Replying to LO25254 --
Eugene Taurman wrote:
> >Does anyone have any suggestions or ideas the types of outcomes I would
> >recommend to use in evaluating on training program and which evaluation
> >design I would use?
>
> There is only one purpose for training. To improve the way work is done.
> There fore the measure of training is the rate of improvement of the
> processes used to serve the customer.
I have another 'measure' for training to suggest: " The extent to which
'training' manages to avoid interfering with true learning." Let's call
it the 'Learning Avoidance Index.' A low score is good; a high score is
bad.
Generally speaking, the more companies spend on training -- in the
conventional sense of the term -- the less organizational learning FROM
training occurs.
Never confuse training with learning. The former usually involves what
third parties want others to learn, while the latter usually involves what
others, in fact, actually WANT and MANAGE to learn. A recent study by
CapitalWorks, Inc. revealed that only 25% of what knowledge workers say
they actually use in the way of knowledge, or skills, on the job comes
from prescribed "training" programs, and yet 75% of what companies spend
on "learning" is aimed at "training." Indeed, most of the knowledge, or
skills, employees say they use as 'applied knowledge on the job' actually
comes from informal processes, not employer-prescribed training. These
processes include self-directed learning, communities of
interest/practice, and political access to organizational decision- and
knowledge-making.
Conclusion? Most companies are over-investing in their spending on
learning-poor 'training programs,' and are under-investing in
learning-rich 'learning programs.'
Again, the same study clearly indicates that most knowledge applied by
workers on a daily basis is acquired (learned) from informal social
processes. These processes, such as those that lead to the formation and
sustenance of communities of interest, or practice, are increasingly being
seen as a form of "social capital" that account for an organization's
capacity to innovate, or learn. Investing in such capital is where more
of our "training" dollars should be spent. The real intellectual assets
of interest in modern-day firms, then, is the 'capacity to innovate,' not
the innovations, themselves, that are produced. Think about it.
So what? Put social knowlege-making processes front-and-center on
management's radar and shift investments, accordingly. It's time for an
obvious paradigm shift.
Regards,
Mark
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.