Chapter 6
Developing Learning Interventions—Systems and Models
This chapter
reviews the definition of intervention and its cousins: solutions and performance enhancements
examines some effective learning systems models from a performance perspective
presents an information chart for each learning intervention system, which guides you in selecting and applying it
gives you the chance to try out one (or more if you wish) of these learning intervention systems and then to help your WLP team do the same thing.
Tools in this chapter include
information charts and job aids for developing five types of performance-based learning systems.
Interventions and Means to Eliminate Barriers
Up to this point, our focus has been on analysis—determining where the performance gaps lie, how they relate to business needs, how important it is to eliminate (or at least decrease) them, what factors affect them, and what to do about those factors. Please don't fear that the only thing you get to do is analyze, or that your clients will complain about analysis paralysis. The fact is that the front-end analysis—the diagnosis of the malady—is critical. A sloppy or hurried analysis can result in commitment to costly and not necessarily appropriate actions.
But now the call is to action! It's time to select and develop suitable interventions to address the performance problem. First, however, what is an intervention? In Training Ain't Performance (p. 110), we defined an intervention as “something specifically designed to bridge the gap between current and desired performance states. It can be complete unto itself or part of a basket of interventions. It is a deliberately conceived act or system that is strategically applied to produce intended performance results.” The definition also included the following important point: “An intervention can also include removal of an obstacle that prevents performance from occurring.”
So, for your purposes as a performance professional, you not only have to figure out what to create, but you also have to pinpoint practices, conditions, or barriers that require undoing. In some ways, eliminating time-honored practices, silo-mentalities, or “sacred cows” (usually the boss's favorite things) can be much more difficult than adding something new. Your analysis may point to the right solution (what should be done), but office politics can make the execution brutally difficult.
Speaking of solutions, that's a softer, friendlier way of saying interventions or barrier eliminations. If necessary, use the term solution or even performance enhancement to decrease the jargon threat. In your heart, however, know that intervention is what you do.
Worksheet 6-1 offers a brief list of intervention examples. To encourage your perusing them, we ask you to place a “C” beside those interventions that require you and/or others to create something and an “E” beside those that demand elimination of a performance obstacle.
Worksheet 6-1: Performance Intervention Examples—Add or Subtract?
Here are our answers: 1-C, 2-C, 3-E, 4-E, 5-E, 6-C, 7-E. In some instances, elimination of obstacles may require creation/development activities. For example, simplifying an existing procedure may require both an elimination of some wasteful elements and a rewriting of the procedure in its simplified state. The main point here is that both creating and eliminating are simply two aspects of the performance professional's intervention strategies.
Learning Interventions
In both Training Ain't Performance and this Fieldbook, we make the strong argument that there is a critical difference between training and performance. Training is a costly activity. Performance is a desired result—it's means (training) versus end (desired behavior and accomplishment). Having made our position clear, we now have to affirm that there are links between training and performance. Training is one of the many ways (that is, interventions) you can use to produce performance. It's appropriate if the main reason for lack of performance (either actual or planned) is skill or knowledge that is missing or insufficient.
Robert Mager, one of the most important pioneers in the performance field, has developed this test: “If you put a gun to their heads and they can't do it, then this is a skill and/or knowledge deficit and perhaps training is appropriate.” It's not a very pretty or friendly way to discern the problem and solution, but it's highly effective! If the performer truly doesn't know how to perform, then some kind of learning intervention may be necessary.
Training Versus Learning
There is a huge difference between training and learning. Simply put, training is a stimulus—something done to trigger a desired response (that is, learning). Training is always a cost. It requires an expenditure of effort and resources. Learning is a benefit (although some learning can be viewed as a detriment if you learn the wrong things). It is the gain that results from training.
But what if we could obtain learning without training? Wouldn't it be great to get the benefit without incurring the training cost? Do you think it can be done?
Yes
No
The answer is overwhelmingly “yes.” Training is only one of the means for triggering learning. In fact, most of what you have learned didn't result from some carefully designed program of deliberate activities administered to produce specific learning outcomes. By far, the human learner acquires most of his or her learning from life events that result in experiences. Even highly trained craftspeople reach expert levels of learned performance through practice, trial and error, reflection, experimentation, and informal feedback from many sources (for example, colleagues, managers, customers, the environment in which the process or product either works or doesn't, and most importantly from self-evaluation). Training certainly can help, as can other means for acquiring learning.
Table 6-1 lists and describes some effective and frequently used means for triggering and supporting learning beyond the classroom. We present them in overview.
