Batteries Not Included: Not All Trainers are Instructional Designers or Classroom Facilitators

When I left the manufacturing shop floor and moved into training, full-time trainers presented in the classroom using a host of techniques, tools and relied on their platform skills to present content.  Subject matter experts (or the most senior person) conducted technical training on the shop floor in front of a piece of equipment, at a laboratory station, or a workbench. 

For years, this distinction was clearly practiced where I worked.  Trainers were in the classroom and SMEs delivered OJT.  Occasionally a “fulltime” trainer would consult with an SME on content or request his/her presence in the room during delivery as a back-up or for the Q & A portion of a “presentation”.  It seemed that the boundaries at the time, were so well understood, that one could determine the type of training simply by where it was delivered.

Training boundaries are limitless today

Today, that’s all changed.  No longer confined to location or delivery methods, fulltime trainers can be found on the shop floor fully gowned delivering GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) content for example. And SMEs are now in the classroom more each day with some of the very tools used by fulltime trainers!   What defines a fulltime trainer from an SME is less important, what is necessary however is what defines effective instruction.

Your title might have the word trainer in it.  One of your responsibilities might be a qualified trainer. And you know how to use PowerPoint (PPT). Does this make you an Instructional Designer as well?  Some say yes and others cry foul as they cling to their certificates and advanced degrees. So, forgive me when I say, not every Trainer or Training Manager has the skill set or ID competency embedded in his/her toolbox.   It’s analogous to the toy box on the shelf at Toys R Us – “NOTE: Batteries Not Included”.  Except in our case, the note may be missing from the resume, but definitely embedded into the job description if you are QA L&D or HR Training and Development.

Instructional Design is a recognized profession 

Instructional Design (ID) as a field of study has been offered by many prominent universities for quite some time and is now more known as Instructional Technology.  Underlying the design of a course or a learning event, is a methodology for “good” instructional design and really good instructional designers will confess that there is a bit of an art form to it as well.  Unfortunately, with shrinking budgets and downsized L&D staff, there are less resources available to develop traditional course materials of the past.  Not to mention, shrinking timelines for the deliverables.  So, it makes sense to tap SMEs for more training opportunities since many are already involved in training at their site.  But, pasting their expert content into a PPT slide deck is not instructional design. 

What is effective design? 

Basic Elements of Course Design

To me, effective design is when learners not only meet the learning objectives during training but also transfer that learning experience back on the job and achieve performance objectives / outcomes.  That’s a tall order for an SME, even for fulltime trainers who have not had course design training. 

The methodology a course designer follows be that ADDIE, Agile, SAM (Successive Approximation Model), Gagne’s 9 Conditions of Learning, etc., provides a process with steps for the design rationale and then development of content including implementation and evaluation of effectiveness.  It ensures that key elements are not unintentionally left out or forgotten about until after the fact like evaluation/ effectiveness or needs assessment.  In an attempt to expedite training, these methodology driven elements are easily skipped without fully understanding the impact of leaving them out can have on the overall training effectiveness.  There is a science to instructional design. 

PowerPoint Slides are only a visual tool

Using PowerPoint slides by themselves does not make the training successful.  It’s one of the main tools a trainer uses to meet the objectives of the learning event, albeit the main one. The “art form” occurs when a designer creates visually appealing slides / eLearning scenes as well as aligned activities and engaging exercises designed to provide exploration, practice, and proficiency for the performance task back on the job.  But there is a difference between a course that is created to help the Trainer achieve his/her agenda and one that successfully engages learners to participate, learn and then transfer their insights back home to the job where changed behavior improves the department’s metrics.

The more trainer/instructor driven the course is, the less participation is required from the learner. For example, the instructor makes all the decisions about the course objectives and content, develops the course, delivers the course, and conducts the assessment.

