PARTNER for Training Success: READY objectives, design, and delivery
So you have come to the realization that a training and development initiative is required. After stepping back to look at the big Picture, and then following that with an Analysis of the situation, it is time to prepare the most appropriate intervention; it is time to Ready your resources.
The third step in the PARTNER* model is READY objectives, design, and delivery.
Program Objectives
If you have successfully completed the first two stages of the PARTNER model, you should have the information necessary to develop key objectives for your training program. In fact, the objectives should be revealing themselves to you. You should be looking for answers to the following questions:
- What is the purpose of your program?
- How will you measure success?
- Have you considered which organizational metrics must be considered or improved for your program to be considered a success?
- What LROI (learning return on investment) issues need to be considered?
- How will you verify your program objectives?
- Who needs to give the program objectives the stamp of approval?
Design Methodology
The design process must work hand-in-hand with the delivery mechanism (see next heading). And like the process behind determining program objectives, there are a number of questions that you will want to answers for, either by seeking them out or coming to them on your own:
- Do you want to design a template that will be used to brand your program and provide consistency of application?
- Have you considered how your program will be evaluated and measured by learners?
- What feedback mechanisms and follow-up plans will be built into the design?
- Who will you be involving in the design process, (i.e. subject matter experts, trainers, curriculum designers, learners)?
Delivery Mechanisms
The methods of delivering training programs can be as varied as your imagination will allow. However, there are common approaches that have stood the test of time and continue to be used because they have a solid track record. Like any approach though, the time and effort put in up front will pay dividends. Consider the following approaches:
Resources and Infrastructure – Answering this question up front could well determine which approach or approaches you will be using and which ones you will not. This should hearken back to the research you did in the Picture step of the PARTNER model. Know what you are working with (and without) before inadvertently painting yourself into a corner.
External or Internal – An important consideration will be whether you are going to delivery your program using internal resources or if there will be more value for the learner and organization by using an external mechanism. And what would those be? They could include accredited post-secondary institutions offering continuing education programs or customized contract training solutions; they could also include national or multi-national corporate training companies that specialize in offering in-class or onsite training from a standard catalogue of easily customized content.
Coaching / Mentoring – This approach is more focused on working with individual learners. The individual filling the role of coach or mentor should have some type of certification in providing one-on-one coaching or mentoring. Mind you, the degree to which this may be required will be driven by the scope of your program.
Classroom – The traditional method of training and development, classroom delivery is the picture that comes to mind most frequently when people are asked to describe a learning process. And it still has an important role to play in the world of corporate learning and training. The classroom model can make sense when you have a large group of learners who are all required to learn the same content, or when you want to capitalize on external subject matter experts coming in to deliver customized content.
On the Job – When needing to transfer the unwritten, unspoken, and hidden storehouse of knowledge that resides within organizations (frequently referred to as tacit knowledge), on-the-job experiential training approaches should probably be considered.
E-learning – Referred to as e-learning, online learning, or computer based learning (you get the picture), this exciting and recent development in content delivery is being considered by more and more organizations as costs continue to come down. If you are considering e-learning delivery as an option, you will want to go back to the Picture step again to ensure that you have the infrastructure required to make it happen. This may need to be one of those “internal or external” resource discussions.
Blended – This is where training and development really begins to shine. And this is where both the needs of the learner and the organization can truly be met. When e-learning first hit the scene, many organizational leaders, interested in addressing escalating training costs and in using technology to train employees, took the implied e-learning promise to be that training efficiencies realized through using the new technology will go straight to the bottom line while revenue growth resulting from training will go straight to the top line. The pendulum has swung back. Combining e-learning with other forms of more traditional learning like classroom, has proven a winner and is bringing those training wins to the organization.
* The PARTNER model (Picture, Analysis, Ready, Train, Nurture, Evaluate, and Revisit) looks at each step in the development, design, delivery, and follow-up process and breaks it down into a simple to follow template.
This is post 4 of the PARTNER Model … view the others by following these links:
- PARTNER for Training Success
- Look at the big PICTURE
- ANALYSIS of Needs, Wants, and Identifying Gaps
- READY objectives, design, and delivery approach
- TRAIN delivery, context, and learner needs
Let E-learners Have a Role in Choosing their E-learning Courses
Malcolm Knowles, one of the recognized founders of modern adult learning theory, states that adults must believe that their learning will have a personal benefit. Organizations typically have set goals and objectives that are at the forefront of all business planning. These two fundamentals do not need to be mutually exclusive. Within the context of the organization’s objectives, learners should have input into the process of determining what e-learning courses they will take. They can be determined through a process of consultation between organizational learning leaders and e-learners themselves.
Now I’m not suggesting that e-learners should have carte-blanche when it comes to making e-learning course selections, but rather that learners should be actively involved in the process of negotiating what courses to take, outside of those required as a matter of principle or prerequisite. Learners should be involved in the process of designing their curriculum to know that their learning will have personal benefit (for more on this perspective, see the December 24, 2009 entry: Let the Learner Play a Role in your Program Design).
