This issue of whether to train to the one "best" way to do a task or teach people to think for themselves and discover new ways of approaching problems is very interesting - two ends of the spectrum.

The huge problem this presents to training professionals is when to do what. I don't think most trainers think about that much; nor are there firm guidelines to follow.

The "unintended consequences" Lundbird mentions can be really bad when teaching soft skills. Sometimes, for example, in conflict resolution courses, there really is a "best" way to handle certain situations. However, this course is often taught by someone with a "facilitator" style who just throws the question of what to do in a particular situation to the participants to answer. Often, the conssequence is that participants get it wrong - sometimes leaving the course with tactics that actually do harm.

This is one of the reasons that I alwasy question the "facilitator" style of training - especially when the claim is made that the facilitator does not need to know the subject any better than the participants. The result is often bad, even though the facilitator and participants may leave the course happy and convinced that the course was a big success. And this kind of problem is not caught with performance evaluations.

And here again, there is a terminology issue - what is "training"? Is it teaching people to perform a job in the best manner possible? If so, how does teaching people to think differently fit under the umbrella term, "training"?

quote:

Originally posted by KaliKo:
And here again, there is a terminology issue - what is "training"? Is it teaching people to perform a job in the best manner possible? If so, how does teaching people to think differently fit under the umbrella term, "training"?

Yeah. I tried to start a discussion on this a while ago, but many seemed to think that it does not matter what you call something.

I think this is particularly important in light of the (intended) thread topic.

I tried to offer that "training" was more how to perform a task in a particular way, while "education" was more oriented towards how to think about what you are dong, or, perhaps, everything else.

I agree with your comments on facilitation. That's why I think we need a sort-of "structured" or "guided" facilitation where the process is similar to traditional facilitation, but partiucipants are guided away from "dangerous" erroneous solutions.

quote:

Originally posted by KaliKo:
This issue of whether to train to the one "best" way to do a task or teach people to think for themselves and discover new ways of approaching problems is very interesting - two ends of the spectrum.

The huge problem this presents to training professionals is when to do what. I don't think most trainers think about that much; nor are there firm guidelines to follow.

Yeah, this is what separates the pros from the others.

I just have to relate my experience, as this touches a nerve for me...

I have been practicing "lean" or rather continuous improvement principles for about 10 years now.

My job has primarily been trying to get others to come up with "better ways to do things." Similar, not the same, but similar to what Travelerjjm describes.

Here was my problem with this approach...if everyone does "the job" a different way, how do we make, and sustain any improvement, EVEN at the SMALLEST level possible?

I cannot express to you how frustrating this is in manufacturing (I imagine anywhere), when as Travelerjjm points out, a million widgets are supposed to be the same. One improvement could help us make an extra 100,000 widgets, but nobody will do the job the same way, so we settle for less. Its pure insanity.

The reason I "stumbled" across the "concept" of training (sounds silly, doesn't it?) is because I couldn't take it anymore. I looked to the masters of Lean Mfg, Toyota and asked: "if they are so darn good at this, how do they really do it?" How do they do things so consistently (implying good training, but I didn't know this at the time) yet claim that they are improving every day (implying constant changing)

In fact, Toyota claims over 2,500,000 improvments (implemented ideas from employees) per year. All of this in relentless consistency. In 1991, a book was published about Toyota's Suggestion System" 40 Years 20 Million Ideas. 20 MILLION implemented ideas!

We found this was partially supported through their Job Instruction program, Kaizen Teian system, and relentless follow-through by their front line supervisors. This hybrid PDCA approach, which was taught by the TWI guys, Deming, Juran, etc., in post war period) is the way Toyota gets people trained consistently and then, and only then, how to make their jobs better through Kaizen. After that, people train other peers in the new standard using Job Instruction. To gain some more insight, you could read Toyota Talent. Kaliko, given your strong propensity towards SOJT, I think you may find "some" similarities between JIT and SOJT.

I don't know if this helps you Traveler, but for me - adopting and adapting this approach to our environment is beginning to work wonders. The interesting thing is that it works in just about any environment.

