Can the effectiveness of skills training be measured? A Region Director friend of mine who works for a large natural gas pipeline company complained that his new measurement employees (new hires and experienced personnel that have transferred into gas measurement) are not performing required tasks and activities to his expectations. “My over-pressure protection & measurement equipment supplier, two months ago, presented a free, 1-day training session on “How to Test a Relief Valve Set Point.” I paid for donuts and lunch! We told them exactly how to do it. “My employees just don’t get it.”
This response, a reaction created from frustration, plays out time and time again. Although this Director recognizes a performance deficiency, his statement is directed at a result (actual outcome) rather than the cause(s) that creates his concern. Many companies today are implementing proactive workforce readiness strategies. They are no longer simply paying lip service to the need for effective training programs, devising reactive measures, or creating explanations regarding why employees don’t understand and cannot perform the skills expected of them.
To begin the process of determining the cause(s) of learning deficiency, we need to understand something about the instructors learning model, the learning objectives, how the training content was presented, and how learner’s knowledge is tested (assessed).
As a Technical Training Manager working in the industry, I was often told, “Just tell them how to do it” and they will be fine. They don’t need to know why. Operation management was often disappointed when they determined their “Tell Them How” theory of training didn’t work. Little, if any, knowledge was transferred: none may have been measured. The actual cost of effective training (including gains in productivity) pales when compared to the increased cost of inaccurate measurement, delayed product deliveries, unscheduled downtime, damaged equipment replacements, impaired and strained customer relations, and re-training.