To Gail Works et al, responding to real-life questions about "learning
sessions," in which operations teams at Charles Schwab & Co started
cross-learning and training one another with insights.
Here are specific answers to the queries.
Was it mandatory?
--Yes, for the first two teams in Check Deposits and New Account Mail-ins.
What was the roll out like, reactions in the beginning?
--The teams did not respond favorably, at first. Workers grew more
comfortable though once some ground rules were established like: No
discovery was too small to share, and No teaching or preaching, just
share what YOU figured out.
What was the response of the more task-oriented individuals?
--They responded enthusiastically because they traded tips on how to get
tasks done fast.
Was it done through teams?
--Yes, exclusively, after the first two mandatory pilots, all teams
decided by themselves whether they wanted to start daily learning
sessions.
Senior Management Support?
--[Name deleted by your host...], EVP of operations initiated the Learning
Sessions. At first the sessions were called anomaly meetings, at which
team member shared puzzling events in their working day. One of my roles
as VP of re-engineering was to champion the change and train workers in
dialogue facilitation, scribing (distilling), and in thinking skills
(induction, reframing, causal loops, and so on). VP Dana Harrison was
also a leader in the effort.
How much influence did staff have on the design of what they were doing,
or was it just one of those good ideas that found a way to survive?
-- They had a lot of influence, because theyd clam up if they didnt like
the process. Heres the process that evolved: 15-20 minute meetings, 4
days a week. One team member volunteered to be the facilitator, another
the scribe (into a database) , and then other members would trade and
explore their learnings.
Do you think it became a competitive advantage?
Yes, for two reasons: 1) Brokerage work is complicated; expertise in the
myriad details makes a perceivable difference in customer service and
processing speed. 2) The most successful teams tested their own
innovations and adopted those that worked, and they saw themselves as
pioneers.
Was the compensation structure adjusted?
--No, alas.
How much information that came in was edited out? Any?
--Some teams had learnings they chose not to record. Some learnings
that were recorded probably caused some discomfort to senior managers,
because those discoveries seemed to imply that control was more important
than communication.
Was the data base cross-referenced by topic?
-- Yes, but as [Name deleted], Vice-Chairman pointed out, we could have
used the computer even more to group the lessons to see patterns and
reveal underlying structure.
Why did the program survive only 10 months?
-- There was a change of power-- the EVP who started the program was out
and a new EVP was in. The SVPs and most VPs were changed as well.
Was it tied to metrics at all?
-- No, though the innovations-in-process were posted on a wall-to-wall
board in a frequently used training room.
What other aspects of this were informal?
Each team had its own database. There was no formal way for innovations
and discoveries to be communicated from one team to another.
How did it change and improve over the ten months?
--At first, the topic of a learning session was set by a manager. The
teams didnt respond much. When we switched to event-driven learning,
where a worker could talk about something he figured out while serving a
customer, or a puzzle he couldnt figure out. Then people starting trading
helpful hints and coming up with process improvements.
What were the boundaries of topics?
--None, except facilitators were very active when team members discussed
delicately how to work best with each other.
How broadly recognized was this effort?
-- It was a skunkworks in backroom operations that spread to several
branches.
Was the cost of maintaining the database a reason for its demise?
-- No the database was windows-based, designed in off-the-shelf software.
Did you think it created rigidity within the group, in that it solidified
and validated the way things are done around here?
-- No, quite the opposite occurred.
Was it tied into training/orientation/socialization programs?
-- Almost! There was an effort to redesign training for some operations
and learning sessions were to be included. However the training redesign
was suspended with a re-organization.
Who masterminded the database design?
--Price and ease masterminded the design. We had Filemaker already
loaded on most LANs and people were comfortable with it.
And heres what I learned from the project:
1. Plan for growth! I underestimated the speed and scope of rollout.
2. Market the metrics! I should have quantified and broadcasted the
dollar savings from the innovations
3. Plan for Re-organizations! I could have saved the program with more
political savvy.
4. Document as you go! If Id written all this up when it happened, you
wouldnt have had to wait two weeks for this email.
If you have other questions, Ill be happy to answer them...Malcolm
--"Malcolm, Barbara, and Ian" <ovington@inetw.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>