve through my efforts as consultant. My education degree and QA Engineer cert should blend nicely. Answering your question would require a Google search. Sorry, contact me again in about a year or so! :whip: