When SMEs have too much “secret sauce”

Many QA/ L&D Training Managers are tasked with improving their training system and focus their efforts on the process, procedures and executable forms. An integral component of a robust quality training system is the Qualified Trainers (QT). Having a cadre of existing department Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) as Trainers can be very helpful when implementing the roll out of the new design to meet regulatory commitments and expected timelines. But, sometimes it can also lead to sustainability issues after the launch is over and the next big project becomes the new site priority.

During my on-site response to an urgent performance problem, the Head of Operations expressed deep concerns about inconsistent OJT being delivered by his trainers. A series of significant non-conformances occurred in his area. As part of the CAPA (Corrective Action Preventive Action) investigation, trainers were interviewed to uncover how they trained the identified employee(s) and what was said specifically for each step of the procedure. Their responses revealed a lack of consistent process and the use of varied content; despite having an OJT checklist, the procedure, and approved training SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures).

Once a Trainer; forever a Trainer

I was then invited into a conversation with the Training Operations Manager (My Performer), regarding her desire to upgrade the existing department SMEs as Trainers. Responsible for the effectiveness check of the CAPA corrective action and the overall quality of Operations OJT sessions, she complained that many of the trainers should no longer be considered Dept. Trainers. While she had position title influence, she was frustrated by the lack of support for her “improvement suggestion”. I became her catalyst to help her push through the fixed barrier regarding SMEs.

The site followed a cultural assumption regarding department SMEs: once a trainer; always a Trainer; regardless of feedback and informal impressions of their ability. Without any tangible criteria and lack of assessment tools, my Performer had no authority to remove under performing Dept. Trainers. Granted these SMEs were long ago chosen when the widely accepted practice of being proficient as a technician after a year earned them the designation of subject matter expert and automatically, a Dept. Trainer. Today, the Life Sciences Industry, with FDA investigators observations, has evolved their understanding to endure that it takes more than seniority and SOP training to become an OJT QT. Unfortunately, the environment where my Performer worked, the mindset about acquired expertise still held.

Significant CAPAs can be drivers for change

Undaunted, my Performer seized the CAPA as an opportunity for change. Leveraging suggested criteria and the use a form to document justification for each Dept. Trainer, she now had a process (SOP with form) that she could “educate” her colleagues on what it takes to become a Qualified Trainer. The focus of her message dramatically changed. She became strategic in her communications, using the effectiveness check portion of the CAPA as her “Why / WIIFM for Operations Managers”. In order to close out the CAPA, Managers had to complete their portion of the form.

The long-term success of my Performer depended on her owning her solution. She never lost of her original desire; she was patient and waited for her colleagues to accept today’s best practices for OJT QTs.   In the meantime, we brainstormed on a variety of feedback options that could be used to evaluate the current status of each SME at the same time the Managers completed the new form. My Performer chose a rating system and arranged for a 1-1 sessions with Operations Managers to discuss what rating they would use for each criteria if they got challenged during a CAPA investigation or a regulatory inspection.

While the results were not formally documented, my Performer was effective with the assessment rating exercise.   The Managers reconsidered who they wanted to nominate based on the new formal criteria and the informal ratings discussions. They did not automatically submit the form for all existing Dept. Trainers. A constructive dialogue then ensued regarding skills remediation support for those SMEs deemed as potentials. At last, my Performer achieved her desired outcome. “As catalysts, we build a bridge, light the path, and give [ ] our hand to help [ ] demolish or jump over obstacles”, (Haneberg, 2010, p.96). I was privileged to be part of a dramatic shift in their training culture.

An alternate alignment exercise

For many, adding ratings suggests a formal performance assessment and this can raise HR issues if not fully supported by the organization. In addition, many Operations Managers do not have the luxury of “weeding out undesirables”. They simply do not have enough SMEs to complete the training curricula generated requirements. Yet, there needs to be mutual consent between manager and identified SME in order to effectively deliver the OJT Methodology and to ensure a successful learner experience.