However, I now believe that there is an order to things when getting everyone making creative ideas a reality. First, they need to understand what the best way is. I get people to realize this through Job Instruction. Often, many improvements are made this way. Then, over time, I can introduce CI principles to the people and because they ALL understand the current best way, it is MUCH easier for them to come up with new ways, and more importantly, MUCH easier for them to accept the new ways. Again, we are talking human nature kind of stuff here. These TWI guys in the 40's and Toyota guys back in the 50's could actually bring us back to the future if we would only try.

Hope this helps.

Lundbird,

I understand exactly what you are saying since I too have spent years in manufacturing, both as an engineer and as a training professional in many different manufacturing plants.

The on-the-job training system I talked about earlier was designed based on the psychological theory of Alfred Adler. (I had just completed two years at the Adler School of Professional Psychology in Chicago learning the theory so that I could apply it to the workplace - and particularly to technical training in the manufacturing world.) As a result of building the theory into a structured OJT venue, the entire OJT system is completely team-driven, and every employee has a part to play. It was built around the principles of developing a sense of belonging through contribution, decisions by consensus, the "psychology of use" - i.e., it's more important how one uses what one has than what you have to start with, holism (the efforts of the group are greater than the efforts of a single individual), the belief that all humans are creative decision makers, and that people derive job satisfaction by having their ideas heard and implemented.

I'm sure none of this sounds new. What is new though is the application of a single theory that people can get their hands around - because it is a simple theory. Teams are taught the basic principles (briefly) and then everything they do on the project reflects those principles.

The issue of innovation and continuous improvement happens ALL the time as a result of the team-driven process. It is NEVER an issue with the teams. Every worker is involved in some way with the OJT program. Every employee OWNS the OJT. Their names are on the training modules.

Typically, company supervisors, divide the employees into teams - these teams consist of SMEs, less experienced people, and even new hires - who work on a common job(s). Each team has a facilitator to help with the process and keep the teams of track. The team experience is a learning community in process. SMEs learn from new hires and less experienced folks, and they in turn learn from SMEs. It is important that SMEs do not do the facilitating - otherwise they might be too tempted to do all the work.

The teams do everything: conduct a team job task analysis, construct a project plan, write training modules and cover sheets, create a training implementation plan, tryout and debug the modules on-site, develop evaluation and maintenence plans, and OJT trainers conduct the training. (OJT trainers are required to be part of the design teams so that they are very familiar with the training modules and the agreed upon "best" way to do the tasks. There are also cross-teams when job tasks affect more than one group. In addition, teams coordinate efforts so that no one team has to do too much of the work load.

What happens in the team sessions is simply amazing stuff. Seeing the creativity that results from group discussions of how "best" to do each task is one of the most exciting things I've ever encountered in the workplace. And talk about cooperation!

The team dynamics of putting together the processes and procedures - i.e., writing the training modules and cover sheets - improves communication, not only within the work group, but between different work groups, between different shifts, etc. During the team sessions they question literally every factor that might impact task performance - coordinating some aspect of the task with another team or department, scheduling concerns/time constraints, equipment/materials availability, job site hazards that impact task accomplishment, conflicting procedures, problems with vendors, etc. The list is endless.

Once the training modules are written, they represent what all have agreed to as the "Best" way to do each task. It is important that ALL decisions are made by consensus. And the really amazing thing is that it works on the job - they all perform the same task in the SAME way. They are very proud of what they have accomplished.

There is a build-in continuous improvement cycle. Anyone in the workforce can make suggestions for improving the modules. There is a simple administrative part of the program that handles these suggestions. Once a suggestion comes in, it goes straight to the team that created the module. They meet, discuss the suggestion and them decide whether to incorporate it or not. If so, they re-write the training module, try it out on-site and run it by the approval team.

The issues you raised about standardization in task accomplishment while at the same time allowing for innovation and new ideas are both brought together in this approach.

I'm sure there must be other approaches out there too. There are newer and better systems today than the WWII Job Instruction Training. All OJT derived from that model, but it has been greatly improved upon since then.