The Future of Induction Training

Last week, I suggested that nearly 80% of the $200 billion spent on training is wasted. That's because one-time training "events" rarely stick with the learner. As a result, I recommended following the 70/20/10 model:

• 70% of learning is informal, on-the-job performance support such as knowledgebases and job aids.
• 20% of learning happens through feedback and communication with clients/colleagues.
• 10% of learning takes place during formal courses.

A reader responded that it's important to acknowledge, however, the role of on-boarding and technical skills training. 

Good point. But I'm not sure I agree. Many of the technical skills we use daily were learned on the fly - you might ask a colleague to show you something, head out to YouTube to find step-by-step instructions, resort to using the Help function, or even use Aurasma's amazing augmented reality (http://bit.ly/P7De0S. Be amazed by the cables going into the router).

As for formal induction training, I think it's time to start thinking about its future. What would it look like if it were mobile, pull-instead-of-push, focused on young workers just entering the workforce, and not a one-time event but an on-going performance support system? I think it would look something like this:



Brian is the Practice Leader of Workforce Performance at virtualwirks. He applies the efficiencies of virtualization to training and human performance programs for global clients.

6 Steps to Avoid Training Failure

I got curious about how much single-event formal training actually works. Turns out, not much. That's why I focus most of my attention on on-the-job performance support and informal learning. The result is typically lower costs and better performance. Here are the six main steps I usually follow:

6 Steps to Avoid Training Failures | Infographics

virtualwirks. Applying the efficiencies of virtualization to training and human performance programs for global clients.

Training is a Bicycle

Which gets you where you're going faster and more stably - a unicycle or a bicycle? The one with two wheels, right? Of course.

With that in mind, think of the training programs you build - are they bicycles? 

• The back wheel is the training you build to establish performance; the kind of training you'd give to newly hired employees who don't know what they're doing. 
• The front wheel is the support you give to established employees to continually improve performance. 
• The frame that holds the bike together is the training you give to supervisors so the front wheel doesn't fall off.
• The handlebars are the stakeholders who use their vision to steer the bicycle toward business goals.
• The speedometer is continuous evaluation of the training program and its parts; evaluation tells you how your training program is doing. If it's not going as well as you'd like, maybe you need to upgrade some of the parts of your bike, or maintain them better.

The beauty of this bicycle analogy is that it sets up an explanation of "blended learning" perfectly. A blended learning program might use a virtual classroom as the hub of the back wheel. From this hub come the spokes - you might have learners go off to complete some e-learning, watch videos, complete workbooks, or go through simulations before returning to the virtual classroom. 

Supervisor training - the frame - uses a variety of media to prepare supervisors to be great coaches, mentors, and technical experts.

The hub of the front wheel is overall performance support - anything that helps people do their jobs better. The spokes are on-the-job-training, coaching, knowledgebases, feedback, performance reviews, up-skilling, job aids, and so on: performance-enhancing "drugs" that are totally legal.

So the question is are you guilty of building just the back wheel or just the front wheel? If so, is it any wonder that your training program crashes; in other words, doesn't influence on-the-job performance in the long run? (Of course, you probably don't know whether the program has crashed - you've only built a wheel, you've ignored the speedometer.)

Check out my visual depiction of this bicycle concept at http://bit.ly/VPJMKR

Brian is the Practice Leader of Workforce Performance at virtualwirks. He applies the efficiencies of virtualization to training and human performance programs for global clients.

Are you a Training Hero or Goat?

When you cut the "fluff" out of training programs, you're a hero if you work in an internal training department. You save money, time and frustration (it should go without saying that you have to deliver at least the same level of on-the-job performance from the students). But you're a goat if you work for an outsourcer training development company and you cut the fluff. After all, your company gets paid for the hours of training it delivers - the more the better.

The ideal solution to this goat dilemma is to have your client pay on the back-end based on the cost savings you achieve with your fluffless program. That puts a little skin in the game, huh? 

The trouble, of course, is that clients rarely gather data on the current costs of training or the performance that results from current training. As a result, no matter how much cost savings you achieve, you have nothing to compare it to. 

If they do gather this data, you're in luck - sorta. You have to create a plan to isolate the influence of training, get the client to sign off on the plan, develop and implement the training, measure it, present the results, and get the client to *finally* pay you for your work. Waiting that long for money to roll in the door gives your CEO an ulcer.

The pragmatic solution to the dilemma of cutting training fluff is to offer more than just training. Put less emphasis on one-time training events that rarely change student behavior. Instead, build holistic performance solutions that include training, coaching plans, support systems, on-going evaluations of the program, etc. After you've been doing this for awhile, you'll be able to bring money in the door on both the front-end and the back-end. And, more importantly, you'll really influence on-the-job performance for the better. Your clients will be astounded.

If they're not, they're the goats.


Brian is the Practice Leader of Workforce Performance at virtualwirks. He applies the efficiencies of virtualization to training and human performance programs for global clients.