I'm still spending some time thinking about "on demand" as it might apply in a large organization and in a job skill training setting. I've also been thinking about the ideas in my November post below regarding the need to be a heretic if innovation is what you seek. Those who subscribe to the doctrine of whatever it is they are working with are not likely to lead a breakthrough.
What are the training truths about skills-based training that we all know to be true that, in fact, might be holding us back? The ones related to on demand training include some of these...
· Skill training is best done in groups. You gain economies of scale and interactions within a group are more meaningful and add to the training experience.
· One-on-one training is too expensive to be feasible.
· The social experience of the learner is critical to the development of the learner as a new employee.
· A trained instructor or trainer is critical to the effective transference of skills.
Well, that is a start. How does the heretic respond? Let's look at each one for a moment.
Is a group necessary? Is the reason we use groups because it is the most effective training venue or is it because it is what we're used to and what we believe we understand? Do we really gain efficiencies by having a class member who comes to us with some experience "throttle back" to allow the total newbie to catch up? What are the opportunity costs lost for the one who could be producing but isn't because the group can't keep up? Are the conversations and instructor interactions so important that they can't happen in some other way? Can pod casts on various topics or recorded interactions or session snippets not accomplish much of the same thing? Are there really that many unique questions that come up class after class or are they simply variations on a theme that can be captured? Do we like to rely on the instructor as a crutch to cove "the unknowns" regarding the training, only to discover the unknowns are really just the "I'm too busy to plan fors?" Do we insist on groups because it is most effective or because we have to justify the expensive training facilities we've invested in?
Is training an individual too expensive or is it too expensive when we try to train individuals the same way we train groups? Is the expense inherent in the concept or simply in the way we chose to execute it. Does focus on the content prevent focus on the learning thus blinding us to other alternatives? Does the need to control the experience drive processes or procedures that unnecessarily drive up cost?
What is the real value of the social component of group-based learning. Do we know? Can we accomplish that goal some other way? Does the group have to be other students? Do the social components have to occur within the context of the curriculum? Can planned interactions with incumbent employee groups meet that need. Are we fearful of those because we might "lose control." Do the single learners get bored because they are working alone or because we have boring instruction? Do we know how to design individual learning activities? Would we have to learn how to do something differently?
Is a trained instructor really critical to the transference of skills? Is the answer "yes" because we are or manage trained instructors? Was your dad or mom a trained instructor when you learned to ride a bike or drive the family car? Is the best place for the learning professional in the front of the class or involved some other way in the learning process?
Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Heretic! Heretic! Or, maybe just crackpot. Hmmmm....