For those situations where automatically re-nominating existing SMEs is raising a red flag, I created the Trainer Mojo Assessment.  Nominated SMEs and existing SMEs as Trainers rate themselves on 10 attributes that align with the characteristics of an effective OJT Trainer.   Low scoring SMEs/QTs are encouraged to have a discussion with their management regarding continuation in the program and possible action steps. For SMEs/QT’s that score in the On-Target range, this is both validation of the nomination and confirmation that manager and QT are in sync. For high scoring QTs, this is also confirmation and an early indicator for potential QT Rock Stars!

Haneberg, L. Coaching up and down the generations. Alexandria, Virgina:ASTD, 2010.

You might be interested in the Impact Story – From Dept. SME to QT.

From Dept. SME to QT

I’m in love with my own content!

Many QA /HR Training Managers have the responsibility for providing a train-the-trainer course for their designated trainers.  While some companies send their folks to public workshop offerings, many chose to keep the program in-house.   And then an interesting phenomenon occurs.  The course content grows with an exciting and overwhelming list of learning objectives.

The supervisors of the SMEs struggle with the loss of productivity for the 2 – 3 day duration and quickly develop a “one and done” mindset.   Given the opening to “train” newly identified SMEs as Trainers, the instructional designer gets one opportunity to teach them how to be trainers.  So s/he tends to add “a lot of really cool stuff” to the course in the genuine spirit of sharing, all justifiable in the eyes of the designer.  However, there is no hope in breaking this adversarial cycle if the Training Manager doesn’t know how to cut content.

I used to deliver a two-day (16 hour) workshop for OJT Trainers. I included all my favorite topics.  Yes, the workshop was long.  Yes, I loved teaching these concepts.  I honestly believed that knowing these “extra” learning theory concepts would make my OJT Trainers better trainers.  Yes, I was in love with own my content.  And then one day, that all changed.

 

Do they really need to know Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs?

During a rapid design session I was leading, I got questioned on the need to know Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.  As I began to deliver my auto-explanation, I stopped mid-sentence.  I had an epiphany.  My challenger was right.  Before I continued with my response, I feverishly racked my brain thinking about the training Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) we revised, the forms we created, and reminded myself of the overall goal of the OJT Program.  I was searching for that one moment during an OJT session when Maslow was really needed.  When would an OJT Qualified Trainer use this information back on the job, if ever I asked myself?

It belongs in the Intermediate Qualified Trainers Workshop, I said out loud.  In that moment, that one question exercise was like a laser beam cutting out all nice-to-know content.  I eventually removed up to 50% of the content from the workshop.

 

Oh, but what content do we keep?

Begin with the overall goal of the training program: a defendable and reproducible methodology for OJT.  The process is captured in the redesigned SOPs and does not need to be repeated in the workshop.  See Have you flipped your OJT TTT Classroom yet?

Seek agreement with key stakeholders on what the OJT QTs are expected to do after the workshop is completed.  If these responsibilities are not strategic or high priority, then the course will not add any business value.  Participation remains simply a means to check the compliance box.  Capture these expectations as performance objectives.

How to align purpose of a course to business goals

Once there is agreement with the stated performance objectives, align the content to match these. Yes, there is still ample room in the course for learning theory, but it is tailored for the need to know only topics.

In essence, the learning objectives become evident.  When challenged to add certain topics, the instructional designer now refers to the performance objectives and ranks the consequences of not including the content in the workshop against the objectives and business goal for the overall program.

 

What is the value of the written assessment?

With the growing demand for training effectiveness, the addition of a written test was supposed to illustrate the commitment for compliance expectations around effectiveness and evaluation.  To meet this client need, I put on my former teacher hat and created a 10 question open book written assessment.  This proved to need additional time to execute and hence, more content was cut to accommodate the classroom duration.

My second epiphany occurred during the same rapid design project, albeit a few weeks later.   What is the purpose of the classroom written assessment when back on the job the OJT QTs are expected to deliver (perform) OJT; not just know it from memory? The true measure of effectiveness for the workshop is whether they can deliver OJT according to the methodology, not whether they retained 100% of the course content!   So I removed the knowledge test and created a qualification activity for the OJT QTs to demonstrate their retained knowledge in a simulated demonstration using their newly redesigned OJT checklist.  Now the OJT QT Workshop is value added and management keeps asking for another round of the workshop to be scheduled.  -VB

Are you ready to update your OJT TTT Course?

