A framework for training workers in

contemporary manufacturing environments

ARUNKUMAR PENNATHUR, ANIL MITAL, VENKAT RAJAN,

DAVID KABER, PAUL RAY, RONALD HUSTON, DAVID THOMPSON,

GLENN MARKLE, MARY ANNE PITMAN, RAM BISHU, LESIA CRUMPTON,

SUBRAMANIAM DEIVANAYAGAM, JEFFREY FERNANDEZ,

MARTIN MCELWEE, MARK MCMULKIN and DILEEP SULE

Abstract. Manufacturing expe riments with full automation for

manufacturing of goods, developed, promoted and attemptedin the 1980s, have failed for economic and technical reasons. It

is now widely accepted that humans are vital to efficient andeffective operation of manufacturing proce sses. Historically,

human resources in most manufacturing environments havebeen m ismanaged, and while the re has been a virtual

proliferation of enabling technologie s to support manufactur-ing systems, little attention has been paid to integrating

humans into such systems. Now that hum ans are be ingre introduced in contemporary manufacturing systems, it is

necessary to pay serious attention to th is most vital of allre source s. O ne of the most critical and pre ssing human

resource management needs is the training of workers, at allleve ls ( line workers, managers, engineers, etc.) in skills they

need to make a manufacturing organization competitive. Inspite of th is pressing need relatively little has been done to

deve lop generic and fundamental methods for trainingmanufacturing workers. Th is pape r reviews training literature,

identifies research de ficiencies, and propose s a framework fortraining workers in contemporary manufacturing environ-

ments.

1. Introduction

The 1980 s witne ssed m any scien tific and techn ical

conference s promoting them es such as `Factory of the

Future ’ or `Ligh ts-out Factorie s’ ( Bullinge r and War-

necke 1985) . By the late 1980s, it was ge ne rally accepted

that in the future the demand for manufactured goods

will be met by a sm all workforce operating a h igh ly

m odern organ ization em ploying productive and ad-

van ced technologies ( O ’ Brien 1991 ) . The argum en t for

increased automation has continued in the 1990s. The

em phasis on im prove d industrial productivity at re -

duced cost has prove d anothe r incentive for limiting

in fluence in the design, deve lopment, and im plementa-

tion of manufacturing system s ( Orpana and Lukka

1993) . The argum en t for enhanced industrial produc-

tivity is based on the following ( Mital and Anand 1992) :

( 1) the need to enhance the standard of living

through the creation of national wealth ;

( 2) the loss of global com petitiveness, and prestige,

due to the inability to produce high quality

products;

( 3) fear of inte lle ctual stagnation ;

( 4) the loss of cre ative edge ;

( 5) the nee d to re spond to m arket de m an ds

quickly, and

( 6) the need to prepare for marke t and technolo-

gical change s that are occurring m ore fre -

quently than eve r.

It has been reasoned by Mital ( 1997) that in order to

bene fit from automation , one does not have to have

INT. J. CO MPUTER INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING, 1999, VO L. 12, NO . 4, 291 ± 310

International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufactu ring ISSN 0951-192X prin t/ ISSN 1362-3052 online Ó 1999 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp :/ / www.tan df.co.uk/ JNLS/ cim.htm

http:/ / www.taylorandfran cis.com/ JNLS/ cim.htm

Au thors: Arunkumar Pe n nath ur an d An il Mital, Industrial Engin ee ring ,

Unive rsity of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0116, USA; Ve nkat Rajan,

Je ffre y Fern an dez an d Mark McMulkin , Dep artm en t of Ind ustrial an d

Manufacturing Engine ering, Wichita State Unive rsity, Wichita, KS 67260-0035,

USA; David Kaber, Departm ent of Industrial Engine ering, Mississippi State

Unive rsity, Missisippi State , MS 39762, USA; Paul Ray, Departm en t of Industrial

Engin ee ring, Unive rsity of Alabama-Tuscaloosa, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0288,

USA; Ronald Huston an d David Th ompson , Me chan ical Engin e e r ing ,

Unive rsity of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0072, USA; Glenn Markle and