From passive to active to immersive

As you move along the Learner Participation Continuum, the learner is required to participate more, and the trainer does less “talking”. The learner acquires knowledge and skills through activities that s/he experiences with the assistance of a “facilitator”.  The facilitator is focused on helping the learners meet their needs and interests. It is through these firsthand experiences and facilitated dialogue with other learners that thoughtful analysis and interpretation can become the focus of the instruction. The end result is that learners take full responsibility for decisions, actions and consequences.

Moving from Presenter Controlled Training to Learner Focused Facilitation

Moving to a more Learner Focused approach shifts the effort of the design from “deliver this content” to facilitate learning transfer for performance back on the job; which is after all the end goal for a training event. The new design includes opportunities for group participation, utilization of participants’ expertise, and real-life problem solving; key principles of adult learning.

On the one end of the continuum is the lecture which is one-way communication and requires very little participation.  At the other end, we have experiential learning and now immersive learning environments with the introduction of 3D graphics, virtual simulations, and augmented reality.

Most Trainers and SMEs tend to suffer from the “curse of too much knowledge” and find it difficult to separate the need-to-know from the nice-to-know content.  As a result, it shows up in the slide deck with overburdened slides filled with a lot of “stuff”.  Training for them takes on a lecture-style format. The thought of facilitating an activity gives most SME a case of jitters and anxiety.

So, in the “SME as Facilitator” workshop, nominated SMEs as Facilitators are encouraged to step away from the podium and use their eyes, hands, and voice to engage with their audience. Easier said than done, yes. That’s why the course is designed to allow them to take small steps within the safety of a workshop environment.

But rather than trying to pull off a fully immersive session, SMEs as Facilitators are introduced to techniques that “liven up” the lecture. They are shown how to move back and forth from passive listening (sit, hear, see) to active involvement (write, construct, discuss, move, speak). This requires the ability to:

  • follow a well-organized design plan
  • capture and hold the attention of learners
  • use relevant examples and deviations if possible
  • show authentic enthusiasm
  • involve audience both directly and indirectly
  • respond to questions with patience and respect.

While lecture has its merits, today’s learners want engaging content; that is timely, relevant and meaningful.  And while virtual reality and simulations are engaging and very immersive, courses and learning events using these techniques rely on well-funded budgets.  Most Training Departments are not that fortunate.   In the middle of the range are “lively lectures” and alternate methods such as:

  • Shift one step to right to begin the move to active learningDemonstrations
  • Case Study
  • Guided Teaching
  • Group Inquiry
  • Read and Discuss
  • Information Search.

Take the 1st shift right.

It’s really about starting with the learners’ expectations and the current organizational culture and then moving one step to the right. If they are used to lectures from SMEs, then work on delivering effective lectures before experimenting with alternate training methods. The overnight shift may be too big of a change for the attendees to adjust to despite their desire for no more boring lectures. Small incremental steps are the key.

Shift to the right when ready for the upgrade

Moving from Lecture to Delivering an EFFECTIVE Lecture

Thoroughness in the preparation reflects care and thoughtfulness. Learners appreciate the personal desire to deliver a livelier lecture. Stepping away from the podium forces the Trainer/SME to take action and allow the learners to “get up close” with the SME as Facilitator. This in turn is reflected in the learner’s desire to respond to questions and dialogue during a facilitated discussion. The rule of thumb for lecturing is approximately 8-10 minutes max. For virtual sessions, the rule of thumb is approximately 5 minutes. 

Take the 2nd Shift: Cut Content to Add Interactivity

How is this done? Upfront in the design of the course materials. The course designers have spent time and budget to prepare a leader’s guide that captures their vision for delivering the course.  SMEs as Facilitators (Classroom SMEs) need to study the leader’s guide and pay attention to the icons and notes provided there. These cues indicate the differentiation from lecture, to an activity whether that be self, small group, or large group. While it may be tempting to skip exercises to make up for lost time, it is better for learner participation to skip lecture and modify an activity if possible.

“STOP TALKING and get learners engaged in some form of activity, practice or reflection exercise”, Vivian Bringslimark, HPIS Consulting, Inc. 

