What is the Business Goal for this Training?
It is surprising how much training exists that doesn't have a real connection to the goals of the business. Perhaps these are legacy courses left over from a time when there was a need and organizations are still offering them. But these days you want to ensure that any training that you are asked to develop anew has a clear business goal.
In discussions with the business process owner who is requesting the training, be sure that they can articulate what the expected business outcomes are for the training. Not only does this assure you that they have truly thought through the need for the training that they are requesting, but it also establishes an ROI point for you (which is something else that is seldom targeted in training design).
If a sales manager requests training in negotiations or cross-selling - you can be relatively sure that there is a business outcome expected from that training. If a sales manager instead asks for team building or training on a particular software - dig a little deeper to find out what they believe that training would accomplish for the business / their business unit.
If an operations manager for a manufacturing facility asks for a course in quality control or machine calibration - there is probably a link to the output of that department. If, however s/he asks for forklift safety you may want to investigate how that will positively benefit the department and its deliverables to the organization.
Not only will asking "How does this training link to the business goals of the company / department?" save you time and money by not developing courses that have no real relevance for the business, but you'll be seen as a thoughtful contributor to the business overall rather than an order-taker of training requests.
Could they do *it* in the past?
Here are two questions that should be asked during a needs assessments to help ensure that you are not designing and developing training unnecessarily, and also to ensure that the training you ARE creating is appropriate for the "gap" that needs to be augmented.
Question #1: Have the learners been able to do ____ in the past?
Question #2: Have the learners had training on ____ in the past?
Let's look at why each of these questions is important to ask.
Have they been able to do ________ in the past?
Typically, if an individual or group has been able to successfully complete a task in the past, and suddenly are not able to, it is not because they forgot how to do it. It's more likely that conditions within the work environment have changed. Look at factors such as:
Have new metrics been put in to place? (causing people to do their work in a less thorough manner?)
Has a new process been added which conflicts with the standard operating procedure?
Are people incentivized to do the job differently / poorly?
For instance: In a call center environment, CSRs can be incentivized to solve a consumer's problem on the first call or they can be incentivized to complete as many calls per hours as possible. Typically, those are two competing end goals. So, if you have workers who have been able to do a process or task in the past, and suddenly they are not - the last thing you should assume is that the fault lies with the workers.
Have they had training on this topic in the past?
If the answer to this is "yes," then the next question is: Why didn't that training stick? Or... did the company forget they had a training program already in place?
Any new skill will fritter away if it is not used. Often people go through training but then get back on the job and have to catch up on a backlog of work. In order to catch up quickly, they will resort to their "old way" of doing things. This aligns with the bullet points above - are trainees incentivized to "keep up the pace," or to do things in the "new and improved" way? If the latter, they will need time to practice and become proficient.
In other instances the newly trained individual simply isn't given the opportunity to put in to practice what they have learned. Example: One of our clients put learners through a 12-week, job-specific training program but then assigned them to a starter-job for 6 months before they were allowed to do the job they were just trained to do. It was "efficient" for the company to give people the 12-weeks of training right after they were newly hired, rather than take them off the job later on. But the newly trained individuals weren't allowed to actually put their skills in to practice until they had "paid their dues" by being on the job for 6 months or more.
It's tempting to jump right in and solve the problem - but first step back and ask "why does this problem exist?"
*Credit to Bob Mager for the basis of these questions.
What's Your Problem?
What is the problem you are experiencing?
Very often you'll get a request from a business unit for a specific type of training, for instance "My sales team needs team-building training."
Do not accept the requester's interpretation of the skills that are needed because they usually:
1 - have a myopic view of the situation (a sales manager will only see problems related to sales), and
2 - they usually do not have an understanding of how poor-performance can be manifested in different ways and that an entirely different approach might solve the presenting problem
For instance, we worked with a financial firm with salespeople throughout the United States and a sales-support staff that was centrally located. One of the problems the salesforce was experiencing, according to a regional vice president, was a lack of teamwork. His interpretation was that the support staff was not sufficiently invested in the success of their assigned salesperson(s).After a brief period of investigation, two factors came to light: 1 - the salespeople and their support person had never met, and 2 - the support staff didn't have a clear picture of the sales cycle and when they could expect requests for support (at the proposal stage, during negotiation, making presentations, etc.).
The salespeople had attended numerous training programs and the support people had attended none. So only one-half of the team had an idea of the process and expectations. The reason team training was requested was because the regional vice president of sales believed the two groups were at odds based on numerous complaints from the sales staff lamenting a lack of timely support.
So while training was indeed one of the solutions, what was delivered to this group was not what was originally requested. Why? Team building would have addressed the first problem (the "teams" didn't know one another) but would not have addressed the second (the support staff didn't understand the sales cycle and their role in it).
Always ask questions before agreeing to design, deliver or procure training. It will save time, money and your reputation!
Next month we'll look at a different question to ask.
Big Data - Little Data
little data 2
Google "employee training" and "data analytics" and you'll find a wealth of articles and resources to assist you in analyzing the "big data" associated with managing a workforce of individuals.
This month The Training Doctor had an interesting experience with "little data." Rather than having thousands of data points and crunching the numbers in oh, so many ways, we analyzed a finite period of time (one week), across three organizations, for one specific job-task in under 4 hours, to determine:
There was a training need for the population
That need was NOT what we thought it originally to be
Management needed to be aware that the lack-of-skills in this area / population was rippling throughout the organization and causing "poor performance" in other areas
With this very specific look at the data we were able to pinpoint a problem - and solution - in a matter of hours.
Another interesting "ah-ha" moment was that analyzing the data was NOT the original approach (nor even the second approach) we attempted to conduct the analysis. This is when you need to be chummy with your IT department. Ask them - what kind of information do we collect in X area? How can we access it? What does it show us?
The data WE analyzed showed us things we weren't even looking for or expecting to find; but seeing the repetitive nature of the data made it quite apparent where the process breakdown was occurring. It was also helpful to see that same data across three organizations to "prove" that it wasn't an anomoly at one organization. The data gave us the 30,000-foot view we needed to see the "big picture" (not the big data).