Mary Anne Pitm an, Colle ge of Education, University of Cin cinnati, Cincinnati,

OH 45221-0002, USA; Ram Bishu, Departm ent of Industrial and Manufacturing

Systems Engine ering, Unive rsity of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0518,

USA; Subramaniam Deivanayagam , Departm ent of Industrial Engin ee ring,

Tenn esse e Technological Unive rsity, Cookville, TN 38505-5011, USA; Martin

McElwee , Director of Manufacturing , CINTAS, Inc., 6800 Cin tas Blvd.,

Cincinnati, OH 45262, USA; Dileep Sule, Industrial Engin ee ring, Louisiana

Tech Unive rsity, Ruston, LA 71272, USA.

com ple te or total autom ation . Rath e r, au tom ation

should be used to increase the e fficiency and e ffective -

ne ss of a m an ufacturing e n te rprise th rough th e

in tegration and exploitation of availab le technology.

As such , it not on ly in volve s in tegration of CIM

technologie s ( CAD, CAM, CAPP, CAQ , e tc.) , but also

require s change s in m anagem ent th inking and organ i-

zational structure .

The th inking of the 1980 s m anage m ent that `hu-

man influence in CIM can be comple te ly e lim inated’

ne eds to be e xam ine d by asking and an swe rin g

questions such as `Can automation be implem ented to

an exten t that there is ve ry limited or no role for

humans to play in m odern manufacturing?’ ( In other

words, `Is total autom ation feasible ?’ ) and `Can an

effective integration of m odern m anufacturing tech -

nologie s and in formation be achieve d without hu-

mans?’ It is be lieve d by m any that humans have great

difficulty in providing the required quality, uniform ity,

re liability, repeatability, and docum entation needed in

modern m anufacturing. There fore, the manual alter-

native in m anufacturing is not a feasible option ( Sata

1986 ) . According to the se individuals, all manufactur-

ing activities, such as m etal cutting, m aterials handling,

assembly, inspection , and transportation , wh ich are

routine ly handled by people , m ust be pe rform ed by

computer-controlled mach ine s. The reality is that fully

autom ated factorie s based on hard autom ation are not

viable for technical and economic reasons except in a

few special and isolated cases ( Yamash ita 1987) . Hard

autom ation does not lend itself to situations where a

product is to be change d frequently because of user

needs, costs or engin ee ring im prove ments ( Hartley

1984 ) . Furthe rmore , there is the need to provide

flexibility as we ll as capability. Automated equipm ent,

such as robots, provide the flexibility but not the

capability. For robots to be capable , they m ust have the

nece ssary in te llige nce ( Brady et al. 1984) and m ust be

able to sense the working situation to see , touch , feel

pre ssure , and sense the ir own move m ent; acquire

knowle dge and judge m en t to carry out the task

properly and act according to the knowhow of the

skilled worker ( for exam ple, accept parts that may not

have exact tolerance, or are not properly oriented) ;

pe rform tasks re liably to impart the nece ssary 3-D

motions to the product; and com municate with the

operator by voice, written sentences, and other appro-

priate form s of com m unication ( Yam ash ita 1987) .

Currently, hum ans must eithe r work with robots or

supe rvise them and must inte rve ne when problems

deve lop ( for exam ple , when the robot drops a part) .

Econom ic viab ility is also ne ce ssary if comple te

autom ation is to become feasible . It is ve ry like ly that

autom ation , wh ile te ch n ically feasible m ay not be

econom ically de sirable . For instance , conside r the case

of assembly. Nevin s and Whitney ( 1989) state that

manual assem bly is rapidly disappearing as an option

for the reasons stated above . The issue of assem bly

econom ics has been exam ined by Mital et al. ( 1988) ,

Mital and Mahajan ( 1989) , Boothroyd ( 1990) , Mital

( 1991, 1992 ) , and Hammer ( 1992) by comparing hum an

and robot pe rform ance s. The findings cast conside rable

doubt on the be lie f that autom ated assembly m ethods

will always be cost-effective and lead to increase s in

productivity. In fact, seve ral case studie s from these

works indicate th at m anual assem bly is fre quently

econom ically more attractive . The econom ic advan tage s

of one m ethod ove r the other are functions of factors

such as pe rform ance times, wage and in tere st rates, and

equipm ent re liability. In ge ne ral, the econom ic disin-

cen tive s of autom ate d equipm ent ( or option ) are

primarily due to low re liability, h igh in terest rates, and

declining low wage s. The ability of humans to learn on

the job also works again st the autom ated option . Should

the se factors change and m ove in the other dire ction

( for exam ple , with declining in te re st rate s) , the auto-

mated option could become econom ically attractive .

