by
Dr. Max Garfinkle
Jack Bowsher1,
the retired Director of Education External Programs for IBM , has authored the
book “ Educating America – Lessons Learned in the Nation’s
Corporations”1. He describes the systems approach at IBM and
claims it will work in any organization that has a full- time training
department. The following outlines his training model.
Business
Requirements
(lead
to)
Performance
Requirements
(lead
to)
Educational
Requirements
(lead
to)
Training
via Curriculum and Courses
(requiring
Delivery Systems (classrooms, computer and video based training etc)
(leads
to)
Measurement
and Evaluation (of training effectiveness)
(leads
back to)
Educational
Requirements
‘Business
Requirements’ are derived from the corporate policies, business unit
strategies for competitive advantage, and the operational goals established by
each department. The ultimate criteria of training effectiveness lies in the
contribution of training to these objectives. Training justifies its cost on
the basis of meeting the organizational goals of a business that is striving
for continuous improvement in customer satisfaction, quality, productivity,
response time, and flexibility.
Training is one
ingredient in the pursuit of these organizational goals. Its particular focus
in on helping to provide the organization with competent performers.
Therefore, Business Requirements are converted into ‘Performance
Requirements’ through some form of job analysis. McLagan2
describes a sophisticated process of building job models based upon output
menus that specify the desired outputs from a group or function and competency
menus that specify the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to produce
the outputs. The analysis would compare what incumbents actually did with what
is expected of high performers.
Job analysis and
performance appraisals focus on the abilities and competencies of individuals.
Also required for a complete portrait of an organization is an organization
evaluation which looks at the strengths and weakness of the organization as a
whole in being able to achieve defined organization goals. An organization
evaluation should measure the collective capabilities of employees as seen by
all relevant stakeholders in being able to attain the Business Requirements.
This evaluation should point to collective training needs that, combined with
individual performance appraisals, result in specific training plans or
Educational Requirements for each employee.
The components of
effective job performance that could benefit from training become the focus of
‘Educational Requirements’. These requirements provide the formal
description of what is to be learned, stated in terms of desired behavior on
the job. These training objectives specify precisely what the trainee should
be able to do after training that could not be done before plus how well the
trainee should be performing this new behavior (level of competence).
Professional trainers
refer to this sequence of organization analysis, task analysis, and K S A
analysis (Knowledge, Skills Abilities), as “Needs Assessment”. An
additional aspect of needs assessment is ‘person analysis’ which involves
a determination of the trainee’s capabilities, so that the right person can
get into the right course.
The information obtained
in the various phases of the needs assessment process becomes the basis for
the design of the learning experiences into Curriculum and Courses. The
instructional designers take over from the analysts. They specify
instructional objectives plus the sequence of presentation of material. They
determine the learning methods, learning media, and ‘Delivery Systems’.
When Instructional Design expertise does not exist within the company, canned
programs of instruction, developed by external training firms are chosen to
approximate the desired outcomes.
Despite all the
preparatory work by professional specialists in needs assessment and
instructional design, the actual learning experience is highly dependent upon
the competence of the ‘Instructor’. The instructor has to account for
individual differences, maintain a high level of motivation and interest, and
be concerned about back-at-work application of the new skills and knowledge.
Therefore, ‘train the trainer’ programs become an essential component of
any training model.
The evaluation of
training varies from the simple reactions to each session (happiness ratings)
to the measurement of increased knowledge or improved skill resulting from the
training. More sophisticated procedures can measure whether the course
learning is being transferred to the work situation and being correctly
applied there.
The best evaluation
designs bring the training back to its original purpose. They measure the
effectiveness of training in achieving organizational goals. “There is a
possibility of many a slip between the cup and the lip”. Each step in the
conversion of business requirements into course delivery and back to
performance improvement at work may not proceed as smoothly as intended.
Robinson and Robinson3
advocate training for impact on business results, rather than simply training
for activity.
Their formula is:
Learning
Experience x Work Environment = Business Results
Even if the learning
experience is outstanding (100%), a non-supportive work environment (0%) will
nullify this effort (100% x 0% =0). Their recommendations stress
building evaluation and tracking systems into training programs.
Though the costs of
training are high, Bowsher warns that untrained employees are more costly in
terms of poor quality, waste, customer dissatisfaction, and low productivity.
Amongst his proposals to contain the costs of training are the following:
1. Be careful not to set an arbitrary number
of days or hours for training (eg. all technicians have 48 hours per year).
2. Avoid the decision to spend a fixed
percentage of revenues on training. Spend what is required to do an effective
job.
3. The worst executive decision is to do a
mindless, across-the board reduction of
training costs.
This article is published
posthumously by Dr. Max Garfinkle with help from Peter Duffield, president of
CSI
References:
1. Bowsher, J.E.
Educating America – Lessons learned in the nation’s corporations,
Wiley (1989)
2. McLagan, P.A. Flexible Job Models. A productivity model
for the information age. Jossey-Bass (1990)
3. Robinson, D.G. and J.C.
Training for Impact. How to link training to business needs and measure
results. Josey-Bass (1989)
