6 Mar 96
T. Kent Thomas

My point was "fear of raiding" as much as "fear of losing their return on investment." I see a general trend in this direction. Companies fear that today's very mobile worker, with little of the "old company loyalty" (for good reason, I might add) will leave (often going to a competitor) before they have recouped their training investment. This trend is evident in companies beginning to require an employee to reimburse the company if they have received college tuition, expensive specialized skills training (such as Novell CNE), or workshops/conferences--if the employee leaves the company within a specified period after the training. (The U.S. military has done this same thing with "Active Duty Service Commitments" for years, by the way.)

Yes, it's a vicious circle. Many companies see training as a "necessary evil" with high expenses and questionable results (and return on investment). So the trends are toward: (1) Training at the least expense, utilizing the technologies we're discussing; (2) Pressure to show immediate results of training (near transfer); (3) Training in the workplace, since travel and per diem are typically 40-60% of the cost of training in a classroom environment; (4) Training that's directly relevant to the task at hand--no more, no less (some might call this minimal training); and (5) "reserving" the advanced, in-depth, or theoretical education/training for only the "best, brightest, and most deserving." This might seem to be near-sighted to some, but given the circumstances, such as today's employee making at least five to seven career moves/shifts in their lifetime, the "return on investment" in training is becoming looked at similar to "research and development" types of budget categories, i.e., show the most results at the lowest cost.

Yes, and the automotive industry has to pay ALL the expenses related to product recalls. When has a "school system" or "training department" ever paid to recall a "deficient graduate" and correct the problems. However, when you're dealing contracts that require "guaranteed results" (thank goodness that these are very clearly spelled out) at a firm, fixed price, you simply must "get as close as possible" the first time through the development cycle.

And the software industry pays for this expense. Those of us in the custom software development industry live by another premise from the "commercial, off-the-shelf" software industry. We use a severity rating system for all identified "bugs." All bugs rated at "X" severity level or higher are fixed as soon as possible at the developer's expense. All bugs below that level are subject to incorporation in a forthcoming general release, and the cost of fixing those is often negotiated and shared (as are all design flaws). (As an aside, the commercial, off-the-shelf software industry has a different approach, and often leaves known bugs until the next general release. If forced to by media or market pressures, they will do a "bug fix release" and post it to the net, Compuserve, etc.--but typically only when forced into it.)

Yes, it's a struggle to incorporate an iterative design and development process with the client. It's also a struggle to get them to pay for it! It's difficult to get the time in the development schedule, it's difficult to get sufficient SME input, it's difficult to get extensive alpha or beta reviewers, etc. (It's even a struggle to use many of today's tools to implement such an iterative process.) My basic premise still holds: the client has high expectations the first time "out of the chute" in addition to low cost expectations.

I agree with Steve as his point relates to airline pilots, air traffic controllers, and Alaskan pipeline pump station operators (I've been involved in using CBT simulations to train them all) and the like. But, how much does the same airline industry invest in training flight attendants and ticket agents--significantly less, and they're also using these same technologies in those areas also. Granted they do not have catastrophic "error consequences"--nor does the majority of most needed skills in the workplace (In my humble opinion, at least). How much do you err on the "high side" when you may be teaching someone things like: Introduction to Win95, Introduction to Office '95, Time and Record-keeping, Company Vacation and Benefits Policy, Teamwork, Effective Communication Skills, Sexual Harassment, OSHA Requirements, Effective Meetings, etc. There's an incredible "laundry list" of required training for virtually every new employee. Where do you err "on the high side"--those places with the highest risk (cost of non-performance) and those areas of highest potential return of investment? Where do you "cut costs"--anywhere else?

You did put words in my mouth. Perhaps that's because of my strong-held opinions, coming through. But, I didn't say ALWAYS. I agree that JITT doesn't always make sense, nor does exploratory learning, discourse, Socratic dialogue, learning laboratories, nor other concepts in or out of vogue. But I'll definitely say FREQUENTLY and perhaps OFTEN. Or, perhaps it's just perspective as a trainer coming through again. One of the best distinctions I've ever heard regarding the difference between training and education goes something like "Training is for an immediate, defined need; education is for a future, perceived need." I regret that I don't remember the source!

What is a typical EPSS? As I said earlier, I haven't seen one yet. But, I think you're limiting the concept if you look at an EPSS as only for reference or review. They can support a JITT concept. Designed accordingly, they can offer an introductory training experience (tutorials), job aiding or scaffolding as the learner begins applying and practicing the new skill/information in a "real-world" environment, and reference or review if they "get stuck." This requires both a structured access method and a random access method to essentially the same content, perhaps with enough transitional "glue" to provide a cohesive experience.

>CASE IN POINT: In introducing new software products, we've met with considerable success using fairly simple EPSSs (using the Windows Help compiler, plus an authoring system) that combine context-sensitive help, cue cards (i.e., job aids), and tutorials in addition to "company-specific" reference information. Each of these primary elements is available through a menu structure (providing a cohesive training experience, user's guide, reference guide, and job aids) for a structured view, in addition to being accessible as a context-sensitive "jump" from the specific location (context) in the software. I'll admit that these systems are likely not as effective or as efficient as a concentrated, day-long, hands-on training session. Let's look at the following example ("sanitized" to maintain client confidentiality). We were replacing a custom-designed DOS system used by over 20,000 people daily throughout the U.S. (in an industry with an annual employee turnover rate of between 25-40%), with a Windows system (including significantly expanded functionality). For the DOS system, we developed classroom training materials (very effective, by the way) and the client (a franchiser) made the one-day classes available to the users at the cost of only $75 per seat, while the client "picked up" a direct expense of over $200 per class seat (not counting travel and per diem). Out of potentially 20,000 students (i.e., users) less than 2,000 ever attended training, or less than one out of ten. When surveyed, the reasons for non-attendance were primarily: (a) being away from the workplace--they're salespeople, and (2) the "hidden costs" of travel. When the client asked for training recommendations for the Windows system, I recommended an EPSS as described above, to make the training available to the user in their workplace, at their convenience, as needed. When asked (on the spot) what one would cost, I replied "about the same cost as 500 class seats (above) if you add in the costs of round-trip airline tickets, per diem, their salary and lost opportunities from being away from the job." He essentially "signed on the spot..." Then, he began to get concerned, so he had us do all the curriculum development work for a new one-day hands-on class. After about eight months in field, we've had less than 500 user requests for the class, while they are so pleased with the EPSS that we're getting many unsolicited testimonials, and have used these testimonials to "sell" six additional EPSSs.

For another client, we're using a computerized test that measures mastery of the material in the EPSS as a prerequisite for attending an advanced class seminar. Would I recommend an EPSS (or CBT, or classroom, or JITT, or distance learning, or videotape, etc.) for every client and every training requirement. No! However, I also categorically do not "refute" the place that any of them have in my "arsenal." I think Steve, perhaps in oversimplification to make a point, may be categorically refuting JITT. Or, is he just lamenting the conditions that are causing it to become so popular? I'm not sure!