Table 6-1. Learning Interventions
The learning interventions in Table 6-1 are far from a complete listing of possibilities. They are an indicative sampling of the many options to which you as a performance professional can turn to “intervene” when knowledge and/or skills are lacking. Many of the alternatives listed are less expensive than designing, developing, and delivering a training program live or in an e-learning version. They can be selected and adapted rapidly in many cases. Others, such as simulations/simulators or Webcasts are often costly and take a long time to implement. However, there are times when these learning options are worth the investment, especially in areas of high risk or major corporate change. For example, a number of subway systems (Paris, New York, Montreal) have highly sophisticated simulators for their subway train operators. These simulators can reproduce a wide range of emergency situations and are necessary to build and maintain emergency-handling skills. The frontend analysis and return-on-investment (ROI) calculations (chapter 10 in Training Ain't Performance) will help you decide whether to make the investment.
An Activity for You
Select a training program in your organization with which you are familiar. Conduct an informal after-the-fact front-end analysis on the performance gap that generated this training program. Given that there was a skill/knowledge gap and that new knowledge and/or skills had to be acquired, scan the menu of entries in Table 6-1 and select one of these as an attractive alternative to whatever actually was done. Compare the existing training choice with the learning option you selected along the dimensions listed in Worksheet 6-2, Comparing Learning Interventions. For each dimension, informally decide which one is the better of the two. (Note: In judging individual and organizational acceptability, think not only of short-term resistance to change, but also of long-term acceptability if the intervention produces the desired results.)
Worksheet 6-2: Comparing Learning Interventions
An Activity for Your WLP Team
With your team, conduct a discussion not only of the alternative learning interventions in Table 6-1, but also of others that your colleagues suggest. Then have the team break into subgroups (if there are enough people), choose an existing training program, and do the following:
1. Backtrack to conduct a rapid, informal front-end analysis to determine whether the original performance gap resulted from a lack of skills/ knowledge.
2. If so, instruct each team to select an attractive alternative from the Table 6-1 list, augmented by their contributions.
3. Have each team use Worksheet 6-2 to compare the actual (original) training programs with their selected alternative choices.
4. Debrief the exercise, first one team at a time, then all together. Draw conclusions and suggest actions going forward.
Some Effective Learning Systems Models
Now we “up the ante,” as they say in betting games. We raise the learning intervention stakes by turning our attention to whole learning systems, some of which are rarely used although they have demonstrated effectiveness. We're not certain why some beneficial systems aren't used more frequently, but our experience tells us that many people in the learning and performance world either don't know about them, don't know how to develop and implement them, or simply are fearful of rocking the boat.
The fact that you are reading this Fieldbook(and, we hope, doing the activities) sets you apart. You're not fearful and, with the right assistance, you are willing to try something if it appears to have a high probability of success.
Here are five (of many) learning systems that have stood the test of time and have demonstrated effectiveness. Several of these were briefly introduced in Training Ain't Performance(pp. 113-116): natural experience, experiential learning, and structured on-the-job training (SOJT). The other two, learner-controlled instruction and individual developmental plans, are new additions. For each of these learning systems models, we have created an information chart that can familiarize you with them and help you try them out.
Natural Experience
What is it?
As its name suggests, this “system” is as close to the way we naturally learn as possible. The twist is that the placement and general set of natural experiences the learner will acquire are, to a large extent, planned.
The individual learner or group of learners is placed in the natural environment. Learners become part of the work or usual participant group (for example, railway office staff who normally process purchase requisitions from the operations workers are given hardhats, steel-tipped boots, and appropriate clothing and are placed in the “yard” or on the line to work with the regular work shifts; police are placed in shelters for the homeless for two weeks as shelter employees).
Learning takes place in the real environment.
The learner learns through real-life, trial-and-error events and is treated as much as possible like the real worker, inmate, victim, counterperson, or whatever role she or he is assigned—no privileges.
To the extent possible, learners share the same conditions as the “real people” for the duration of the natural experience.
With whom can it be used?
It is best used with people who will have to deal with those whose jobs, conditions, or backgrounds are considerably different from their own. Generally this includes managers or professionals whose work requires them to understand people with whom they'll be working or whom they'll be serving or managing.
It is also effective for preparing personnel who will be expected to function well in new contexts or cultures.
This can be effective as a prior step to full hiring and/or training. By spending several days or a week working in the district compound of a natural gas company, a few days in a call center, or a month in a shelter for battered victims, the learners acquire mental models of the job, conditions, and context. They decide whether the job fits them. It also provides an experiential base that makes subsequent training more meaningful.
Natural experience is appropriate in crosstraining situations: sales personnel spend time working in the distribution center and distribution personnel spend time working with the sales group, experiencing customer interface and competitive pressures.
Natural experience is also appropriate for management personnel who have not spent time “in the ranks” doing the front-line jobs.
For what type of content can it be used?
It is best used to acquire “life” experiences, as opposed to technical or specialized content knowledge.
