Hi, Everyone... I'm a long time ASTD national member, frequent ASTD community go’er, and first time poster... so hello!

My first question involves evaluating my own future. I'm attempting to determine my relevance as a WLP professional. I currently work as a technical trainer but my audience is mostly Baby Boomers, Generation X, and rarely Gen Y. I've gathered no data to support my theory but it occurs to me that I may see a steady decline in technical training necessity as Generation Y and Z become more proficient in technology with more daily interaction and education on it in schools.

Does anyone have any data to support or disprove my theory? I've looked at ASTD's 2007 state of the industry report but I don't know how to make heads or tails of all that data. Can anyone simplify?

Thanks all! Looking forward to some lively discussion.

You won't find that info in ASTD's State of the Industry Report - you won't find out much of anything related to technical training from ASTD these days.

ASTD has basically chosen to ignore technical training. They abruptly discountinued their Technical Training Magazine in 2000 so that they could "force" people to switch to e-learning. That was actually printed on a full page announcement in the last issue as the reason for not continuing to publish the magazine any more! ASTD also stopped their Technical Training conferences. Now everything is technology and e-learning - you will see virtually nothing related to technical training.

However, that does NOT mean that technical training is not alive and well - it is just as much a part of the training world as before. ASTD decided it wasn't profitable enough I suppose. ASTD does a huge disservice to its members and to companies everywhere by virtually eliminating it.


On a related note, ASTD has never included on-the-job training (OJT) or structured on-the-job training (structured OJT) in their survey data. Very irresponsible since such a large protion of training is done that way. Ronald Jacobs at Ohio State University as well as Rothwell and Kazanas have estimated that companies spend up to 6 times more money for OJT than ANY other method of training - yet it is rarely even budgeted. Companies fail to track it and fail to recognize the vast amount of money being spent. And unfortunately, most of the OJT is the old buddy system of on-the-job training - which is very inefficient.

About four years ago, I wrote to the ASTD person who designed the State of the Industry Report and asked the reason for not including structured OJT. It turned out the person was not familiar with it!! Amazing. The person indicated that it would be considered in the next survey, but of course it still has not been included.

In my business practice, almost all of which is in the technical training area, I have not seen any decline. I wouldn't worry much about it. If and when the bottom does fall out, you can easily switch to some other area of training.

And please - let's not get into a discussion about "what is technical training?" We've already hashed that to death in this forum.

Hello,
I'm an anlyst with the ASTD Research Department and I'd like to respond to some of the points raised in this thread.

ASTD has a standardized questionnaire that is fielded annually for our State of the Industry Report and forms the backbone of our WLP Scorecard. The items on it were developed several years ago by a team of experts. We keep the questionnaire the same each year to allow for trend analysis. If we change the items from year-to-year, then we will lose the ability to track these important benchmarks over time. Of course, if there is sufficient demand for a change in the items, we would be glad to consider it.

In the case of on-the-job training (OJT) as a delivery method, we have not fielded any requests to include this type of learning in our standardized set. Most likely this is considered informal learning by most practioners, and our questionnaire deals only with formal learning practices. However, any expenditure on OJT would be captured in the survey in the investment items.

The situation is similar for structured on-the-job training (structured OJT). If we hear from enough of our responding organizations, then we can consider adding it to the survey. If there really is a huge expense typically associated with this delivery method, then it will be captured in the expenditure items on the survey.

Regarding the content domain of technical training, we do not have a separate category for it on our annual questionnaire. It would probably fall under the category "Profession or Industry Specific" or it could obviously fit into the "Other" category. Again, if there is sufficient demand, we would consider adding it to the survey.

I've been at ASTD for 2 years, and we base our research decisions on the needs and demands of the membership. If there is a particular area that needs investigation or regular attention, then we will make a reasonable effort to do so.

Andrew,

Thanks for your response. I'm not sure ASTD has a firm grasp of on-the-job training – either informal or structured, and is short-changing its membership by ignoring it; much less side-stepping technical training.