 

 

 

I’ve fired my [TTT] Vendor!  

Sustaining Qualified Trainer’s Momentum Post Launch

Have you flipped your OJT Train the Trainer Classroom yet?

When I got introduced to the flipped classroom back in 2012, I fell in love with the concept immediately. But I was stymied on how to sell the mind shift to management. And then it occurred to me that I was already delivering the flipped classroom for my TTT course and have been for quite some time.

In the academic model, students study the concept at home using video instructions and other learning technologies. Then they come to class to do the homework in a collaborative and mentor style environment. The corporate approach can be tweaked if you rethink when and where learners (aka employees) access the content. If the content exists elsewhere, why waste valuable classroom time lecturing on it when you can create a facilitative and experiential learning lab?

But what content are we talking about?

As part of a Robust Training System, procedures are established that describe how to execute the many elements of a training system including how to quality a department SME as trainer and the OJT Methodology. These standard operating procedures (SOPs) become the basis of the Qualified Trainer (QT) curriculum, for LMS tracking purposes. Upon release (or by the effective date), flagged employees read the required Training SOPs and become aware of implementation timelines. The “Read and Understood” portion is completed in advance and outside of the classroom. Hence, the content of the QT workshop is not a slide deck repeat of the curriculum content.

OJT TTT Workshop is NOT SOP Training

Recently I was challenged about why I was working with the company SMEs at all. If I didn’t work at this company, wasn’t engaged with day to day processing activities or involved in writing their SOPs, how could I possibly teach the SMEs anything about teaching their processes, my contender demanded. Furthermore, he marveled at my audacity to assist with rebuilding their quality training system.

Seemingly, there is still some confusion about the purpose of an OJT TTT workshop. This stakeholder’s frame of reference was entirely research oriented and analytical in execution. In his experience, train the trainer meant true expert trains others on the subject matter (technical SOPs) via a knowledge transfer session. See graphic below. It took multiple conversations and an invitation to join the training design team for him to embrace the notion that SMEs should and could be taught learning theory. Also see The Real Meaning of TTT. ttt-infographic

The “flip” is in the instructional design

If I am asking for 8 hours of participation from SMEs in a classroom setting, then it MUST BE value added. The focus of the workshop design is “Life as a Qualified Trainer” and the realities of delivering OJT on the shop floor and/or in the analytical QC lab. Attendees will not find this content in their curriculum or in the e-DOC system for SOPs. And this is precisely why the classroom is the most effective environment to come together in a structured, guided and facilitated learning experience.

It means that the instructor-trainer is no longer the sage on the stage, but becomes a guide on the side, where the QTs are doing most of the talking. This switch in learning design reinforces collaboration among the QTs and better transfers the knowledge building so that scrap learning is significantly reduced. Activities are designed to be active and participatory thus promoting “learning by doing” practice and honing their learning for each step of the OJT Methodology while recognizing robust training system key concepts in action. The final activity requires engagement and participation of each nominated QT in order to complete the course.

A community of internal QT graduates

During the experiential activities, QT’s will share anecdotes or a “war story” from their past. Listening to those stories creates a connection and often the insights gained forms a bond with each other. A wonderful consequence of the TTT flipped classroom design is the community of internal QT graduates that grows after the workshop is over. QTs leave the classroom able to articulate and share what they learned and experienced together. This does not happen when the course is delivered as eLearning/CBT or self advanced power point slides.

Today’s classroom is still viable

The modern learner needs a modern learning experience. And while modern tech tools are fast on the rise, let’s not dismiss what a flipped classroom can produce – confident, competent and valued Qualified Trainers. Are you ready to flip your learning design to meet today’s modern learners? – VB

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

 

 

Are your QTs becoming Duo-Purposed?

As Compliance Trainers, we are evolving again. This is a good thing, I think.   You see, years ago it was a lot clearer to distinguish between Classroom Trainers and SMEs as OJT Trainers. OJT was delivered 1-1 by “following Joe/Jane” around. Classroom Trainers delivered their content in a classroom for many using slides, flipcharts and handouts. They were usually full time dedicated training staff.