Natural experience, as a learning intervention strategy, is best applied for acquiring knowledge of and ability to perform within unfamiliar contexts; under conditions dramatically different from those with which the learner is familiar; and frequently with people whose backgrounds, habits, and culture are very different from the known.
This is a learning system that offers emotional dimensions. It is particularly effective where attitudes require re-examination and realignment with respect to a group of people or a work/social/cultural/linguistic/geographic context.
The focus should be on social/cultural learning more than technical knowledge and skills acquisition although these may be acquired through natural experience (for example, learning how to adjust locomotive airbrakes while working in the railway yard; serving customers in a restaurant while learning what it is to be “in the hospitality business”).
Learners can become familiar with the language and rudiments of a job if the natural experience is an initial exposure to a position.
What are the components?
Because natural experience is natural, there are few “components” required. The main component is the natural setting.
Appropriate clothing, tools, and materials for the setting are needed.
Adequate time is needed to enable the learner to become used to the setting and able to function at a survival level within it, and to begin performing in some useful way.
A daily journal to record events, learning, and reflections can be helpful.
How does it work?
The learner is assessed to ensure that he or she possesses sufficient capability (physical, mental, emotional) to benefit from the natural experience.
The learner is provided with a set of general objectives—a purpose—for participating in the experience. This includes some form of anticipated outcomes, such as a general mental model of the environment and people operating within it, an appreciation of the realities of the environment and people, a basic set of coping skills, a set of new concepts and vocabulary terms, and possibly an enthusiasm for making a positive contribution to improve the context or for functioning positively within it.
The environment for the natural experience is prepared to receive the learner. Co-workers and supervisors should know the primary reason why the learner is being placed in their environment.
If necessary, the learner is briefed prior to the experience.
The learner enters the environment and tries to function within it.
During the experience, the learner not only acts to survive and contribute in a “natural manner,” but also reflects on her or his experience there.
At the end of the specified time period, the learner leaves the natural experience environment to return to his or her usual position, or is given additional training and returns to the natural experience setting for ongoing seasoning.
What are the advantages?
Natural experience is the real thing and, as such, it gives learners an opportunity to deal with the world as it is.
A dose of reality has a dramatic impact on learners. It can markedly alter attitudes and perceptions.
This type of experience can create a clear portrait of a job or work situation for learners and thus increase the meaningfulness and effect of subsequent training.
Natural experience requires the learner to act naturally. This permits the learner to assess whether this is the right job for her or him. It also permits the organization (or an educational institution) to determine whether a person possesses the right stuff for the work.
The cost of designing natural experience is generally very low.
What are the disadvantages?
It is a time-consuming means of learning. Given that a learner has to have sufficient time to orient himself or herself to new surroundings and people, adapt to these, and then try to act in a useful manner, adequate time must be allocated to make the experience worthwhile.
If the natural experience is very different from the world that the learner knows, she or he can be traumatized by the experience, with consequent negative results.
Both learner and receiving environment require some preparation, and this may decrease the naturalness of the experience.
If not exploited soon afterward, the value of the natural experience fades.
Natural means that there is a lack of predictability in outcomes. Negative learning may result (for example, unsafe ways of doing things, ways to get around the system, inefficient behaviors, or unproductive attitudes).
What resources are required?
Personnel:
• a performance consultant, managers and specialists to determine what the natural experience should be, its objectives, length of time, and how the experience and learner should be assessed
• an administrative person to set up the mechanics of the experience
• a training professional to monitor and track progress
• a host to welcome and orient the learners.
Time:
• time to design and develop the objectives, process, and procedures for the natural experience
• time to prepare all parties involved
• administrative and trainer time to prepare, run, and monitor the experience and the learners
• learner time
• debriefing time.
Costs:
• minimal costs because this is a natural experience
• personnel and, in some cases, lost opportunity costs.
What are some examples?
Internships
Field placements
Practica
Assignment to a team or task force
Temporary job placement
Duty rotation
Field placement prior to new-hire training.
Experiential Learning
What is it?
This is a method or system for building learning through doing and reflection.
Experiential learning is very similar to natural experience. However, the individual or group also participates in structured debriefing sessions.
Not only do learners experience either the real thing or a psychologically realistic simulation, but they then reflect on the experience encountered in a structured manner, drawing conclusions or planning new courses of action.
With whom can it be used?
Although it can be used with any learner, including young children, it is best applied in the workplace with learners who have not experienced certain events or situations, but who require such experience to better perform in their jobs (for example, new supervisors, managers who will be negotiating contracts, new instructors).
People who know the theory of complex interactions (physical, social, or social-physical) but have never experienced the real thing can benefit from this system of learning.
For what type of content can it be used?
It is most suited for content that involves complex interactions—mostly of a social nature (although operating equipment in an emergency context would also qualify).
