Effectiveness of Training... micro or macro?

[Randy]

Can't get the FOD program across?

Put 'em in an airplane, strap em down so they can't leave, toss some nuts, bolts and safety wire down the intake and then ask 'em how safe they feel about taking off and flying around a bit. I'm not being ugly or talking BS here, I'm a survivor of the effects of a FOD'd aircraft because of poor practices. You wanna get the message across? Put photo's of downed aircraft and deceased people around the facility and in the break room especially that are the results of FOD......drive it home! Been there, done that.

You have gotten some pretty good answers here about effectiveness of training, but your problem isn't training effectiveness as indicated, it's attitude, core values, and lack of give-a-s*** if if folks don't take FOD seriously, so additional training, survey's and tests may not be the solution.

This subject is too serious to take lightly

 

[ggdjr]

Can't get the FOD program across?

Put 'em in an airplane, strap em down so they can't leave, toss some nuts, bolts and safety wire down the intake and then ask 'em how safe they feel about taking off and flying around a bit. I'm not being ugly or talking BS here, I'm a survivor of the effects of a FOD'd aircraft because of poor practices. You wanna get the message across? Put photo's of downed aircraft and deceased people around the facility and in the break room especially that are the results of FOD......drive it home! Been there, done that.

You have gotten some pretty good answers here about effectiveness of training, but your problem isn't training effectiveness as indicated, it's attitude, core values, and lack of give-a-s*** if if folks don't take FOD seriously, so additional training, survey's and tests may not be the solution.

This subject is too serious to take lightly

as a former f-16 avionics technician in the USAF i can tell you FOD can have serious consequences

FOD walks twice daily at a minimum

 

[Randy]

as a former f-16 avionics technician in the USAF i can tell you FOD can have serious consequences

FOD walks twice daily at a minimum

You don't have to tell me. I pranged into the Mojave Desert and took a Martin-Baker seat ride because of a FOD'd engine about 20 years ago.

 

[vanputten]

"...how would you show evidence of it having taken place (and the results of it) if not in documentary form?"

Interview people. Corroborating responses from multiple people. Competency of the person being asked about the evaluation of the effectiveness of training, meaning the interviewee could competently describe the evaluation and the results.

All of the above could be evidence that the evaluation happened and what the resut was.

 

[Pistonbroke]

The "questionnaire" answer put earlier was slapped down a little rapidly imo

Althought the anonymous "how do you think you did?" approach is for my taste a little simplistic, there is no reasons why a question sheet cannot be used as a method of determining if the message or activity you are trying to educate is getting into the subjects brain.

In a world where "it's not my fault" seems to be the first line of defence for many, a bit of objective evidence that the person:

a) Attended the training,
b) Was able to identify what was expected of them,
c) Did this to a reasonable level of consistency in relation to the subject matter,

Goes a long way in ensuring that people follow what they have been told.

I have trained many people over the years and I consider that one of the most important aspects, particularly on an "awareness" related subject matter, such as FOD or handling and identifcation of NCM is that there is a mixed attendace, from Management to the Cleaner,
This ensures that everyone knows everyone else is being told the same message, that it's everyones resonsibility, and that everyone knows that you know it too.

I've also found that putting offenders back through training works very well....
It pisses their manager off to have to release them, especially repeatedly
It causes a degree of mockery from their peers if they keep having to get trained for the same thing
It reinforces the message for those whose memory is something like that of a goldfish
and
Lets face it training can be boring, so it's often easier to improve your working practices than face additional training.

 

[David DeLong]

Pistonbroke:

I am the one that posted the anonymous self assessment rating one on a scale of 1 - 10 prior to training and post training.

I do agree with many of the later posts but most were theoretically correct and a much better answer than mine but many were not really applicable in today's lean but fast pace manufacturing. Trying to give each person a written test with a pass fail is time consuming since the same test must be given prior to the training and after the completion of the training.

We all need an effectiveness method that is quick but effective and not too costly.

 

[Sardokar]

well personally the way we do it is :


- have a small questionaire about training ( to be filled shortly 24hours after training maximum)

- require a small presentation (15 min or so) on key training featuresto department manager (shortly after training-about 1 week max)

- 3 months after training we ask the employee how much he think this training helped him improve his work
- also 3 months after training we ask the department manager how much he thinks the training the employee got has helped him improve his work

 

[joshua_sx1]

…I do agree on David DeLong - that individual assessment is really time consuming and have to be done on strategic ways… that is why, for me, the assessment of the effectiveness of training should start on the training objectives…

…you have to have training objectives (this is a must!)… and based on those objectives, you can decide which strategic approach can be used to measure the effectiveness of the training performed… it doesn’t really matter whether your approach is in “micro” or “macro”, as long it will give you measurement to indicate whether you met your objectives or not…

…here is a good example: when giving training for NCR (e.g. how the system works?), your objective might be improvement of NCR implementation… then after conducting training, you have to give enough time, for this NCR to be absorbed by your system, then you can evaluate the effectiveness of the given training… and there are so many ways to evaluate this, one of them is through internal audit… and on this example, you used macro approach…

…now, if you are giving training for an aircraft inspector such as “a walk around inspection”, your objective is probably to make the individual inspector more competent on performing this task… then after a series of trainings, you can evaluate its effectiveness through individual performances (e.g. written or verbal exams, no. of accidents or incidents as resulted from poor walk-around inspection on individual basis, etc)… this is where micro approach would be applicable…

…again, for me, to evaluate the effectiveness of the given training is to measure it against the established training objectives…

 

[Todd H]

Table top training can be effective training and always plays a part. Quizzes are effective in testing for comprehension. However procedural or processes have to be demonstrated / observed and then certified.

IE, You can have some one review your Hazcom manual and review the MSDS but only through observation can you verify the employee knows how to handle a hazardous material.

The same logic applies to most any application.

PDCA can be applied to training.

Plan - define training requirements
Do - provide training
Check - verify the effectiveness (quizzes are a tool but observation is required)
Act - refine training or provide refresher training.

 

[vanputten]

Since ISO 9001 is about processes and systems, and not really individuals, I would take a macro approach towards the effectiveness of the process instead of a micro approach based on individuals.