Research has shown that approximately 80-90 percent of an employee's workplace skills and knowledge are learned through OJT – on-the-job training – both formal structured OJT and informal buddy system OJT. This fact is VERY well documented. Yet the State of the Industry Report does not include OJT. In fact, structured OJT is not even mentioned in the Report under "formal learning." According to the Report, it excludes from formal learning anything "embedded in work activities." Since this is where most learning occurs, why is it excluded? Why is the entire Report focused on the10 percent of the skills and knowledge learned via other methods (all training methods other than OJT)? Can ASTD really be that far off track?

Ronald Jacobs and Michael Jones, in their book, Structured On-the-Job Training, cite research showing that U.S. employers spend between three and six times more for on-the-job training than for ALL other training COMBINED (classroom, computer-based, etc.) - even if there is no designated budget item for OJT, which there normally is NOT – therefore this would not show up under any category in your State of the Industry Report; they also say that up to one-third of an employee's first-year salary is devoted to OJT costs. So, again, why is ASTD reporting only the money that is spent for other methods, and not OJT? And since so much more money is being spent on OJT, most of which is unplanned or informal, shouldn't ASTD be promoting structured OJT in order to help companies get more for their money?

It appears to me that ASTD is somewhat blinded by flash, pizzazz, and gee-whiz technologies. Or maybe another reason OJT is ignored is that recipients of OJT are not typically the folks who pay to attend training conferences or subscribe to training magazines.

Just how much corporate money is being spent on OJT? According to Anthony Carnevale and R.A. Fry's 2001 paper, "The Economic and Demographic Roots of Education and Training" (commissioned by the Center for Workforce Success of the Manufacturing Institute-the educational and research affiliate of the National Association of Manufacturers-and National Center on Education and the Economy), employers would need to spend $96 billion on training in 2005 just to maintain their current training commitments to their most highly educated employees. They say that, assuming employers wish to expand the number of employees being trained to make up for current training shortcomings, the employer totals could be as high as $175 billion. If the 80-90 percent figure is correct, the amount spent (most of which is not budgeted) for OJT could be astronomical. Since structured OJT has been shown to decrease training time by up to 70 percent, think of the potential savings, not to mention fewer quality errors, increased safety, and higher productivity. Maybe the U.S. wouldn't have to outsource so many of our jobs overseas.

What are the implications of all this? Why is it important that ASTD represent the state of the industry and include the most frequently used method of training, and the most costly? And why does it matter that ASTD is not paying more attention to structured OJT? Quite simply, most training professionals learn how to do their jobs from training association conferences, workshops, and publications. Whatever organizations like ASTD "sell," training professionals buy.

Most conference attendees will tell you that, "I am here to find out how to do my job." Here is what Elliott Masie, internationally-recognized training expert, said about training conferences in his January 6, 2005 e-newsletter, "Many events feel more like Junior High School, with a couple of "assembly programs" followed by a flurry of classes, with low interaction and the absence of a clear instructional design. And, in many events the commercial elements overwhelm the learning opportunities." No wonder that training departments everywhere are struggling to stay alive and prove their worth.

ASTD took a giant step away from focusing on training for front line workers (the major users of OJT) when it abruptly eliminated the Technical and Skills Training magazine and annual Technical and Skills Training conference in an effort to force trainers into technology-based learning. In place of the magazine, there is now an e-zine that deals exclusively with e-learning endeavors, not technical training per se. Many front line technical employees do not yet have computers at their workspaces.

The American workforce is the big loser here. In state and national surveys, employers say they continue to face shortages of skilled workers. Even more troubling, employers say that limited access to a skilled workforce is by far the largest barrier to expansion over the next several years. This lack of skilled workers is found not only in manufacturing companies, but all industries. What workers worldwide need are skills that enable them to perform their everyday work tasks. This message is not getting through to training industry folks in leadership positions, and it is up to organizations like ASTD to accurately inform and lead the profession. And one small way to do that is to accurately measure what is really out there – not to wait for trainers to request something be included in a survey.

quote:

Can ASTD really be that far off track?

Considering that they still print articles about how to evaluate training as though it were new information, and have only just started addressing accelerated learning (although they're "branding" it as something else)... I personally answered that question for myself about 7 years ago when I stopped renewing my membership. I still find gems in the people I meet at local ASTD gatherings but overall, I'm not impressed by the org as an entity.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LoveLearning,