Defined content is best. Unlike natural experience in which the learner may encounter a variety of events, sometimes in random fashion, experiential learning usually works best with specified content (for example, handling an awkward negotiation or experiencing how it feels to be a disabled person traveling on a subway).
This works well for content that fits into a professional course of study (for example, an internship or structured practicum in a hospital for a social worker) and requires real or realistic activity as well as structured reflection.
What are the components?
Essentially there are two main components: the experiential activity and the structured debriefing.
The experiential activity is one that is planned and designed to enable learners to engage in real-world or real-world-like situations. It can be of any duration, but usually has a defined time limit. During the activity the person gets to do what is required in real life and to feel the same emotions that the real thing would generate (for example, going to a subway station in a wheelchair and navigating from a starting point to a distant destination; preparing and delivering a lesson on a specified content topic to a group of learners).
The structured debriefing and reflection phase is conducted by a trained and proficient facilitator who elicits from the learner what occurred, why events transpired, what the implications are, how this affects performers and performance in the real world, what conclusions can be drawn, and what changes or actions the learner will take going forward.
Other components include journals, printed questions for reflection, and equipment/materials that are typically required for the activity.
How does it work?
Generally a job or work requirement analysis is conducted to determine those experiences that are essential to a person's functioning well in the job. Examples of these might be counseling a poor performer, hiring the right person for a key job, presenting the organization's position at a press conference, or making critical decisions and resolving issues under high pressure or emergency conditions.
For each identified experience, a situation is designed or is identified in the real-world context.
The learner is placed in the activity and acts naturally.
There may be a number of activities of variable lengths and conditions, depending on the nature of the job and/or expectation.
At the conclusion of the activity, the learner is drawn through a structured debriefing designed to help build her or his understanding of what occurred during the activity and what courses of action are best suited to the circumstances.
The learner draws conclusions about his or her experiences, makes decisions about future conduct, and either continues with new experiential activities or repeats the experience for practice and additional insights.
What are the advantages?
Compared to natural experience, the main advantages of experiential learning are shorter time requirements for each activity; greater control over process and outcomes; lower risk/threat; guided discussion and reflection on experiences, including drawing out of principles and conclusions; and ability to re-experience under controlled conditions.
Compared with more traditional learning systems, experiential learning requires actual doing under real or realistic conditions. The affective dimension is much greater than in conventional systems. Reflection and conclusions are based on actual rather than imagined experience.
Learning can build through a series of experiences and structured thought.
The system is a highly engaging approach to learning and, when integrated with other systems, adds depth to the learning process.
What are the disadvantages?
Experiential learning is not as “real” as natural experience. It's more deliberate and thought out.
Experiential learning consumes time and resources.
This is not a strong method for acquiring technical or other forms of declarative knowledge.
As with natural experience, despite structured debriefings there is some uncertainty about learning outcomes.
What resources are required?
Personnel:
• an instructional designer to identify appropriate experiences and design the activities and debriefings
• a content/subject matter expert to ensure that the activities are valid and authentic
• an expert facilitator for the structured reflection-debriefing (this person also may be the content expert).
Time:
• experiential activities development time
• administrative time to organize activities
• subject matter expert and facilitator time to validate the activities and develop the debriefing questions
• learner time
• debriefing time.
Costs:
• activity and debriefing development costs
• personnel costs for administrating and monitoring experiential learning activities.
What are some examples?
Structured practica with debriefing sessions
Structured and mentored internships
Field placement with coaching
On-the-job practice and work sessions with debriefings
Supervised transitional work settings following training
Practice teaching with observation/recording and debriefing.
Structured On-the-Job Training
What is it?
SOJT is traditional on-the-job training (OJT) (apprenticeship, tutoring, mentoring) with structure built in to increase efficiency and effectiveness.
It is a means of organizing and assisting personnel who provide OJT to help them train according to a prescribed plan.
It is a method to ensure consistency in receiving OJT experiences, regardless of where or with whom the trainee is placed. This is a key characteristic of SOJT.
SOJT provides a system with generic models for OJT for various positions, but it allows for adaptation to individual locations and trainees—structure plus flexibility.
SOJT gives employee-trainees an overall view of the job as defined by the tasks that compose it. In this respect, SOJT is both organized and comprehensive.
SOJT includes a means not only for structuring OJT experiences, but also for evaluating trainee progress and trainer effectiveness. A well-planned SOJT system includes trainee self-evaluations, trainer evaluations of trainee performance, and more formal mechanisms for certifying performance capability.
With whom can it be used?
It is applicable to any training population.
It is most frequently used with nonmanagement and lower-level supervisory personnel and specialists (for example, cashiers, counterpeople, salespeople, account representatives, and plant workers).
SOJT is often used with entry-level positions where volume and/or turnover is high or where only one person or very few people require training at the same time.