One of the benefits of shifting to this learner focused design is the opportunity for learners to process the content, to make it meaningful for themselves and then associate memory links to it for later recall when the moment of need is upon them.  This can’t happen while the trainer is lecturing.  It happens during activities and reflection exercises designed to generate their own ideas during small group interactions and link it back to the course content/objectives.  Learners are prompted to openly discuss issues and problems within a “learning lab” style environment. Trainers become empathetic listeners as they create a climate of trust and safety. They become a Facilitator.

Of course, this shift also requires that site leadership and local management not only support the facilitated learning lab concept but follow through on issues and concerns that surface. Failure to do so undermines not only the facilitator’s credibility but the entire training program.

Wow, won’t this take longer to design, you ask?  Yes, in the sense that the design is now from the learner’s point of view. This means that the designer will need to research examples, collect data, and might have to develop a story from an incident, a deviation or significant CAPA, etc. The reward is that the Trainer/ Classroom SME stops talking and gives employees more engaging learning sessions. So learners become more accountable for participating and guess what – the SME’s session is no longer a boring podium speech

References:

Silberman, M. (1990). Active Training: A Handbook of Techniques, Designs, Case Examples, and Tips.  Lexington Books, New York.

Who is the Author, Vivian Bringslimark?

HPISC Library has articles, impact stories and white papers.

SME Impact Story: The Real Meaning of TTT

White Paper: Step Away From the Podium

(c) HPIS Consulting, Inc.

Compliance Training: No More Passive Learning

Special Thanks to LTEN for Publishing this article!

Looking for inspiration to liven up a lecture? I have 10 ideas for you.

HPISC Library has articles, impact stories and white papers.

No More Boring GMP Lectures |Impact Story about how to introduce more interactivity into GMP Refresher sessions.

More GMP Resources Available here.

Available HPISC GMP Refresher Course | Looking for More Choices?

Who is Vivian Bringslimark?

(c) HPIS Consulting, Inc.

What’s Your Training Effectiveness Strategy? It needs to be more than a survey or knowledge checks

When every training event is delivered using the same method, it’s easy to standardize the evaluation approach and the tool. Just answer these three questions:

  • What did they learn?
  • Did it transfer back to job?
  • Was the training effective?

In this day and age of personalized learning and engaging experiences, one-size training for all may be efficient for an organizational roll out but not the most effective for organizational impact or even change in behavior. The standard knowledge check can indicate how much they remembered. It might be able to predict what will be used back on the job. But be able to evaluate how effective the training was? That’s asking a lot from a 10 question multiple choice/ true false “quiz”. Given the level of complexity of the task or the significance of improvement for the organization such as addressing a consent decree or closing a warning letter, it would seem that allocating budget for proper training evaluation techniques would not be challenged.

Do you have a procedure for that?

Perhaps the sticking point is explaining to regulators how decisions are made using what criteria. Naturally, documentation is expected and this also requires defining the process in a written procedure. It can be done. It means being in tune with training curricula, awareness of the types of training content being delivered, and recognizing the implication of the evaluation results. And of course, following the execution plan as described in the SOP.   Three central components frame a Training Effectiveness Strategy: Focus, Timing, and Tools.

TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS STRATEGY: Focus on Purpose

Our tendency is to look at the scope (the what) first. I ask that you pause long enough to consider your audience, identify your stakeholders; determine who wants to know what. This analysis shapes the span and level of your evaluation policy. For example, C-Suite stakeholders ask very different questions about training effectiveness than participants.

The all purpose standard evaluation tool weakens the results and disappoints most stakeholders. While it can provide interesting statistics, the real question is what will “they” do with the results? What are stakeholders prepared to do except cut training budget or stop sending employees to training? Identify what will be useful to whom by creating a stakeholder matrix.

Will your scope also include the training program (aka Training Quality System) especially if it is not included in the Internal Audit Quality System? Is the quality system designed efficiently to process feedback and make the necessary changes that result from the evaluation results? Assessing how efficiently the function performs is another opportunity to improve the workflow by reducing redundancies thus increasing form completion speed and humanizing the overall user experience. What is not in scope? Is it clearly articulated?

TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS STRATEGY: Timing is of course, everything

Your strategy needs to include when to administer your evaluation studies. With course feedback surveys, we are used to immediately after otherwise, the return rate drops significantly. For knowledge checks we also “test” at the end of the session. Logistically it’s easier to administer because participants are still in the event and we also increase the likelihood of higher “retention” scores.

But when does it make more sense to conduct the evaluation? Again, it depends on what the purpose is.

  • Will you be comparing before and after results? Then baseline data needs to be collected before the event begins. I.e. current set of Key Performing Indicators, Performance Metrics
  • How much time do the learners need to become proficient enough so that the evaluation is accurate? I.e. immediately after, 3 months or realistically 6 months after?
  • When are metrics calculated and reported? Quarterly?
  • When will they be expected to perform back on the job?

Measuring Training Transfer: 3, 6 and maybe 9 months later

We can observe whether a behavior occurs and record the number of people who are demonstrating the new set of expected behaviors on the job. We can evaluate the quality of a work product (such as a completed form or executed batch record) by recording the number of people whose work product satisfies the appropriate standard or target criteria. We can record the frequency with which target audience promotes the preferred behaviors in dialogue with peers and supervisors and in their observed actions.

It is possible to do this; however, the time, people and budget to design the tools and capture the incidents are at the core of management support for a more vigorous training effectiveness strategy. How important is it to the organization to determine if your training efforts are effectively transferring back to the job? How critical is it to mitigate the barriers that get in the way when the evaluation results show that performance improved only marginally? It is cheaper to criticize the training event(s) rather than address the real root cause(s). See Training Does Not Stand Alone (Transfer Failure Section).

TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS STRATEGY: Right tool for the right evaluation type

How will success be defined for each “training” event or category of training content? Are you using tools/techniques that meet your stakeholders’ expectations for training effectiveness? If performance improvement is the business goal, how are you going to measure it? What are the performance goals that “training” is supposed to support? Seek confirmation on what will be accepted as proof of learning, evidence of transfer to the workplace, and identification of leading indicators of organizational improvement. These become the criteria by which the evaluation has value for your stakeholders. Ideally, the choice of tool should be decided after the performance analysis is discussed and before content development begins.

Performance Analysis first; then possibly a training needs analysis

Starting with a performance analysis recognizes that performance occurs within organizational systems. The analysis provides a 3-tiered picture of what’s encouraging/blocking performance for the worker, work tasks, and/or the workplace and what must be in place for these same three levels in order to achieve sustained improvement. The “solutions” are tailored to the situation based on the collected data and not on an assumption that training is needed. Otherwise, you have a fragment of the solution with high expectations for solving “the problem” and relying on the evaluation tool to provide effective “training” results. Only when the cause analysis reveals a true lack of knowledge, will training be effective.

Why aren’t more Performance Analyses being conducted?
For starters, most managers want the quick fix of training because it’s a highly visible activity that everyone is familiar and comfortable with. The second possibility lies in the inherent nature of performance improvement work. Very often the recommended solution resides outside of the initiating department and requires the cooperation of others.   Would a request to fix someone else’s system go over well where you work? A third and most probable reason is that it takes time, resources, and a performance consulting skill set to identify the behaviors, decisions and “outputs” that are expected as a result of the solution. How important will it be for you to determine training effectiveness for strategic corrective actions?

You need an execution plan

Given the variety of training events and level of strategic importance occurring within your organization, one standard evaluation tool may no longer be suitable. Does every training event need to be evaluated at the same level of rigor? Generally speaking, the more strategic the focus is, the more tedious and timely the data collection will be. Again, review your purpose and scope for the evaluation. Refer to your stakeholder matrix and determine what evaluation tool(s) is better suited to meet their expectations.

