Home > Topics > Learning and Training in Organisations >

Training should not be a bolt-on activity it should be factored into a project at the outset.

By Paul Mason Consulting

Vanessa Tregunna, training manager at retail IT consultants, Paul Mason Consulting (PMC) Ltd., believes: "Too often, training is regarded as a process that has to be endured, or something to be added to a project to make it look good. This happens because too many companies still regard training as an add-on rather than a fundamental part of project engineering."

Despite significant research proving the benefits of integrating training, the 'bolt-on' approach persists and this is dangerous. In the long run, ineffective or non-existent training costs more and causes distress. To be effective, training should be factored-in at the outset, fine-tuned at the pilot phase and launched ahead of rollout.

Training is often seen as expensive - the alternative is usually worse

Consider the disadvantages of non-integrated training: a company implements a new system and skimps on training by appointing unskilled staff to train others, or by ignoring the issue. The system goes live but is not used effectively, customers complain and the company has a major problem. It quickly realises that it must instigate an emergency training programme, which is inevitably going to be expensive and cause more disruption than a planned programme.

Tregunna continues: "No less important is motivation. Poorly trained staff rapidly become frustrated, errors rise and protests increase. Additionally, when staff perceive their needs relegated to the level of an add-on or when they are unable to use the system in front of a customer, they become de-motivated and in severe cases leave altogether."

Although training should be part of a company's thinking process early in the specification phase of a project, it often does not make it to the development phase. In the majority of cases, training is simply bolted on - sometimes as an unplanned activity just prior to rollout. It is improbable that any other part of a project would be treated in this way.

Choosing the right trainers is crucial to success

Many organisations fall into the trap of using technologists for systems training. They may well understand the system and the technology that drives it but are they equipped to train users? Unfortunately, the answer is often no - being technically competent does not make one a trainer. The ability to train people requires a different attitude towards staff, their skills and capabilities.

Involving untrained technical staff in training can result in the session becoming an opportunity for the trainer to air their knowledge or deliver an 'information dump'- nothing is checked and nothing is measured. If an opportunity for feedback is created it is usually inadequate.

"The trainer must understand that feedback from the participants is crucial. There is no point in an attitude that states: 'I've told you and if you have not understood then that's a failure on your part.'

"Actually the failure could well lie with the trainer whose explanations may have been unclear or inappropriate. This scenario is not exclusive to the technologist placed in the training role, however, it appears to be a frequent misuse of skills," states Tregunna.

Internal communication - often neglected

Unfortunately, when training is considered in advance, is properly planned and resourced, it can still fail to deliver to its full potential. Many good, well-structured initiatives have failed because of poor communication.

Communication is crucial. Telling people in advance, what is happening, what training programmes are scheduled, how they will be expected to participate and what will be expected of them, impacts the success of the training programme. It also affects the business, its processes and procedures.

Once the training initiative is in place and the programmes are running, communication remains vital. Feedback on the training is important. People must be given the opportunity to comment and offer constructive criticism. There must be validation and evaluation of the training programme and its effect on the participants.

The false economy of inadequate training

Tregunna concludes: "Companies must understand that failing to train people, or providing inadequate training creates hidden costs. In general, people want to carry out their day-to-day responsibilities the best that they can. Inadequately trained people will try to find out how to work with a new system. Although they may well be able to fumble their way through and manage to accomplish tasks, they could be making fundamental mistakes.

"They could be using a system ineffectively, ignoring a process or checking their work incorrectly. They could be teaching themselves inappropriate methods, which omit basic reporting or controlling functions - and they could be teaching others the same thing. The problem is that such mistakes can persist, be expensive to correct and as it is difficult to trace where the errors originate, there is significant potential for the knock-on effects to quickly permeate a business."

Back to top   

© 2004 Paul Mason Consulting. Reproduced with permission. Training Reference is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites. Any opinions or views contained in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Training Reference.

More from Training Reference

• Learning and training in organisations homepage
• Books about training strategy

Visit the Training Reference Directory to view supplier details for a wide range of courses, products and services.

Sponsored links

Back to top