For what type of content can it be used?
It is typically used for well-designed procedural and technical tasks, and not for tasks at higher decision-making, problem-solving levels.
It is particularly useful with skills/knowledge that can be easily demonstrated by master performer employees (for example, filling out orders, taking inventory, tracking shipments, or handling cash).
What are the components?
SOJT requires a series of task listings for each position, organized by major area of responsibility, usually in the form of checklists.
Frequently there is a manager's guide explaining how to organize an SOJT plan (including how to make local adaptations), monitor its implementation, and evaluate progress.
There is always a trainer's manual containing guidelines on effective SOJT techniques, instruction on how to use the task lists as a training mechanism, and methods for guiding and evaluating the trainee. The model used most often is one based on “teach-prompt-release.”
There is also always a trainee manual that defines the job in terms of responsibilities and tasks and helps monitor personal progress. This guide also explains the role and responsibilities of the trainee as a learner. Usually this trainee's guide contains a progress map or chart.
How does it work?
The manager, with trainee assistance, creates a training plan based on job needs and trainee background and experience, using the generic task lists for the job. The manager customizes these task lists to meet local needs. A performance professional and/or instructional designer can be very helpful here.
The manager assigns specific experienced employees to act as structured on-the-job trainers for the various parts of the plan. Generally the selected experienced employees receive some form of training to prepare them to deliver the structured training.
The manager distributes manuals and appropriate task lists to trainers.
The manager orients the trainee to the training system, introduces him or her to the trainers, and explains both the trainee's role in the process and the manager's expectations. The manager also gives the trainee a structured OJT learning guide and progress checklist.
The trainee follows the training plan, moving from trainer to trainer until she or he demonstrates competency in all SOJT tasks. The trainee self-evaluates. The SOJT trainers also evaluate trainee performance using evaluation checklists, and they provide feedback to the trainee.
The trainee and manager meet to review training experiences and evaluate readiness for permanent job assignment. This step may include a formal certifying of performance capability.
What are the advantages?
SOJT is extremely flexible and is easily adapted to local circumstances.
This training can be implemented at any time with any number of employees.
This system is similar enough to traditional OJT to be easily accepted by managers, experienced employees, and trainees.
The structure increases consistency of OJT from trainee to trainee.
The system makes OJT more efficient.
The trainee remains on the job during training, thus reducing costs.
The generic task lists help managers create basic plans that allow for adaptation.
Training in this system is the job itself.
Trainees interact and work with a number of employees who serve as role models.
Trainees obtain an overall sense of the job in a structured manner.
The system enables the manager to assess trainee strengths and weaknesses in a structured fashion.
Design and production costs of training materials are relatively low, compared with most other training methods.
What are the disadvantages?
It requires thorough job analyses for all SOJT positions.
It requires careful and systematic pilot-testing prior to implementation.
It requires involving a number of personnel to perform training and management tasks, thus causing a bit of a personnel drain.
Because it is entirely local in its administration, it is difficult to track and control. (In some instances, however, the WLP group can become involved and build in tracking mechanisms.)
Its application is limited to situations in which master performers are on location and available to train.
What resources are required?
Personnel:
• competent SOJT designers
• managers to help with job analyses and monitor trainee progress
• master performer employees to act as SOJT trainers.
Time:
• lengthy job analysis time
• adequate lead time to validate each SOJT “package”
• manager and trainer-employee time
• trainee learning time.
Costs:
• heavy analysis and validation costs
• minimal production costs
• minimal delivery costs
• manager, trainer, and trainee salaries, plus lost opportunity costs for SOJT trainers whose work may suffer as a result of trainee-guidance responsibilities.
What are some examples?
Training in a manufacturing setting that receives only a few new hires each year
Call centers that continuously receive new hires
Supermarkets that continuously receive part-time employees
Distribution center workers who are occasionally brought onboard
Fast-food operations.
Learner-Controlled Instruction
What is it?
Learner-controlled instruction (LCI) is a learning system and a strategy that shifts power from instructor to learner. In contrast to traditional training systems where the instructor establishes the content, controls the sequences, selects the media and presentation mechanisms, and assumes responsibility for evaluating learning achievement, in LCI the power and control over these factors and the responsibility for learning are delegated to the learner.
This is a system in which the individual learner/trainee selects from a variety of resources to acquire skills/knowledge and to demonstrate competence.
Although learners control the pacing, sequencing, and choice of learning resources, delegation of instructional control is constrained by three factors:
1. the variety of content and informational sources made available
2. a designer, with expert input, who states the objectives that the learner must achieve
3. tools for measuring knowledge/skill acquisition that are created by people experienced in the content areas with the assistance of learning, performance, or evaluation professionals.
With whom can it be used?
LCI is best applied to professional, supervisory, and management positions (for example, retail store managers, sales and insurance representatives, general managers).
