Are you worthy of your line partner’s trust?

In this current series of gaining management support we’ve been exploring how credibility, trust and access impact or influence relationships with our business partners. In Stephen Covey’s, The 8th Habit: From effectiveness to greatness, he informs us that you cannot have trust without being trustworthy.  As Performance Consultants (PCs) continue to demonstrate their character and competence, their line leaders begin to trust them more and more.

From those initial getting-to-you-know-you chats (see previous blog)  to requests for help discussions, the give trust and return trust has been reciprocated and continues to strengthen the relationship. With each request / opportunity, PCs are demonstrating their character traits and further developing their Human Performance Improvement (HPI) technical competence and experience.

Following the HPI/HPT model gives the PC the ability to articulate the big picture of how this request, this performance gap, this project, relates to organizational goals thus illustrating a strategic mindset. And by following the related methodology, PCs demonstrate strong project management skills while implementing changes systematically; not just a quick course to fix a perceived knowledge gap or motivation problem.

So PCs become worthy of receiving their partners’ trust.  Line partners in exchange merit their trust by giving it. Are you trustworthy as a Performance Consultant? Do you have the necessary competencies to tackle the additional performance solutions? Stay tuned for more blogs on what those competencies are and why they are so helpful for PCs. In the meantime, check out the sidebar “Ten Steps for Building Trust” from Alan Weiss in Organizational Consulting.  -VB

How to Build More Trust

References:
Covey,SR. The 8th Habit: From effectiveness to greatness, USA, Free Press, 2004.

Weiss, A. Organizational Consulting: How to be an effective internal change agent, USA, Wiley, 2003.

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

With a little help from my Validation Colleagues – The Training Protocol

In the 17 June 2014 issue: http://hpiscblog.hpisconsulting.com/2014/06/learning-on-the-fly/ I blogged about an urgent learning need requiring instructor led classroom delivery that needed to be facilitated among a group of talented SMEs.  During the needs assessment portion, I hit a huge barrier.

“I teach GMP Basics and conduct Annual GMP Refreshers several times a year and preach to audiences that you must follow the procedure otherwise it’s a deviation.  And in less than two weeks, I am expected to teach a process that is changing daily!   Yet on the other hand, how could I teach a work instruction that is known to be broken; is being re-designed and not yet finalized?”

My dilemma challenged the essence of my “learned” compliance belief system about following the 1st basic GMP principle – “thou shall follow written procedures”!  The instructional designer side of me screamed – how can you teach flawed content?  That’s wasted training that results in scrap learning. How is that training going to be effective beyond a check in the box?

And then it hit me – validation engineers use protocols to capture their “change in process” work.  Whether it’s experimental batches, 3 batches for process validation or *IQ-OQ-PQ protocols for equipment qualifications.  They are validating the procedure or the new process before it can become the standard operating procedure by developing the plan, developing acceptance criteria, managing the unexpected deviations and capturing the results.  So why couldn’t I borrow the concept and adapt it to my situation?

While it was the intention of the business unit leader to deviate from the approved set of work instructions, a planned deviation would not be appropriate in this case.  The purpose of the training sessions was to test the new sequence of steps and confirm the robustness of the criteria to make correct decisions where needed.  The learners would still be in compliance with the quality policy document and would still meet the intention of the quality system regulation.  They were essentially testing the future “how-to steps” for the proposed new work instructions.

Now before you fire off a rant of emails to me, I did not copy and paste the validation protocol template.  I did however, include a “please pardon our appearance while we are under construction” paragraph in the training plan to document the departure from the current set of work instructions.  This protocol like section also included our intentions for the outcomes of the sessions and stipulated required SOP training of all affected users once the finalized set of work instructions were approved and went into effect.

Sometimes the very solution can be found around the next cubicle.  –VB

*Installation Qualification, Operational Qualification, Performance Qualification

Reframing a Training Request

Analyzing Performance Problems

The title of today’s post reminds me of the subtitle for R. Mager and P. Pipe’s book – “Or You Really Oughta Wanna”.  Yet, it is by far most the opportune time a Performance Consultant (PC) has to get a HPI (Human Performance Improvement) project going.  But a word of caution is in order.  Please don’t launch into a 15 minute dissertation on the HPI methodology if all they want is a training fix.

Say Yes and …

Never say no to a training request until you know more.  The key is to get more time.  You do this by conducting a performance cause analysis to determine the nature of the discrepancy.  Evidence can be collected from document review examples, deviations, audit observations and follow up “interviews”.   Even if a solution begins to form in your mind, stay on the HPI methodology path and let the data show you the proper answer.  It’s this data that grants a PC a little bit more time.