For example, completing an after-training survey for every event is laudable; however, executive leadership values this data the least. According to Jack and Patricia Phillips (2010), they want to see business impact the most. Tools like balanced scorecards can be customized to capture and report on key performing indicators and meaningful metrics. Develop your plan wisely, generate a representative sample size initially and seek stakeholder agreement to conduct the evaluation study.

Life after the evaluation: What are you doing with the data collected?

Did performance improve? How will the evaluation results change future behavior and/or influence design decisions? Or perhaps the results will be used for budget justification, support for additional programs or even a corporate case study? Evaluation comes at the end but in reality, it is continuous throughout. Training effectiveness means evaluating the effectiveness of your training: your process, your content and your training quality system. It’s a continuous and cyclical process that doesn’t end when the training is over. – VB

Jack J. Phillips and Patricia P. Phillips, “How Executives View Learning Metrics”, CLO, December 2010.

Recommend Reading:

Jean-Simon Leclerc and Odette Mercier, “How to Make Training Evaluation a Useful Tool for Improving L &D”, Training Industry Quarterly, May-June, 2017.

Who is the Author, Vivian Bringslimark?

(c) HPIS Consulting, Inc.

Facilitating the Shift from Passive Listening to Active Learning

On the one end of “The Learner Participation Continuum” is a lecture which is a one-way communication and requires very little participation.  At the other end, we have experiential learning and now immersive learning environments with the introduction of 3D graphics, virtual simulations, and augmented reality.

This blog has been merged with “Batteries Not Included: Not all Trainers are Instructional Designers and Classroom Facilitators”.

Retraining and Refresher Training: Aren’t they one in the same?

I say no, not at all. Ask an Operations Manager and he’ll acknowledge that what it’s called is less important than getting the “assignment” done and entered into the LMS. He’s usually more concerned about the loss of productivity during the training than the effectiveness of the training at that time. It isn’t until later when the training may have to be delivered again (repeated), that the comment “training doesn’t really work” is heard.

Retraining is typically delivered as repeat training. Corrective Actions from *CAPAs usually trigger these types of required training events. In the context of the specific CAPA, we uncover the error, mistake, non-conformance or what I like to call performance discrepancy from expected outcome. It is believed that by delivering the training again, the cause of the discrepancy will be resolved. That is if the root cause was determined to be a lack of knowledge, skill or not enough practice.

Some folks believe that more is better and that with several repeated training sessions, employees will eventually get it right. It always amazes me that we find time to do repeat training over and over again but complain very loudly for refresher training, significant **SOP revision training or even new content training.   (*Corrective Actions Preventive Actions, **Standard Operating Procedures).Retraining Quote

Refresher Training implies that training was already provided at least once. The intention here is to review on that content.   A lot of regulatory training requirements are generated to satisfy this need. Common examples are Annual GMP Refreshers and several OSHA standards such as Blood Borne Pathogens training. While the aim is to refresh on the content, it is not necessarily meant to just repeat the training. Also included is the part – “so as to remain current” with current practice, trends and new updates. Hence, refresher training needs to include new material based on familiar content.

Upon Biennial SOP Review

There are some folks who would like to use this required SOP activity to coincide with the need to “refresh” on SOPs already read and/or trained. The rationale being that if the SOP hasn’t revved in 2 or 3 years time, more than likely the training hasn’t been repeated either. So, it sounds like a good idea to require that SOPs be “refreshed” upon using the same SOP cycle. One could argue for the prevention of errors; thus, in theory, this sounds very proactive.

But donning my Instructional Designer Hat, I ask you, what is the definition of training – to close a knowledge gap or skill gap. What value is there for forcing a mandatory “refresher reading” on SOPs just because the procedure is due for technical review? In practice, this becomes one huge check mark exercise leading to a paper work /LMS backlog and might actually increase errors due to “information overload”! Again, what gap are you trying to solve? In the above refresher scenario, we are avoiding a compliance gap by satisfying regulatory requirements.