It works best with autonomous learners who have some measure of control over decision making in their jobs (it's not good for training infantry foot soldiers or performers of repetitive tasks).
It is particularly useful for geographically dispersed populations.
LCI has advantages with heterogeneous populations—people who come into a job position with very diverse mastery levels.
One of the major virtues of LCI is that it accommodates trainees entering at any time—no groups or classes are required (although classes on a particular relevant topic can be included as resources for learning).
It is often used with learners who will be assigned to a location other than where they are learning the job.
For what type of content can it be used?
LCI is best used for higher-level skills, particularly those in which decision making plays a major role.
It is very appropriate for management and professional practice content.
What are the components?
LCI requires a set of overall objectives.
A set of detailed specific performance objectives for which the learner must demonstrate mastery at the end of training is also needed. Often there is a “review board” that verifies this mastery.
For each specific objective, LCI provides one or more learning experiences consisting of
• the objective
• a description of the activity
• a measurement device for assessing proficiency (both by the learner and by a qualified third party)
• a standard of acceptable performance
• a description of learning resources
• a time plan for accomplishing the learning.
An administrative manual for the trainee is needed to explain how the system works.
A “box” of resources (for example, training booklets, procedural write-ups, articles, videos, audiotapes, online courses, Websites to visit, a case database) should be provided.
A real-world environment (for example, a training electronics dealership) in which the learner completes the learning activities and demonstrates competencies should be provided. In many cases, certain locations are identified as exemplary or training locations. The manager and key staff in those locations are trained to facilitate LCI and to act as mentors or guides.
A management system is required for tracking and monitoring learner progress and environmental constraints.
There should be a system for providing assistance and reinforcement contact to trainees.
An evaluation system is required for certifying that the learner has mastered all the tasks and can either assume the assigned role or receive further seasoning prior to final assignment.
How does LCI work?
Trainees go through a preassessment to determine their learning needs.
Based on individual learning needs, the trainee selects specific learning objectives to complete and schedules their completion.
The trainee consults with a training administrator to verify and adjust the training plan. In some cases there is a local mentor who assists.
The learner completes each appropriate learning experience related to the objective, accessing appropriate resources, demonstrating and assessing his or her skill, and accessing additional resources for remediation as appropriate.
Skill levels are determined through self-assessment, environmental feedback, and/or expert verification, often via a local mentor. Learners collect evidence of results.
Periodically the training administrator meets with the learner to monitor progress and deal with environmental constraints or identify additional learning resources.
The learner, usually with the help of a mentor, determines when she or he is ready to be a “candidate for graduation” based on her or his assessment of learning progress and the assessment of the mentor. The training administrator consults with the learner and others on readiness.
A team of appropriate people capable of assessing the learner's competency is assembled and drills the candidate, using prepared guidelines. The purpose of this drill is to determine whether the learner is ready to move to an operational position.
Successful candidates graduate and become available for the job for which they have trained.
Unsuccessful candidates or those requiring more seasoning are required to engage in further learning activities until ready for re-examination.
What are the advantages?
The LCI system is extremely efficient because the focus is on results rather than learning activities. Learners can progress very rapidly (for example, one company reduced learning time from 52 weeks of OJT to, on average, 6 weeks of LCI).
There is no waiting for classes because the learner operates independently and can begin training at any time.
Learning can be conducted anywhere there is access to a real-world environment. Learning activities can include taking field trips, analyzing competitive practices, reading, practicing, attending courses, or even performing operational tasks.
Training focuses only on what is needed for each individual.
Training is very close to the job itself.
The system does not drain personnel resources because these are tapped only as needed.
The trainee learns to select his or her own resources, manage time, evaluate personal results through concrete evidence, and determine readiness to terminate training (often with consultation)—all of which leads to developing an autonomous self-starter. The process of LCI, in addition to the content, helps build independent managers and professionals.
The training environment benefits from what the trainee learns about it and what she or he can contribute to improve it.
What are the disadvantages?
A well-functioning LCI program requires people skilled at designing such a system, and lengthy design time.
It requires a broad variety of resources.
It demands careful and systematic testing and validation of the system.
There must be total buy-in by all levels of management. Independent learners, even when placed in a planned environment, can cause some fear among those not used to “learner control.”
LCI often results in nonautonomous candidates washing out early (which may also be an advantage).
What resources are required?
Personnel:
• competent LCI designer
• training administrators who track learner progress
• people within the training environment to act as resources and evaluators
• additional people to constitute evaluation teams.
Time:
• lengthy job analysis and considerable design time
• adequate lead time to validate the system
• learner time, during which learners are removed from their own immediate work environments and job responsibilities to pursue training (an average LCI program runs 6 to 12 weeks, but usually is shorter than traditional learning systems).