A Typical Training Request

Begins with an assumption that a lack of knowledge is somehow missing and that “training” is the right solution.  Next, the requestor launches into a list of “required content” and without taking a breath, asks when you can complete the classroom training!  Rather than attempting to explain when training is the right answer, stay calm and in your best professional tone use the following phrases:

  • Okay, have they been trained before?
  • What was that like?
  • I see.  So more of the “same” training will change the results? In what way?

If they continue to insist, then use my favorite one: Okay, but what will they be doing differently as a result of this training session? 

I Need Training for 800 Employees ASAP

A corporate auditor discovered a lack of training records for newly developed Job Aids during a Mock Inspection.  So, the easy fix would be to re-train everyone and then produce the records, right? Notice; however, that the solution is biased towards retraining without discovering why the training was missed in the first place. 

Reframing the request allowed the Performance Consultant to not only find the root cause but to provide both immediate resolution and long term prevention.  The PC never said no to the training request, only that they “wanted to provide the most effective training possible”.   The PC’s part was to expedite a Training Root Cause Analysis and solution recommendations as quickly as possible.  In the end, the HPI approach delivered the solution far quicker than the traditional training approach was originally planned for and the audit observation was closed before the due date!

 NOTE: A more detailed version of this case –“Just Get the Audit Observation Closed Already, Will You?” is now available.

Short Term Value vs. Bottom Line Impact

This situation presented a very real dilemma for the PC.  Provide short term value for the VP of Quality (Requestor) and satisfy the goal to close out the audit observation or find the real root cause to determine what the appropriate solution SHOULD be. In theory, there is no dilemma. The choice is obvious. But in practice, for organizations under intense pressure to take immediate action, short term value can be quite attractive. This is exactly where performance analysis provides a balanced approach.  Isn’t this what HPI is all about – impacting the bottom line? – VB

Recommended blog: “But isn’t this still training?”

Announcing the HPIS C. eBook for Trainers!  

ebook_trng cause analysis
A new HPISC. eBook

Analyses du jour: Isn’t it really all the same thing?

So there’s root cause analysis and gap analysis and now performance cause analysis?  Is there a difference? Do they use different tools?  It can be overwhelming to decipher through the jargon, no doubt!  I think it depends on which industry you come from and whether your focus is a regulatory / quality system point of view or performance consulting perspective.  To me, it doesn’t change the outcome.  I still want to know why the deviation occurred, how the mistake that was made and /or what allowed the discrepancy to happen.  Mix and matching the tools allows me to leverage the best techniques from all.

Why we love root cause analysis

For starters, it’s GMP and we get to document our compliance with CAPA requirements.  It allows us to use tools and feel confident that our “data doesn’t lie”.  This bodes well for our credibility with management.  And it provides the strategic connection between our training solution (as a corrective action) and site quality initiatives thus elevating the importance and quite possibly the priority for completing the corrective action on time.

Asking the right questions

Root cause analysis and problem solving steps dove tail nicely.  See sidebar below.  It requires us to slow down and ask questions methodically and sequentially.  More than one question is asked, for sure.  When you rush the process, it’s easy to grab what appears to be obvious.  And that’s one of the early mistakes that can be made with an over reliance on the tools.  The consequence?  Jumping to the wrong conclusion that automatic re-training or refresher training is the needed solution.  Done, checkmark.  On to the next problem that needs a root cause analysis. But when the problem repeats or returns with a more serious consequence, we question why the training did not transfer or we wonder what’s wrong with the employee – why is s/he not getting this yet?

Side Bar -Double Click to Enlarge.
Side Bar -Double Click to Enlarge.

No time to do it right, but time to do it twice!

Solving the problem quickly and rapidly closing the CAPA allows us to get back to our other pressing tasks.  Unfortunately, “band-aids” fall off.  The symptom was only covered up and temporarily put out of sight, but the original problem wasn’t solved.  So now, we must investigate again (spend more time) and dig a little deeper.  We have no time to do it right, but find the time to do it twice.  Madness!

Which tool to use?

My favorite human performance cause tool is the fish bone diagram, albeit the “ 5 Whys Technique” is a close second.  Both tools force you to dig a little deeper into the causes.  Yes, the end result often reveals something is amiss with “the training”, but is it man, machine, method or materials? Ah-hah, that is very different than repeat training on the procedure!  Alas, when we have asked enough right questions, we are led to the true cause(s).  That is the ultimate outcome I seek no matter what you call the process or which tool is used. -VB

HPIS C. has articles, impact stories and white papers.
Published article – Why the Band Aids Keep Falling Off

 

Request this Job Aid from HPIS C. Website.