tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post6553471777962039462..comments2024-03-13T07:17:54.620+00:00Comments on Charles Jennings | Workplace Performance: Who Needs Training, Again?Charles Jenningshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10220891611333165590noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-10521417277697022622011-03-09T12:21:29.535+00:002011-03-09T12:21:29.535+00:00Peter - I agree with your well-made points and sug...Peter - I agree with your well-made points and suggestion. I've certainly heard 'pins drop'.....<br /><br />Traditionally, L&D has been focused on 'learning' rather than 'performance (i.e. inputs and process rather than outputs)and 'events' rather than approaches that best help workers achieve their goals. Their incentives have driven this focus. Incentives drive behaviours. Skills and capabilities ensure that the behaviours result in desired actions. This says two things to me:<br /><br />1. L&D managers need to re-align their teams' incentives towards tangible outputs (i.e. improving the performance of their workforce rather than simply ensuring people have 'learned')<br /><br />2. L&D managers need to focus on developing their teams or acquiring people with a more rounded skill-set in workplace performance improvement techniques. They could start by ensuring that all their L&D team members have some level of Performance Consulting skills and an understanding of Performance Support approaches.Charles Jenningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10220891611333165590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-13299894077340789692011-03-07T03:28:06.405+00:002011-03-07T03:28:06.405+00:00Charles, I've only now just come across this d...Charles, I've only now just come across this discussion and I'm way to late I know but I can't help wanting to offer a thought or two.<br /><br />Part of the problem with training verses performance support is the very structure of L&D departments. We have instructional designers creating programs that instruct for the purpose of learning, we have facilitators who 'run' learning events in classrooms and then a range of project managers and multimedia specialists etc all geared towards creating events.<br /><br />But there are very few 'Ongoing Learning or Performance Support' roles and any argument that good ISD'ers will take this into account falls over when you realise that they are mostly goaled on ensuring learning, not ensuring performance. It's a massive difference in focus and output.<br /><br />The struggle is convincing L&D management that they need to invest in people with PS skills and knowledge who have a legitimate function within L&D. I like asking L&D how their solution will be sustained after the event. Often you can hear a pin drop.Peter Davishttp://www.westpac.com.aunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-70013396217814459642011-01-10T16:49:28.517+00:002011-01-10T16:49:28.517+00:00I'll try to make myself clearer in future, Dav...I'll try to make myself clearer in future, David!<br /><br />I also think Mark's criteria for 'training' is a useful one. Something to hold any formal training design up to by means of a checklist - e.g..<br />- does the design 'provide a place to practice in a safe environment (as opposed to being a place where the trainer can download lots of content)<br />- does the design allow (and encourage) participants to make mistakes (as opposed to stepping through a script of exercises to do it the 'right' way)<br />- does the design encourage questioning (as opposed to setting aside the final 15 minutes of any session for 'Q&A' - knowing that it's likely this final slot will be squeezed)<br /><br />and so on...<br /><br />CharlesCharles Jenningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10220891611333165590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-87686701254465639272011-01-10T15:08:48.049+00:002011-01-10T15:08:48.049+00:00Charles
I totally agree with your response (and Ma...Charles<br />I totally agree with your response (and Mark's) as it gives an objective view of the relative strengths and weaknesses of different forms learning and how through better understanding of all the options available you are more likely to develop an effective solution. <br /><br />I still however feel that your original piece lacked this balance and that could lead people to believe that performance support is always a better solution than other training options, when in reality its a matter of selecting the right tools or for the job at hand.<br /><br />Thank you<br /><br />DavidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-23836116950924029302011-01-10T13:43:03.623+00:002011-01-10T13:43:03.623+00:00I understand your challenge, David, and agree that...I understand your challenge, David, and agree that there's obviously a place for formal training in the kitbag. However I would take issue with your reading of what I proposed in this piece:<br /><br />In my experience training is still used as the cornerstone for system and process rollouts. I think this is a wrong approach. Certainly, quick reference guides, online help, FAQs etc. are usually in the mix. I think it’s being a bit disingenuous to suggest that I’m not aware that L&D professionals use a range of tools and approaches in helping workers get to grips with new environments. If course they do. However, the point I was attempting to make (and maybe missed making) was that the mindset of many L&D professionals is often that these are adjunct to getting people into a classroom or in front of a structured eLearning programme. <br /><br />Often this L&D mindset is driven/dictated by the often narrow mindset of deployment programme and project managers who have a ‘training’ line in their project budget and assume that ‘training’ means just that – a series of formal (often classroom) training sessions.