Costs:
• heavy analysis, design, and validation costs
• minimal production and delivery costs
• costs for resources and materials
• personnel salaries and lost opportunity costs.
What are some examples?
Supermarket manager program
Mega-bookstore manager program
Buyer training program for a fashion store chain
Patent analyst program for a government agency
Project manager development program to transform high-tech specialists into project managers.
Individual Development Plan
What is it?
An individual development plan (IDP) is an organized and detailed training and learning plan.
There are two major types of IDPs, each one very different from the other:
• In a person-oriented IDP, an individual is assessed in terms of his or her career potential, diagnosed for training and development needs, and prescribed a customized plan generally containing two or three areas for development per year. The purpose is to build performance capability continuously in a person deemed able to steadily increase her or his value to the organization.
• A position-oriented IDP is based on an analysis of the skills, knowledge, experiences, and attitudes required for a specific position. People selected for the position are provided with an array of competencies they should acquire, activities they should participate in, and resources that are available. The IDP is adjusted to the background and characteristics of the individual. The purpose in this instance is to enhance performance capabilities until each person in the targeted position is fully functional and capable of peak performance.
With an IDP created for a specific person, that person is almost entirely accountable for executing the plan, although there is some sharing of responsibility with the supervisor and, in some cases, a performance professional.
In the person-oriented IDP, planning generally covers a period equal to a full performance appraisal cycle (for example, one year). In the position-oriented case, timelines are negotiated.
In all cases the IDP is a carefully conceived and documented plan that guides the individual through a series of learning experiences that result in increased competencies and confidence to perform.
With whom can it be used?
Although it can be used with any population, it is generally used for training and development of management or key professional personnel.
It is especially useful for one-of-a-kind positions (such as chief executive officer, vice president of advertising, general manager, senior project director, or performance consultant).
For what type of content can it be used?
IDP can include content for any aspect of a job for which resources (including people, documents, and events) can be identified and accessed by the individual (for example, creating displays, analyzing turnover, and handling employee grievances).
In the person-oriented IDP, management topics (such as time and stress management or making presentations) or personal growth skill areas (such as leadership or interpersonal skills) are likely to be included.
The position-oriented IDP tends to focus more on training content (for example, front-end analysis, evaluation); the person-oriented one essentially leans toward development topics that lead to directly applicable performance.
What are the components?
Person-oriented IDP:
• a manager's guide explaining her or his role in creating IDPs for employees and how to do it
• an employee's guide explaining his or her role and responsibility in developing and carrying out the IDP
• a set of IDP forms or worksheets for documenting the plan
• resource lists (such as company course catalog, organization charts)
• a means for verifying performance capability.
Position-oriented IDP:
• a manager's guide explaining her or his role in adapting a generic IDP model to individual needs/characteristics and organizational requirements
• an employee's guide that explains his or her role and responsibilities in adapting the generic IDP and in carrying it out
• generic IDP models for specific job positions that include
— areas of responsibility
— learning experiences that relate to each area of responsibility
— resources that relate to each area of responsibility
— recommended/average learning time for each area of responsibility
— spaces for making adaptations, entering specific timelines, and adding additional relevant resources
— some means for verifying or demonstrating performance capability.
How does it work?
Person-oriented IDP:
• During the appraisal or assessment process, specific development areas are identified jointly by manager and employee.
• Following procedures from the manager's guide, the manager creates an IDP for the employee with the employee's input and agreement. Performance professionals can assist here.
• Specific checkpoints or milestones are established.
• The employee executes the plan with the manager's support.
• At established checkpoints, the manager and employee meet to evaluate progress and make needed adaptations.
• At the end of the appraisal or some other specific period, both the employee and manager critique the end result and determine if development in prescribed areas is sufficient or if further work is required. It is useful to have data or artifacts that provide evidence of performance capability.
• A new IDP is developed for the individual, which may or may not contain elements of the previous plan.
Position-oriented IDP:
• Upon appointment to the position (or when promotion to a position has been decided), the manager and employee meet to discuss the IDP strategy, adapt the generic plan, establish timelines, and add resources.
• The employee executes the plan and issues periodic (for example, monthly) progress reports to the manager. These include evidence of performance capability.
• The employee and manager meet as needed to adapt the plan, make other required resources available, and interact as trainee and resource person/subject matter expert. This process continues until all areas of responsibility in the plan have been accomplished and performance capability concretely documented.
• At completion of the IDP, the employee and manager meet to debrief and evaluate performance to date. An outcome of this meeting may be a prescription for additional development in particular areas.
What are the advantages?
Both types of the IDPs focus specifically on individual development needs. There is very little extraneous activity in the plan. It is a tailored, customized plan.
Manager and employee monitor progress closely. They have opportunities to interact productively, which helps develop their relationship.
