Written By: Gloria J. Gery*
Throughout the years, folks have developed measures for
training effectiveness, satisfaction, and learning. All kinds of approaches
from smile sheets to yardsticks have evolved. When I was running a data
processing training organization at a large insurance company I once got
disgusted with the statistics I had to submit each month. As the functional
manager I was responsible for use of facilities, instructor resource,
equipment, and assuring "value" for the training dollars spent on IT
technical professionals and management -- and the user community. My monthly
report had to list items such as:
- number of student days
- student/instructor ratio
- number of "no shows", drop-outs, and last minute cancellations
- dollars charged back to departments using training
- percent utilization of facilities
- cost per student-day
- average "satisfaction" scores on our "smile sheet" evaluations
- on-time completion and on-cost development of new courses
- actual vs. planned operational budget expenditures.
At a meeting one day, I suggested a new measurement
criterion.
"Why don't we weigh the students and report on a cost
per pound?"
A deep quiet overcame the meeting. It was finally broken by
a softly spoken question.
"What?"
I guess I was being given a chance to reconsider, but I
didn't take it.
"Why don't we install a scale in the entry way," I
said, "like the one they use for cattle. We can have each student stand on
the scale before entering class each day. We can then calculate the return on
our investment by volume."
Needless to say, this attitude was a subject for much
discussion both on that day and on my annual appraisal. While I wasn't exactly
serious, the idea didn't seem any more irrelevant than some of the success
indicators I was reporting on monthly.
None of the measurements I was supposed to take asked if
anyone learned anything or if our interventions changed their performance.
One of the men who worked with me was angry about my
attitude. He said: "Do you know what your problem is?" (Note: it's
always a bad sign when somebody starts talking about "what your problem
is.")
"No", I responded.
"You're trying to get the right numbers instead of
making the numbers come out right!" he said.
I am still working on a response to that one. But I long ago
gave up trying to make the numbers come out right in favor of finding the best
way to measure what we're trying to accomplish.
Today, I encourage different measures. It's much easier to
actually employ these assessments in a performance support environment because
the connections between performance support in the actual work context is so
much more direct than the distance between training events and work
performance. That very statement says a lot, doesn't it?
Let me share some of the objectives and measurements that
rule my work today.
- decreased time to understanding
- decreased time to performance
- reduced performance cycle times (associated with a task, process, customer interaction, deliverable, creation, etc.
- reduced implementation costs (for a system, product, new process, etc.)
- reduced support costs (number of coaches per group)
- reduced handoffs of work, calls, problems to others
- increased customer satisfaction with organization representatives as measured by surveys, follow-up calls, complaint activity
- quality improvements
- ability to shift work to less experienced employees or to customers
- reduced transaction costs
- decreasing the gap between less experienced and star performers
- competitive differentiation as reported by customers
- organizational flexibility
- increased performer confidence -- and confidence by those they work or interact with
When an organization can accomplish something like
institutionalizing best practice into the work situation and make performance
less a focus of individual competence and more a function of the environment
itself, weighing people just doesn't come to mind for me. Does it for you?
*Originally published in CBT Solutions Magazine,
May/June 1997