Learning Paths
Increase profits by reducing the time it takes to get employees up-to-speed
By Steve Rosenbaum and Jim Williams
This 320 page book provides a complete and practical approach to reducing time to proficiency while reducing overall training costs.Learning Paths is filled with illustrative examples, methods, techniques, strategies, processes, and tools for making company-wide, real-time training possible. Includes the 30/30 plan CD.
This book is co-published by Pfeiffer and ASTD press.
Now available at all online booksellers… www.amazon.com www.barnesandnoble.com , www.pfeiffer.com
Here’s a review from Last Minute Training:
Learning Paths — The Evolution of Training
Copyright April 18, 2005 by Arupa Tesolin, Intuita, 905.271.7272, www.intuita.com
A new approach to training is winning rave reviews from companies who are reducing the time it takes to get employees up to speed by 30% or more. Learning Paths, the brainchild of Steve Rosenbaum and Jim Williams, is making training more realistic and accelerating the development process at the same time. Both Steven and Jim are long-time corporate trainers who together recently authored a book by the same name co-published by Wiley and The American Society of Training & Development (ASTD), (more info see www.learningpathconsultants.com).
The concept of a Learning Path represents much more than a re-labelling of old terms. Put simply it is a complete rethink of how training ought to work from the point of view of both the company and the employee. And it is concrete, completely and definitively measurable from Day 1.
Here’s how it compares to the way training usually happens. The typical training process starts with a needs assessment to determine performance and business needs. Then course objectives are determined and a detailed training program curriculum follows. The return on investment is somewhat nebulous and speculative while quality depends on the content and delivery of the training program. Following the training in an optimal scenario, participants and managers give feedback on content, delivery and performance. But it pretty much ends there. In actuality, the feedback process assesses whether the training program fulfilled what it said it would, not whether the right things were taught the right way to begin with.
The process discipline involved with Learning Paths ensures that the right things are taught the right way AND in the shortest time. Learning Paths involves a re-engineering of the basic training process from start to finish. It’s really much cooler than the term implies. Intuitively employers “get” that the payoffs are via both increased profits and employee motivation. It is the “how” they get it that is the most fascinating.
The up front measure is Time to Proficiency, which means how long it takes to get an employee performing at an average level. Historically, curriculum approaches tend to fill classroom days with stuff. By contrast, a Learning Path covers the entire learning protocol both in and beyond the classroom. The key to success with Learning Paths is getting very direct with what really happens during the so-called “Mystery Period”, between when training ends and proficiency is achieved.
“This is the precise interval”, says Steve, “where most gains in learning can be achieved.”
“Usually there’s a lot of wandering around. Learning happens when someone has time to show you. A lot of things happen after training that ought to be either included in the training or written down. When people get out of training they start to ask questions as they struggle. And they’re usually the same questions all the time. Why wait for people to ask the question? Let’s put the questions back into the training.”
The first part of the process is to map your existing Learning Path. First review the existing training program and what happens after that, then quantitatively establish the performance level and figure out how many days it takes for an employee to reach an acceptable average performance level. This defines what proficiency is required.
Here are two examples of different proficiency requirements. The first is from an airline reservation agent. Average performance of an effective employee for this company means handling 20 calls per hour, processing 3 reservations, $1500 in revenue, and a cancellation rate of 3%. The second from a field sales representative is 3 calls per day, $10,000 in sales, 5% return rates and 1 new customer per month. Each parameter of proficiency is captured in a report, statement, or the company data-base.
Usually from this point it’s easy to determine how much training costs and how much each day of less-than-average performance costs the organization. Shrinking this time by 30% adds up to a lot of measurable savings and potential profits. And employees are more motivated too because they are learning quickly, and not wasting time in training.
This is done by systematically improving and speeding up the learning process by removing unessential elements, replacing theory with more practice and on-the-job coaching, self-study assignments, and creating other learning opportunities that could include e-learning or other components with feedback that replace components of the classroom training program with a designed learning track that works better. Steve calls this part of the process Quick Hits and says that time and cost savings of 30% represent are typical easily achieved results.
The process invests and engages supervisors in a direct role as coaches and mentors. But there is nothing ambiguous about this coaching role and it’s outcomes. They are linked directly to proficiency development.
“Another factor that can be positively impacted by Learning Paths is attrition. The majority of turnover happens in first 90 days. Some significant things can be done to address that early turnover by putting training feedback into the hiring process. For example an organization hires nurses for an in-home health care job doing full-time health support. In coming employees who are nurses have an expectation that there is more nursing in the job than patient care. But it’s not that kind of a job. So, if it takes 90 days to get a nurse to say they don’t like it we’ve lost a lot of money and time training that employee. It’s better if they quit on the first day. The solution is to show the employee up front what the job is and what the conditions are.”
But how do Learning Paths differ from a competency model? Steve described it this way. “Doing a competency model can help you get to where you want to go by determining skills, knowledge and attitude. But this breaks it down into very small pieces. When one of those pieces is done together with other pieces that’s another competency.”
“As an example let’s look at a Call Center. You need to be proficient on the computer, you have to have good communications skills to talk with customers and you have to know and be able to explain the products and services they offer. But you need to do all of this at the same time. That’s what proficiency is, the linkages among the skills and groups of skills that are done together.”
Learning Path project successes have been achieved with major enterprises both in North America, Europe and in India, proof that the method works internationally and in multi-national companies. Smaller companies too, where finances and resources might be more constrained, also have a lot to gain from this methodology.
The best part of Learning Paths? They work. And they achieve results through involvement and buy-in from all stakeholders involved in the training process, executives, HR Managers, trainers, and most importantly supervisors and employees.
Arupa Tesolin, owner of the training firm Intuita, is a consultant, speaker, seminar leader and author of The Intuita 3-Minute Solutions for Innovation, Intuition, Vision & Stress. Her numerous international publications on intuition in business have established her as a thought leader in this field. She is currently working on a new book entitled “Becoming An Intuitive Organization”. Contact her at www.intuita.com, intuita@intuita.com or 905.271.7272.
Sounds interesting. I have ben in training and org development for many years, a traditionalist. In recent months my notions of ‘training’ have been serously challenged as a result of a conference, a significant project that I’m leading and reading Jay Cross’s book on Informal Learning.
I’m interested in understanding how you approach fits with the notion of informal learning?
You are a joker if you think this book or any other crappy pseudoscientific material on this blog is gonna have any effect john barton. Go ahead and buy his crap. It will only benefit him not you.