Refresher Retraining

Defending Your Training Process

For those of you who have fielded questions from regulators, you can appreciate how the very training record produced generates follow up questions.   How you describe the conditions under which the training occurred or is “labeled” can impact the message you are sending as well. Calling it retraining instead of refresher training implies that training had to be repeated as a result of a performance problem not meeting expectations or standards. Whereas refresher training occurs at a defined cycle to ensure that the forgetting curve or lack of practice is not a factor of poor performance. It is a routine activity for satisfying regulatory expectations.

For end users, clarifying the difference between refresher training and “repeat” training in your Policy/SOP not only defines the purpose of the training session, it also provides the proper sequence of steps to follow to ensure maximum effectiveness of the training. There’s a difference between training content that is new /updated vs. delivered as a repeat of the same materials.   Yes, new and/or updated design takes resources and time.   How many times do you want to sit through the same old same old and get nothing new from it? Recall the definition of insanity – doing more of the same while hoping for change.   You just might want to review your Training SOP right about now. – VB

 

 

Tired of repeat errors – ask a Performance Consultant to help you design a better corrective action

In this last “Making HPI Work for Compliance Trainers” series, I blog about one of the biggest complaints I hear over and over again from Compliance Trainers – management doesn’t really support training.  It’s hard to ask for “more of the same” even though you know your programs are now different.  In previous blogs, I shared why management hasn’t totally bought into the HPI methodology yet. See the blog Isn’t this still training?

 

Given the constant pressure to shrink budgets and improve the bottom line, managers don’t usually allow themselves the luxury of being proactive especially when it comes to training.  So they tend to fall back on quick fix solutions that give them a check mark and “clears their desk” momentarily.  For the few times this strategy works, there are twice as many times when those fixes back fire and the unintended consequences are worse.

 

In the article, “Why the Band Aids Keep Falling Off”, I provide an alternate strategy that emphasizes moving away from events-only focus to exploring the three levels of interaction that influence performance: individual performer, task/process, organizational quality systems.  These same three levels are where performance consultants carry out their best work when supported by their internal customers.  The good news is that the first step is the same; it begins with a cause analysis.  See the blog Analysis du jour  for more thoughts on why these are essentially the same approach.

 

The difference is that the corrective action is not a reactive quick fix but a systems approach to correcting the issue and preventing it from showing up again.  System based solutions are the foundation of many HPI/HPT projects that require cross functional support and collaborative participation across the site / organization.  And this is where a PC needs support from senior leaders.

 

We wrap up this series here and introduce the next series – Gaining Management Support – where I blog about credibility, trust, and access and how these 3 concepts impact relationship management.

Calling ALL User Generated Tools Home

What do I mean?  You know, job aids, tools users have created, and SME cheat sheets.  I’ve even seen task instruction sheets, quick reference guides for completing forms, and process flow diagrams.  But I’m not talking about posters on the wall describing how to turn on the projector in the conference room.  In this 3rd issue of Making It Work for Compliance Trainers series, I blog about why creating and openly sharing user-generated tools may not be a good thing in a regulated environment.

The Dilemma

As a Performance Consultant (PC) or HPT specialist, works with SMEs, Key Performers, or STAR employees, s/he invariably uncovers or discovers that their SMEs have “other” tools they’ve developed that help them be so good at what they do.  While these are helpful to the key performers, it presents a dilemma for the PC who is also a Compliance Trainer or a QA Manager.  “If I expose the source of their secret sauce, will I break trust and create a barrier to the relationship?  On the other hand, if I don’t speak up about this tool, what assurance do I have that the content is approved by the Quality Control Unit (per GMP) and is version controlled?

Why create them in the first place?

To get grounded, the PC/Compliance Trainer needs to perform a quick cause analysis upon the discovery of the tool.  Why was it created in the first place?  Is there information or steps missing from the standard operating procedure (SOP)?  Was this tool created to “chunk up” the steps or create bite-sized training materials that evolved into a job aid?  Or is it a maneuver to bypass the change control system?  The answers to the questions could provide the basis for a more user-friendly revision or at least be officially approved as a supporting tool to the SOP upon the next version release.

