Dear List,
I agree with Emily Schultheiss that people, even well trained, can
only perform at best, to the way that their process is designed.
[However, in my own words]
Everything is a process within a system. If the system is not
designed to support the process, then nothing, not even training
will be beneficial. Think of a system as the solar system and all
of its natural laws. Think of a process as 'flying' on earth.
This process of flying is not natural to the system because the
systems supports gravity, not flying. There is no worthwhile
training that I can do without first designing a process that fits
within the current system. Lighter than air flight uses the laws
of nature (the system); does not ignore them.
I also agree with Imran Araeen that if we conduct training of
people to use processes that don't work within our system...we
have generated a cost, due to management error [again my own
words].
How do we evaluate the effectiveness of training programs in such
conditions? I will share:
FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
1. We flow map our processes and eliminate wasteful activity.
2. We monitor these processes for capability.
3. Once we determine that a process is capable we test for
repeatablility.
4. If a process is repeatable and capable we develop work
instructions.
5. We train to the work instruction (standard) and monitor
adherence. Training consists of testing for Definition (terms
used), Validation (importance), Assimilation (understanding how it
works) and Integration (showing that you can do it).
6. If there is a failure it is always a management error.
7. Management evaluates the failure, determines where the gap is
in the PROCESS [notice, I didn't say TRAINING] and tightens the
process..with what we call a Poka-yoke device.
Every employee failure is an opportunity to eliminate a
possibility of further failures by going back to the process and
closing the loop. With this approach we are working toward
foolproof processes where failure is so remote that it would take
greater effort to create a failure (intentional) than it would to
follow the procedure.
Thanks,
Rick Corcoran
Continuous Improvement / Employee Empowerment
Mark I, an Excel Industry
INTERNET:"corcoranre@excelinc.com"