With so many SMEs becoming OJT Qualified Trainers, I started to hear tales from the trenches that several of them were being asked to deliver a new hybrid form of training called “Group Training” where 1 on few or 1 on many met in an office, a huddle room, or classroom to “train” on SOPs; usually minor revisions.  Is this OJT or is it classroom training?  It’s neither despite that the content is still SOPs. It’s more like a discussion led by a Qualified Trainer without power point slides.  And is captured on a training record; not the OJT checklist.

More recently however, I am seeing a new SME trend that is occurring more and more in today’s Life Sciences Companies. Many OJT QTs are being assigned to deliver formal classroom sessions on content found within their SOPs. While the SOP content remains the same for OJT as it does for classroom, how to deliver it via a classroom is not the same technique at all. See “Step Away from the Podium and put down those speaker notes”.

Classroom training requires training in theory and practice in what use to be referred to as platform skills. Today, it is more commonly know as “Running a Classroom” or “Basic Facilitation Skills”. The point I am making is that the curriculum for OJT QTs does not include skills for the classroom. They need an additional workshop focused on the classroom.  The Trainers Grid below depicts five typical training situations requiring training.

Slide1

What is exciting for me about this new trend is that many OJT QTs are stepping up and volunteering to attend the workshop for classroom SMEs as part of expanding their QT toolkit.  Many QTs want to learn more about engaging their peers as learners and working with adults.  A few have now become promoted to full time trainer for L&D /QA departments.  Which of your OJT QTs are ready to step up and move into the classroom? It’s time to find out and be ahead of the trend. -VB

Using Neuroscience to Maximize Learning: Why we should start paying attention to the Research

In October 2015, I had the privilege to have a discussion with Anne-Maree Hawkesworth, Technical Training Manager of AstraZeneca, Australia before the 2015 GMPTEA Biennial Conference kicked off. Anne-Maree was in Orlando, Florida to present her concurrent session entitled Insights from ‘Inside Out’ – Employing lessons in neuroscience to facilitate successful learning” during the conference. As an avid fan and follower of the neuroscience literature being published, I was hungry to learn more and she generously gave up a few hours of her time to meet me with over a latte and a nibble of delicious chocolate from Australia.   What follows is a snippet of the exchanged dialogue.

Q: Why has neuroscience become so popular all of a sudden?

Actually it’s been around for a while. It’s not new, even though it sometimes seems that way. For example, look at Ebbinghaus Forgetting Curve that is so frequently referenced. It was first introduced 1885. And there are other classic research studies available if you conduct a good search.

Q: Why do trainers need to pay attention to neuroscience and the recent literature?

Quite frankly, they need to start learning how to design their training using these principles. They have to stop lecturing from the slides and speaker notes.

Q: Okay, then what do they need to know?

Concepts like chunking, memory techniques, and the effects of multitasking. Multitasking is very bad for learning. You end up learning nothing. It becomes a waste and yet we are multi tasking now more than ever. For example, management is expecting us to do more. For example, take an e learning course and answer their emails while taking the course!

V- this means the design has to change.  AMH- exactly!

Q: We need help. What should trainers tell Management about neuroscience?

That less is actually more. Stop requiring us to dump more content in slides. We end up remembering less. If you won’t believe us, there’s scientific evidence to back up what we are saying! And don’t dictate how we use the classroom. For example, I have my learners standing for most of the sessions involving activities that I facilitate. In one of my sessions, I had removed the chairs from the room and used ZERO slides.   Imagine that! Oh and I love flip charts!

Bonus Tip: AMH shared a little secret with me. She revealed that Production folks like to do flip chart work. They just don’t want to be the spokesperson. So if you can get them past that, they’ll love being busy writing on the chart.

Q: I noticed that you didn’t include motivation in your slide deck. Was that intentional? How are they related?

I only had 60 minutes, but yes motivation is so very important. We have to keep them motivated to learn. We have to continually grab their attention.   It should be one of the 12 principles.

Q: Earlier you mentioned Chunking. What trends are you seeing in micro learning? Are you implementing any of it?

I am looking at small chunks of learning at the time you require the learning as opposed to “Just in Case” learning that tends to occur months in advance.  Micro-learning is great for follow-up to formal class room or eLearning to boost memory. I like micro-learning in the form of case studies and in particular branching scenarios. Cathy Moore has some great material on her blog and webinars on branching scenarios.