What’s the big deal?

Rejection of product, deviation from approved written instruction that could result in adulterated product, additional follow up testing, and rework are all forms of waste to the organization.  Not to mention that consistency is the key to compliance and assuring public confidence in approved marketed products.  If folks are not using the approved procedure, then there’s an issue somewhere.

To what level of control is needed?

That is the most sought after question regarding job aids and user tools.  The answer lies in each company’s level of risk and its document hierarchy.  I’ve seen extreme cases where “NO Paper” on the floor means not even an SOP is allowed to be in hand.  I do believe that some level of control is needed to ensure that the content is valid, is in sync with the current procedure and users have the most current version of the tool.  Can your organization defend the level of control?  Are you sure about that?  Or do you use a “don’t tell and we won’t ask policy”?  Are folks making errors because they followed an uncontrolled worksheet vs. the approved procedure?

Tips for Establishing Level of Control

  • If the tool /job aid is tied to a procedure, it needs to become a required tool and included in the SOP.
  • Job aids should not be a standalone orphan.  It needs to have a procedure that it supports.  The use of the job aid is included in the hands-on training so folks know how to use it properly and where to access it if it is not “attached” to the SOP.

o   For example, some companies have a separate numbering system for these exhibits and the storage location may not be in the same folder directory as the parent SOP.

  • If more than one tool / job aid / worksheet exists per procedure, then an appendix or reference section needs to highlight the existence of these “tools in use”.
  • Establish an amnesty initiative to raise awareness for the quality and compliance consequences of using uncontrolled tools.

Calling all User Generated Tools Home

The purpose of the initiative is to allow users to admit that they have these tools and that no performance consequences will follow when they surrender them.  The second focus of the program is to find a proper home for these tools once they are deemed valuable.  They need proper care and nourishment.  In other words, content is valid, accurate, up to date and approved for use.  The PC/Compliance Trainer is the ideal conduit to make this happen.

One company that I visited did just that and more.  Once it was discovered that a series of mistakes were coming from an old tool that had been downloaded and copied to their desktop, a team of auditors was dispatched to observe the removal of all tools from employee’s desktops.  The 2nd phase of their program was the identification of an owner for the share-point site who now manages access and content revisions.  The 3rd phase includes a content/tool submission process that is vetted by a designated users group of SMEs.

Is it time for a Job Aid/Users Tool Amnesty Project where you work? – VB

From a pair of hands to trusted business partner

In this second blog from the “HPI: Making it Work for Compliance Trainers” series, I continue the business partner exploration.  Need the first one?  Get caught up: What’s the difference between Trainers and Performance Consultants?

Three Consulting Styles Let’s start with the Pair of Hands.  This style of consulting resembles more or less the contractor for hire or long term temporary employee; sometimes referred to as the permanent temp much to the chagrin of those who hold those positions.  Here the client (or internal customer) retains control of the project from problem identification to solution deployment.  The consultant implements those decisions as if s/he were an extension of the client’s staff.  Hence the expression, an extra pair of hands to delegate the work to.

There’s the Expert.  Here the consultant assumes most of the control for the project.  The client can still make suggestions while the consultant makes recommendations for the best solution selection.  Ultimately, the expert-consultant decides on the course of action and tells the client what’s the best path forward.  In this type of consulting relationship, the client wants the expertise of the consultant.

The third is Collaborator.  This is where the consultant utilizes his/her specialized knowledge and field experience and leverages the client’s knowledge of the operations, including processes and procedures, and the cultural factors.  In this relationship style,  1 + 1 = 3, representing a more synergistic approach to problem solving.  Decisions and implementation plans become shared responsibilities.  This style is often referred to as a business partnership and it is really the only one the changes performance.