<br /><br />Just for the record, for system and process roll-outs and upgrades I recommend a three-tier approach:<br /><br />1. For change management and high-level ‘conceptual’ understanding of the new environment (the pieces of the puzzle that people need to memorise) such as ‘how will the new system/process help the organisation/team achieve its objectives?’ – use formal training/communication approaches such as classroom, eLearning, corporate comms. channels, newsletter/updates, brown bag lunches etc. etc.<br /><br />2. For contextual understanding (the pieces of the puzzle with which people need to familiarise themselves) such as ‘what does the new system/process mean for me in my role?’ and ‘what are the major changes that I need to be aware of?’ – use short manager-led briefings, small manager and L&D-led seminars/workshops.<br /><br />3. For task-based understanding (the pieces of the puzzle for which people need to have easy access at the point-of-need) such as ‘what do I do next?’, or ‘something’s gone wrong, what options do I have?’ – use one of the many performance support approaches.<br /><br />This isn’t throwing formal training away. It’s simply using training where it’s been proven to work – preparing people for change and providing high-level familiarisation. But NOT using training where it demonstrably has little impact. Trying to teach detailed processes is one of those. <br /><br />There’s plenty of evidence that formal training, no matter how well designed, does a poor job preparing workers for roll-out or upgrade of new systems or processes at the detailed level. Just look at the rise in level of help-desk support requests, the calls for retraining, and survey results following rollout asking ‘what did you do when you first needed to use the new system/process?’.<br /><br />Finally, I'm sorry you think I 'view L&D so poorly’ and ‘misrepresent L&D professionals as a bit simple'. That's certainly a misreading my views and experience. I've seen a range of absolutely excellent performance solutions implemented by high-quality and innovative L&D and performance improvement teams over the years. However, I've also seen quite a few 'one trick ponies' in the L&D world who, even if they do extend their solutions beyond the walls of a classroom, find it difficult to think outside a 'core training' mindset. There’s enough evidence of lack of transfer from formal training to the workplace to suggest that L&D has a lot of headroom to improve.<br /><br />Thanks again for the comments – L&D as a profession will only get better if we think about the challenges, question and probe and find better ways. I’m sure both of us agree there’s room for improvement.Charles Jenningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10220891611333165590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-44105825847342913272011-01-10T12:05:03.429+00:002011-01-10T12:05:03.429+00:00I think David is right in that training and perfor...I think David is right in that training and performance support should work together. Here's my thinking on their respective roles:<br /><br />Training<br /><br />- A place to practice in a safe environment <br />- A place to make mistakes <br />- A place to raise questions <br />- A place to discuss ambiguities in processes <br />- A place to develop answers that work <br />- A place to stimulate ideas for further thought and practice <br /><br />NB. This is why I don't like it being called training, as that implies a Pavlovian response to stimuli. It's far more than that.<br /><br />Performance support<br /><br />- Provide specific help at the point of need (from all the methods David lists <br />- Provide guidance where there is ambiguity in the process (therefore needs to be kept very up-to-date to reflect user experience) <br />- A place to find people and content that might be able to help <br /><br />When talking about learning software, the sort of training that takes you through processes and tells you what button to press should be unnecessary with well-designed software (a rarity in corporate enterprise software in my experience...)<br /><br />If you look at most games or web2.0 tools (eg. SocialCast), they are superb at guiding you into the software and at helping you get the best out of it. This is lacking in much of what we put in front of people in our organisations. Which is why we have to have up-front training, which, at best, will only get people started (as long as they use the software immediately afterwards).<br /><br />For a really useful performance support tool, take a look at: http://www.trainer1.com/Context_Sensitive_Learning.html<br /><br />On the point of the CRM rollout - ideally the team would have been involved in the design and testing of the system in the first place, so they would have a good idea of what it's meant to achieve and how...<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />MarkMark Berthelemyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17812278774682999567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-14988401763575907912011-01-10T11:32:46.517+00:002011-01-10T11:32:46.517+00:00Charles
It is an interesting article and has certa...Charles<br />It is an interesting article and has certainly made me think and a little angry. <br /><br />It maybe my old L&D roots (and my defense network cutting in) but I found it very black and white (performance support = good, training = bad). I also found that you misrepresents L&D professionals as a bit simple to strengthen your case (e.g. the proposition that training sets out and fails to make people experts is wrong. I have never heard a trainer say this course will make you an expert. Everyone understands expertise takes a combination of many factors especially experience) <br /><br />I believe learning support and training both need each other (or are one and the same thing) and it is more a case of getting the balance right rather than doing all of one and none of the other. I think that all L&D professional would agree that performance support and integrating learning with work are a good things and I don’t think that you would find many who aren’t actively doing so now (e.g. quick reference guides (you use this example as if no trainer could have ever thought of it), online help & FAQs, coaching, floor walkers, nursery environment, briefing sheets, buddy schemes etc). Most L&D staff would also agree that they need more help and understanding but are they likely to be open to it from individuals view them so poorly.