I also like to chunk information within my training and use lots of white space to help separate pieces of information, this helps in facilitating learning.

Q: I work with a lot of Qualified SME Trainers from Production.   How do you get past the brain lingo when you explain neuroscience?

You explain that there are parts of the brain that do different things at different times. There is no need to turn the session into brain science 101. I show them a slide or two and them move on.

Q: Earlier you mentioned “principles”. Can you elaborate on that?

I’d love to but we are near the end of our time together. I can recommend trainers look up John Medina’s 12 Brain Rules.  Briefly they are,

  1. Survival
  2. Stress
  3. Attention
  4. Sensory Integration
  5. Vision
  6. Exploration
  7. Exercise
  8. Sleep
  9. Wiring
  10. Memory
  11. Music
  12. Gender

Alas, I could have dialogued with her for the entire conference albeit, she was jet jagged and the latte was wearing off.   Thank you Anne-Maree for sharing your thoughts and effective classroom delivery techniques with us.   Together, we will shift the classroom design mindset.   -VB

Performance objectives are not the same thing as learning objectives

Some folks might say that I’m mincing words, but I beg to differ. The expectations for training delivery are that participants learn the content, aka learning objectives and then use or apply it back on the job thus improving departmental / organizational performance. So, do you provide the training and then keep your fingers crossed that they can deliver on their performance objectives or do you assure that employees can perform after the event is long over?

“Employee Qualification” is a successful program for the Life Sciences companies and they have been deploying variations of it for several years now. The essence of it is an observed assessment of performance by a qualified OJT Trainer. Simple in theory, yes nonetheless, implementation is a bit more structured. See Moving Beyond R & U SOP Training.

Employee Qualification is the ultimate Level 3 Training Evaluation

Referring to the well-known Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation, Level 3 is behavior change The focus of Employee Qualification is about the employee’s ability to apply knowledge and skill learned during OJT back on the job / in the workplace setting.   Actual performance is the ultimate assessment of learning transfer. If an employee is performing the job task correctly during a formal performance demonstration, this meets the expectation for successful training.

Yet, according to the 2009 ASTD research study “The Value of Evaluation”, only 54.6% of respondents indicated that their organization conducts Level 3 evaluations.   The top technique used is follow-up surveys with participants (31%), while observation of the job was fourth (23.9%).   If on the job assessment is the “ultimate” measure of transfer, then why isn’t it being used more frequently?

Post training assessments are time and labor intensive.   About a quarter (25.2%) of their learning programs are evaluated for behavior according to the respondents.   But for organizations who have to meet compliance requirements (46.9% of survey respondents), documenting training effectiveness has fast become one of the top expectations of external regulators.     No longer satisfied with just providing LMS history records, many auditors are now asking to see the training effectiveness strategies for required compliance training.

Validating Your Training Effectiveness

Being “SOP” qualified is the demonstrated ability of an employee to accurately perform a task or Standard Operating Procedure independent of his OJT coach with consistency to meet acceptable quality standards.   Also see “From training logs to OJT Checklists and beyond”. An active Employee Qualification program also verifies that the training content in this case the SOP, accurately describes how to execute the steps for the task at hand. If either is not done well, the qualification is stopped and a cause analysis is conducted to examine contributing factors. Success starts with an effective training system.

Oh, but now we have Curricula!

Having training curricula and matrices is a huge step in identifying what is required for employees to learn. LMSes are also helpful for recording history, tracking overdue requirements and generating reconciliation reports. More sophisticated databases can provide functionality for quizzes. Quiz/ test/ knowledge check can measure knowledge retention and possibly comprehension if it includes challenge questions about real workplace situations. Making them a popular Level 2 evaluation tool. However, be mindful though of the danger of “teaching to the test” or using the search function within the e-doc system to find the answer in the SOP. Most of the knowledge retained is immediately flushed within hours of “passing the test” or satisfying the LMS generated quiz. So, having a quiz is not a guarantee that the knowledge transforms itself into a skill set back on the job.