Internal vs. External Consultant I’ve been both and have had success in implementing HPI projects in both environments.  There are pros and cons and tradeoffs.  Whether you are internal to the organization or external (an outsider), Compliance Trainers need to expand their skills sets if they are going to move from a “pair of hands” to expert and eventually to trusted business partner.  The new competencies to be developed are:

  • Analysis (both Training Needs and Performance Needs) – See If Training Isn’t the Right Answer
  • Implementing Performance Solutions (not just training solutions) – See Isn’t This Still Training?
  • Change Management (not just Change Control/Doc Control but how to manage what I call the “People Side of Change”
  • Measurement and Evaluation (recognizing that these are not the same thing)

Learn more about how to assess yourself against these competencies.

Take ACTion Now! In their 2005 book, Strategic Business Partners, Dana Gaines Robinson and Jim Robinson, recommend that transitioning trainers take ACTion now.  ACT stands for Access, Credibility and Trust.  However, from my experience, the steps don’t necessarily follow in that order.  It’s more like establishing your Credibility first, earning their Trust next, and then you’ll be granted Access to strategic opportunities.

Oh, but where to start? A good place is to show your performance worth.  Recall earlier I listed developing performance solutions as a new competency? A training solution closes a knowledge and skill gap, wonderful.  A performance solution may include a training piece, but it also closes a gap in Job Performance which in turn can close a gap in a Process Performance and resolve a gap in Business Results.   That’s what a HPI project/solution does differently than a training solution and it certainly illustrates why those new competencies are needed.  Being able to show this kind of impact on the business as a result of the work a Performance Consultant does goes a long way to earning business leaders trust.  –VB

What’s the difference between Trainers and Performance Consultants: Aren’t they one and the same?

After 10 years of HPI consulting, I’m still being asked this question a lot.  In the blog, “Isn’t this still training”, I shared why it still looks like training.  Alas, this blog brings us to the beginning of another series within the Human Performance Improvement (HPI) arena.  I’m calling it “HPI: Making it Work for Compliance Trainers”. So, in this blog, I will expand upon 6 elements of comparison to illustrate the difference between the two and the depth of impact one has over the other. 

FOCUS

Training addresses the learning needs of employees.  Various definitions include closing the knowledge and skill gap of what they know now and what they know afterwards.  It’s built on the assumption that the cause of the gap is a lack of knowledge and skill.  Performance Consulting addresses business goals and performance needs of the affected employees.  Training is just one of the possible solutions that can be used; not the only one.

OUTPUTS

A training solution delivers a structured learning event.  Whether it is a classroom or virtual or self -led, the event itself is the end goal.  Performance Consulting or HPI projects are implemented to improve performance.  The end goal is not about the solution such as the specific HPI Project, but rather a positive change in performance that leads to the achievement of the business goal.  The endpoint is “further down the road”.  So it takes longer to produce the results.

ACCOUNTABILITY

With training, the Trainer is held accountable for the event.  In a lot of organizations, there is an implied but not spoken accountability for the results back on the job.  But without the proper systems and support mechanisms in place, many Trainers get “blamed” for training transfer failure.  Here’s the big difference for me.  Performance Consultants (PCs) partner with their internal customers, system owners and business leaders in support of the business goals.  The accountability for improved performance becomes shared across the relationships.

ASSESSMENTS

Trainers typically conduct a needs analysis to design the best learning “program” or course possible.  PCs conduct performance analyses gaps assessments to identify causes that can go beyond knowledge and skills.  See the blog, “Analyses du jour”.

MEASURES
Trainers
very often use course evaluation sheets as a form of measurement.  In the Compliance Training arena, knowledge checks and quizzes have also become the norm.  PCs measure the effect on performance improvement and achievement of business objectives.

ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS

This is another key differentiator.  Training is viewed as a cost typically.  Compliance Trainers are all too familiar with the phrase, “GMP Training is a necessary evil”.  PCs become business partners in solving performance gaps and accomplishing organizational goals.

For a visual graphic and expanded description of these 6 elements, you can request HPISC white paper, Why They Still Want Training?

I also recommend that you request the HPISC white paper, Performance Analysis: lean approach for performance problems.