Activities and resources are job related and rarely involve travel, except for specifically selected events (such as a seminar or conference, an off-site visit, or lunch with a specialist).
The employee learns while performing on the job.
There is room for adjustment along the way.
In the person-oriented IDP, every employee reporting to a manager can be working simultaneously on his or her own IDP.
In the position-oriented IDP, there is no lag time between job entry and training, so unproductive startup time is reduced.
Because the IDP is created with both the individual's characteristics and the organization's needs in mind, all activities are relevant.
Other than occasional consultation and assistance from a performance professional or human resource specialist, the training and development of the individual resides essentially with the employee and manager.
The IDP is performance based and evidence driven.
What are the disadvantages?
Because it is individualized, some of the peer sharing that occurs in group training is not present.
It is a long-term training and development strategy, and does not respond to immediate skill/knowledge needs when something urgent occurs.
The content and activities of the IDP components are not as structured as in a usual training program. Self-selection of experiences can lead to omissions.
It does not work well with employees who are not self-starters or who are constantly overworked.
It is demanding of a manager's time—particularly with the position-oriented IDP.
Because employees perform on the job while carrying out their IDPs, task interference can occur and prevent on-time plan completion.
There are no formal testing components to measure true competency attainment. The bottom line is the performance outcome.
What resources are required?
Personnel:
• competent IDP developers and job analysts (for position-oriented IDPs) to define the key behaviors and accomplishments required of the position
• manager or, in the case of senior managers or executives, a personal coach or counselor
• learner-employee
• some human resource department or performance professional assistance.
Time:
• fairly heavy IDP system development time
• heavy job analysis, and activity and resource identification time
• manager and trainee time—a commitment to a predetermined number of employee days is essential.
Costs:
• relatively high IDP system development costs
• relatively high job analysis, and activity and resource identification costs
• manager, coach, counselor, and employee-trainee salary costs
• resource costs (for example, attendance at seminars, off-site visits, book purchases).
What are some examples?
An IDP for the new head of the legal department who has not had industry experience
An IDP for a new Supreme Court justice who has never been a judge
IDPs for performance consultants transitioning from essentially training-driven environments
A highly individualized plan for a marketing executive promoted to the senior management team
IDPs for business consultants coming from industry into a government agency.
Summarizing Learning Systems
All of the preceding learning systems have their place in the ever-expanding toolkit of the performance professional. We have found variations of all of these in many of the workplace settings we've visited over the years. Only rarely, however, have we found enlightened WLP teams with repertoires of learning systems from which they systematically make appropriate selections to match a given performance need.
To close this discussion of learning systems, Table 6-2, A Comparison of Learning Systems, synthesizes what we have presented. Review it and use the table when you select and implement an appropriate, effective learning system for your next project.
An Activity for You
Select one of the learning systems and deepen your knowledge of it. We provide some relevant resources as a starting point at the back of this Fieldbook. Hunt for others on your own. Also try to find people and organizations that have applied the system you've selected. Write to www.astd.org or www.ispi.org (the International Society for Performance Improvement's Website) and ask if anyone can provide assistance based on their experiences. Gather information and, if possible, examples of the learning system's application. Build up a file of information and resources pertinent to this system.
Table 6-2. A Comparison of Learning Systems
An Activity for Your WLP Team
Share with your team the information you have gathered about your chosen learning system. Discuss its applicability to your organization. Together, develop a plan to implement and monitor this learning system. Ask team members to choose the specific roles they will assume in the project. Collect process and outcome data about the learning system and its utility within your environment.
Appendix B in this Fieldbook provides a brief description of an SOJT project one of the authors helped conduct at a brewery in a developing nation. Not only does it describe the project in overview, but it also presents solid evidence of its usefulness in the work context.
Chapter Summary
This was a lengthy chapter because it provided you and your WLP team with many learning interventions, all aimed at improving human performance by helping build required skills, knowledge, experience, and productive attitudes. Look at everything you did:
You learned to discriminate between two types of performance interventions—one in which you create something and one in which you eliminate a barrier.
You gathered more detail on a number of learning interventions, the purpose of which is to increase the individual's skill, knowledge, and experience base to promote greater performance capability. During this process you differentiated between training (the stimulus) and learning (the response).
You and your team were encouraged to conduct an after-the-fact front-end analysis of a performance gap already addressed in your organization. You selected an alternative, attractive intervention and compared it with what was actually done.
You studied five learning systems that are effective, but less frequently applied as performance interventions.
After exploring these learning systems, you were encouraged to research one and, with your WLP team, create a project and monitor an example of it in your organization.
You have crossed a huge amount of learning intervention terrain. Now, you're ready to step beyond learning. The next chapter opens up an in-depth examination of an often-used non-learning intervention: performance or job aids.