The true measure of effectiveness

The use of “100% completed” reports is a metric for completeness only; a commonly used data point from the LMS. It does not address transfer of learning into performance back on the job. Neither does a 5-question multiple-choice quiz designed to measure the achievement of learning objectives.   The true measure of effective OJT training is an observed demonstration of the performance objective(s). Isn’t that what effective training is supposed to mean – a change in behavior? – VB

What happens when the performance demonstration becomes more of a "this is how I do it discussion" instead of an actual demonstration?

*The Value of Evaluation: Making Training Evaluations More Effective. An ASTD Research Study, 2009, ASTD.

Batteries Not Included: Not all Trainers come with Instructional Design skill set

So you are a Trainer. You know how to use Power Point (PPT) software and how to present in the classroom. 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.   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. Entire masters programs have been created to achieve this level of credentialing. 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! And for Compliance Trainers, the challenge becomes even more daunting to make GMP training lively.

Power Point Slides are only a visual tool

Interactive, immersive, engaging are great attributes that describe active training programs. But it comes at a price: an investment in instructional design skills. Using Power point slides does not make training successful. It’s one of the main tools a trainer uses to meet the objectives of the learning event, albeit a main one. It’s the design of the content/course that makes or breaks a training event. Yet, senior leaders are not grasping that just “telling them the GMPs” is not an effective delivery technique, nor is it engaging. Even if it’s backed up with a slide deck, its either “death by power point” or click to advance to next slide.   Koreen Pagano, in her June 2014 T & D article, “the missing piece”, describes it as “telling employees how to swim, then sending them out to sink, hoping they somehow can use the information we’ve provided to them to make it shore”, (p.42). To make matters worse, employees end up with disciplinary letters for deviations and CAPAs for failure to follow GMPs.

Look at the GMP Refresher outline for the last 3 years at your company. What is the ratio of content to interactivity? Oh, you say, those sessions are too large to pull off an activity? Rubbish, I respond. When I dig a little deeper, I usually discover a lack of ID skills and creativity is a factor. And then I hear, “Oh but we have so little time and all this content to cover, there’s no more room. If I had more time, you know, I’d add it in.” Koreen informs us that “training is supposed to prepare employees to be better, and yet training professionals often stop after providing content” (p.43).

Remind Me Again Why We Need Refreshers?

For many organizations the sole purpose of the training is to satisfy the compliance requirements. Hence, the focus is on just delivering the content. Ironically, the intent behind the 211.25 regulation is to ensure that employees receive training more than at orientation and frequently enough to remain current. The goal is to ensure compliance with GMPs and SOPs and improve performance where there are gaps. Improved business performance is the result and not just a check mark for 100% attended. And the practice of repeating the same video year after year as the annual refresher? Efficient yes, effective, well just look at your deviations and CAPA data to answer that one. When you shift your focus from delivering content only as the objective to a more learner centered design, your sessions become more performance oriented and your effectiveness reaches beyond just passing the GMP Quiz.

Cut Content to Add Interactivity

Unfortunately, full time trainers and SMEs have the “curse of too much knowledge” and it manifests itself in the classroom slide deck. STOP TALKING and get learners engaged in some form of activity, practice or reflection exercise. But please use some caution in moving from lecture to immersive techniques in one fell swoop! If your sessions are the typical gloom and doom lecture and you decide to jump right into games, you might have a mutiny in your next GMP refresher. Instead, you need to introduce participative exercises and interactivity slowly.   See No More Boring GMP Refreshers (impact story).

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Whose GMP Refresher is Boring NO More!

So how does a Compliance Trainer with limited ID skills and budget pull off a lively GMP Refresher? They attend GMP TEA Biennial Conferences year after year. During 2015 Conference, I will be teaching attendees how to move from passive lecture style GMP refreshers to active learner centered sessions via two concurrent sessions. One of the benefits of shifting to this 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. This is what Part 2 of the conference session is all about; brainstorming and sharing what GMP TEA members use for interactive activities related to GMPs. Visit gmptea.net for more about 2015 GMPTEA Conference agenda.

Hope to see you in both sessions! -VB

References:

Pagano, K. “The Missing Piece”, T & D, June 2014, pp. 41 – 45.

Rock, D. “Your Brain on Learning”, CLO, May 2015, pp. 30 – 33,48.

 

 

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.