The outcome of this process will be determined through those consultations and could take the form of roundtable discussions, surveys, one-on-one interviews, or a combination of two or all three approaches. The more that the organization embraces and respects the learner’s needs, the more success any corporate learning initiative will have.
This is post 7 of 7 of the E-learning Success Model … view the others by following these links:
- A Model for E-learning Success
- Understand the E-learner
- Onsite E-learning Champions
- In-Class Orientation for E-learners
- Support from the E-learner’s Manager
- Provided time to E-learners during Work Hours
- Let E-learners Have a Role in Choosing their E-learning Courses
Let the Learner Play a Role in your Program Design
A few years ago I was charged with the task of developing an orientation and professional development curriculum for newly hired sales people. Given that no program had previously existed, I was required to build one from the ground up … an exciting and challenging prospect.
Joseph Schwab, an educator who developed a program design approach based on curriculum deliberations, believed that the lead curriculum-making specialist required input from subject matter experts, learner representatives, milieu residents (e.g. customers), and instructor-facilitators. And he cautioned that subject matter experts typically want to either control the curriculum making process or will discount input from others (learners, milieu residents, teacher-facilitators, and of course, the curriculum-making specialist). My previous experiences have only reinforced this perspective for me.
If you find yourself taking on the role of curriculum-making specialist, it is important to ensure that any one party in the process (e.g. subject matter experts) doesn’t take over; it is your responsibility to have the wherewithal to guide this process. In particular, you must ensure that learners are involved, heard, and active in the design process. It is after all the learner that is expected to benefit from the program.
The earlier the learner becomes involved in the process, the more likelihood that you will have a successful outcome. Wouldn’t you rather have the learner involved at the beginning of the process than simply as a passive recipient of training? Wouldn’t you rather ensure that your program avoids common or potential pitfalls before rolling it out? Wouldn’t you rather minimize potential missteps that could cost you unnecessary money, money that could be used elsewhere in your training budget?
I’m not suggesting that the learner should be designing your program, just that you should consider using the learner as a key resource on your design team … in addition to subject matter experts, instructor-facilitators, and milieu residents.
Designing Training Programs; Internal and External Resources
Picture: The Company (continued)
In this post, let’s discuss design and the leveraging of internal and external resources.
Design – where does the organization turn when designing training programs?
There are three separate responses to this, or as is more probably the truth in many organizations, a combination of two or possibly all three. Many organizations rely on internal resources exclusively to design training initiatives. If the organization is large and profitable enough, they may actually have the resources required to hire or develop certified learning and development professionals. While it’s tempting to suggest that this is the ideal scenario, it may not necessarily be so. Having the required internal resource may be a point of pride for an organization, but if the return-on-investment required is not being met, there are other alternatives. One of those alternatives is using external resources to design and deliver proprietary programs; the other alternative is the use off-the-shelf programs that can be easily customized to fit the organization’s needs and culture.
Leveraging Internal Resources
For many organizations, subject matter experts (SMEs) are the most common turn-to-when-required internal resource when it comes to developing training programs. The logic behind this is self evident. The challenge with this is not with the depth of knowledge that the SME brings to the table, but rather with the assumption that just because someone has the requisite knowledge, they must therefore be a good instructional designer and facilitator. How often have you sat through a one way, long, difficult to follow, information intensive slide presentation from a SME with the expectation that you will internalized all of the required knowledge and then be capable of using it in the workplace? Unfortunately this scenario is all too common. SMEs are important, but teaming them up with an individual that understands fundamental instructional design and delivery is just as important if you are to capture the value that you are looking for (remember ROI?). One way to leverage a SME’s knowledge could be through the application of a train-the-trainer program (TtT). The SME provides the knowledge, and then those within the organization who have an aptitude for presenting content effectively can be taken through a TtT program. All of this though rests with the final key component. Do the training initiatives being undertaken have the support of the organization? This means more than just lip service, it means the financial and resource support necessary to ensure that the design and delivery of the program won’t be hindered by lack of resources and ultimately lead to questions being asked that result in the answer, “we didn’t have the support we needed to benefit from this.”
External Resources
As mentioned, sometimes using external resources could actually lead to a significantly greater ROI than relying exclusively on internal resources. This can mean everything from sourcing external consultants to do all of the design work for you, to reaching for easily customized, off-the-shelf solutions. An off-the-shelf solution, or program in a box, is often as good as or better than internally designed initiatives. This is of course contingent on the context (i.e. technical in nature, proprietary to the organization, focused on fundamental leadership or office efficiencies).
When looking at the “P”icture of the company, it’s important to know how ingrained in the culture these issues are. The next post will discuss expectations, leadership orientation, and what it means to be a learning organization. After that, “P”icture will move onto The Learner.
