Note: This blog is part of an ongoing series.
Blog # 7 – Go-Live Strategy introduces the 5 Steps.
Go-Live: Step 3 – Develop the Rollout Timeline and Training Schedules.
A redesign of the quality system SOPs more than likely resulted in significant changes in routine tasks. What changed, what was removed, what was added that is truly new and what stayed the same? Simply reading the newest version in an e-document platform will not suffice as effective training. Nor will reading the change history page or reviewing a marked-up version of SOP for the highlighted changes. When your previously delivered change management sessions include this level of detail, then the content of your training session can focus more on the new process. If successful user adoption is tied to the effectiveness check of your CAPAs, then the project team needs to discuss what the training rollout will look like.
Identifying Critical Users
From the stakeholders’ analysis for Affected Users, consider who is directly affected and indirectly affected by the change in responsibilities. Which users are most critical to ensure success with adhering to the new steps and forms? I refer to them as the Primary Users who are directly affected. They are usually more functional in their responsibility rather by department titles or business units. Another way to determine this is to review the responsibilities section of the new SOPs. Who in your organization are these people? In this review, are there supporting and ancillary responsibilities with the steps and forms? I call this group the Secondary Users that are indirectly affected. Both sets of users need to be fully trained in their tasks and responsibilities in order to ensure that the new system will function per the SOPs.
The Training Rollout
The overarching question to address is whether or not everyone has to attend the training. One awareness training session for both groups is extremely efficient but not nearly as effective if the training sessions were tailored based on the level of user need. See figure at the right. Within the indirectly affected group are the senior leadership team members.
An executive briefing is more likely to be attended by these folks when it provides a summary of what they need to know only. What does the general population need to know about these changes? Keep this short and to the point. It’s the Primary Group of Users who need to not only be made aware of the changes but to also know how to execute the new forms. Yes, this session is a bit longer in duration than Awareness Training and it should be. These Users have more responsibilities for correct execution.
Simply reading the newest version in an e-document platform will not suffice as effective training. Nor will reading the change history page or reviewing a marked-up version of SOP for the highlighted changes.Vivian Bringslimark, HPIS Consulting, Inc.
Who is the Trainer?
Depending on the level of involvement of the Design Team members, the following minimal questions need to be addressed:
- Should the Project Manager deliver any sessions?
- Will we use Train the
- Where each design team member is assigned to deliver Awareness Training for their area of remit.
- Do these members have platform skills to lead this session?
- Will they be provided with a slide deck already prepared for them?
- Solely the
responsibility of the QA Training Department
- Provided s/he was a member of the Design Team
- What kind of Training
schedule will we need?
- Will we provide three different tiers to meet the needs of our Affected Users?
Did the Training Roll Out Meet the Learning Needs of Primary Users?
While the revised SOPs were in the change control queue, the design team for this client met to discuss the difference between Awareness Training and Primary Users Training. Briefly, the differences were:
Awareness Training is more knowledge-based. It tends to be information sharing and very passive until the Q & A session. A knowledge check at the end is no assurance that there will not be any deviations. Primary Users Training is intended to focus on the behavioral changes that will be needed for adoption back in the department. The session can be a workshop with real examples that are generated from the users as part of their concerns and questions.
The design team concluded that the differences were significant enough to warrant two different classes based on the type of user. The risk of deviations was too great and would send a negative message to the site leadership team about the new process design. Early adopters were not at risk because they were already trained via their participation in the design team.
The task of developing the Awareness Training and Primary Users materials was assigned to the instructional designer on the team. Attending the Awareness Training would not be a substitute for participating in the Primary Users class. However, attending the Primary Users class would automatically credit the Awareness Training requirement for users if they attended.
Given that condition, the Primary Users materials also included similar content from the Awareness Training and then expanded the level of detail to include the sequence of steps for executing associated new and revised forms. The Primary Users class was designed to provide more in-depth discussion of the changes and to provide adequate time to become familiar enough with their responsibilities to minimize disruption on the day the procedures and forms go into effect.
The system owner then scheduled all users to attend the Awareness Training. He concluded that there would be too much confusion between which class to attend. Since Awareness Training was being delivered first due to a very short Go-Live window, it would be better that they received the same training or so he thought. In addition, the system owner felt that all employees were actually Primary Users and would not attend the training session if it went past 60 minutes. As a result, Primary Users were never identified, and no learner matrix was generated. No one asked for more training until weeks after the SOPs and forms went into effect.
A knowledge check at the end is no assurance that there will not be any deviations.Vivian Bringslimark, HPIS Consulting, Inc.
But rather than schedule the Primary User class, Users who had questions or concerns stopped by the department for 1-1 help instead. For weeks, the staff was interrupted from their daily tasks and was expected to conduct impromptu help sessions. The intent of the Primary Users class was to provide a hands-on training workshop for their impacted documents and not have to stop and go find someone for help. The slide deck for Primary Users was eventually uploaded to a shared drive. When the department got tired of being interrupted, the system owner put out a general email with the link and redirected late adopters to the website link. The slide deck was not designed to be a substitute manual.
Had the design team followed through with identifying lead champions, the Primary Users training workshop would have been delivered to a small group of users who then could have fielded questions from their colleagues. The original design team members did not agree to be change champions nor trainers for their departments. They complained about their workload already being heavy and had no time to address implementation questions. That was for the training department to deliver, they concluded. And then reported back to management that their direct reports could not attend a second session on the revised procedures. -VB
The blog series can be found below:
- Blog # 1 – Redesigning Quality Systems: Achieving User Adoption
- Blog # 2 – Manage Your Stakeholders and Users Expectations
- Blog # 3 – Gap Assessments are Necessary for Redesign Projects but so is the right level of support
- Blog # 4 – What to Expect When Processing Map with SMEs
- Blog # 5 – Field Test Your SOPs before they go into effect
- Blog # 6 – Change Management and It’s Little Cousin Training
- Blog # 7 – Do I Really Need a GO-Live Strategy?
- Blog # 9 – So, We Went Live, What Happens Next?
Who is Vivian Bringslimark?
© HPIS Consulting, Inc.