<br /><br />You seem to suggest that your preference would be to rollout a new CRM system without any upfront learning but rather allow the team to learn while they work. I am interested to know what this would look like in practice? If you are suggesting that this could simply be done with well configured Business Process Guidance at go-live, I feel that 'just-in-time learning' could be in danger of becoming 'just-to-late learning'.<br /><br />The challenge for the growth of performance support may therefore not be about the products (some of which seem excellent) but as with most things understanding the real needs of all the stakeholders (e.g. users, customers, operation, learners, L&D etc) and meeting these needs with genuine benefits. This can only be done from a position of respect rather than one based on a rather patronising view of L&D professionals.<br />David ThorogoodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-38660632444551706952010-12-29T19:35:20.272+00:002010-12-29T19:35:20.272+00:00I agree with you Simon! None of this is new. As a ...I agree with you Simon! None of this is new. As a perfect example, I made the suggestion that performance support was missing from the training plan on a massive roll-out of a new Electronic Medical Records System at a large healthcare concern, they flatly stated that they were planning to handle performance support in the post-training world. When I pointed out that they may want to reconsider the initial training using performance support objects at the role-specific transaction level...I was un-invited from further planning meetings. <br /><br />To your point, it was the traditional linear training stalwarts to whom I made the suggestion. Had the clinical operations staff been approached the outcome may likely have had a very different reception. <br /><br />Lesson learned - never try to "sell EPSS" or performance support to a training geek or anyone else fueled by acquisition of knowledge and skills. Always go to the operational side of the house first where emphasis is on sustained capability and tangible evidence in the form of outcomes! <br /><br />Truly, we're just attempting to bring task-level knowledge to those who need it in their respective work contexts. I use Bob Mosher's and Con Gottfredson's Moments of LEarning Need as the tool to make the case to all my clients. At that point, the rest comes easy.<br /><br />Interesting times indeed. I do think; however, that traditional training is finally being seen as unable to keep pace with the velocity of work. That said, those clinging to their storyboards and linear tendencies will have to relent or get out of the way...but then budget cuts should handle some of the obstructions.<br /> G.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-77646685198829710912010-12-29T13:25:51.009+00:002010-12-29T13:25:51.009+00:00Hard to disagree. And I've tweeted you my opin...Hard to disagree. And I've tweeted you my opinion on why this won't change in a hurry – a lot of training people are fossils with limited skillsets. They spent their whole careers learning ice-breakers and valueless games and this looks like something hard for them to learn.<br /><br />More importantly, they no longer have a headstart in this area, so they'll block it. Why would you even think of transferring your training people to this duty? (As a comparison, back in the early 1990s, I worked in Czechoslovakia re-training Russian language teachers to be English language teachers – you can imagine how dispiriting that was.)<br /><br />If we move the T & D portfolio, we'll see faster change perhaps.<br /><br />It's also worth pointing out that the kind of performance support you're talking about is pretty much exactly the kind of support the #KM-ers have been trying to offer for years.<br /><br />Interesting times.Simon Bostockhttp://hypergogue.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-14976928588346291552010-12-29T11:46:41.795+00:002010-12-29T11:46:41.795+00:00Thanks for pointing Bob's book out, Cees. '...Thanks for pointing Bob's book out, Cees. 'Innovative Performance Support: Strategies and Practices for Learning in the Workflow ' by Bob Mosher and Conrad Gottfredson. Very worthwhile reading. http://bit.ly/g5cw0kCharles Jenningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10220891611333165590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-34491190549365925182010-12-29T10:54:53.027+00:002010-12-29T10:54:53.027+00:00Bob Mosher wrote an excellent book on performance ...Bob Mosher wrote an excellent book on performance support just released recently.<br />Bob Mosher is LearningGuide's chief strategist & evangelist.<br /><br />Enjoy!<br /><br />Cees LouwersCees Louwershttp://www.learningguidesolutions.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-25483200023591423552010-12-28T19:48:29.421+00:002010-12-28T19:48:29.421+00:00I want my organization to get out of the "ref...I want my organization to get out of the "refresher training" business. Enough already!Barbarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04708950530188112195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-537267519793805240.post-87425003639153255092010-12-28T14:43:07.696+00:002010-12-28T14:43:07.696+00:00If I have a scraped knee, the bandaid goes right o...If I have a scraped knee, the bandaid goes right on it. <br />So if I want to improve performance I'd put the fix right there.<br />Too often we try to fix people when we should be fixing the job.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11400827674860036346noreply@blogger.com