The preceding argum ents, thus, do not support the

ph ilosophy that autom ation should be used to minimize

human in terve ntion s because such a move may not

have any economic viability. Howe ve r, if it is dete r-

mined that human interventions will be econom ically

bene ficial, autom ation should be used to he lp the

workers do their job m ore efficien tly. This would ensure

that the manufacturing enterprise is indeed producing

the best product possible ; a product the m arke t needs

and a product that is easy to m anufacture quickly,

re liably, and economically.

From a cybe rnetics vie wpoint it also appears that

comple te autom ation will be a suboptimal solution for

manufacturing organ izations, at least for the forseeable

future , when com pared with solutions that involve

hum ans, m ach ine s, an d computers in an e ffective

partne rsh ip ( hybrid system s) . Th e im portan ce of

people as com ponents for control and innovation in

manufacturing systems is recogn ized worldwide ( Brod-

ne r 1985 , 1987; Kohler 1988; Kearney 1989; Hockley

1990; Gill 1990; Corbett et al. 1991; Grant et al. 1991;

Senehi et al. 1991; Nonaka 1991; Hamm er 1992; Kidd

1992; Wobbe 1992) .

The cyberne tics case has been studied by Mital et al.

( 1994 b) and is summ arized as follows; the Law of

Re quisite Varie ty states that for any system to rem ain

under control, the controlle r of that system m ust be

able to absorb the entire range of inputs that m ay affect

the system ( i.e . the system or the control proce ss must

be at least as complex in its behavior as the system it is

trying to control) . Given that a m anufacturing organ i-

A. Pennathu r e t al.292

zation is an open system , that is affe cted by its physical,

comm ercial, legal and social environm ent as we ll as its

own environm ent, the control subsystem must be able

to remain in a stable state . Quite apart from the nature

of such in puts ( m ost of wh ich e xist in h um an -

compatible form, but many of wh ich could be made

computer-compatible ) , the re is the content of th is

input. Within the organ ization , the decisions to be

made vary in importance , and hence the type of

information required for decision-m aking also varies.

The in formation content varie s from ve ry low leve l of

de tail ( for exam ple, `The tool has engage d the work-

piece ’ ) to be very h igh leve l of de tail ( for exam ple, `The

recent gove rnment legislation carrie s the following

implications’ ) . It is difficult to see how any automated

system could deal with h igh leve l in form ation of the

latter sort, and make the nece ssary deductions and

othe r in fe rence s without an enorm ous inve stment in

background knowledge store s. Furthe rm ore , the un-

expected nature of some of the inputs ( `Behold, a

hurricane has blown the roof in ’ ) will require human -

like in te llige n t control procedures ( unlike ly to be

availab le in the forseeable future) to be ge ne rated

from autom ated system s.

Secondly, the re are the system im prove m ent, system

monitoring, and m ain tenance role s to be pe rform ed

with in m anufacturing un its. Again , these role s require

human -type in telligence , and frequently great man ip-

ulative skills for their pe rformance . It is difficult to see

how such role s could be pe rform ed autom atically. It

should be evide nt, the re fore , that pe ople will be

nece ssary in m anufacturing plan ts for a long tim e to

come and we m ust manage this important re source ve ry

care fully.

1.1. Man agemen t of human resources

Given the im portance of personne l to manufactur-

ing, it is inde ed un fortun ate to find th at m any

com pan ie s h ave faile d to prope rly cu ltivate th is

im portan t re source . In fact, the failu re of m any

compan ie s in tran sition to modern compe titive manu-

facturin g organ izations is prim ar ily due to the ir

m ism an agem ent of hum an re source s ( Ettlie 1988,

Majchrzak 1988) . For exam ple , in stead of making the

entire manufacturing operation e fficien t by utilizing

people and othe r re source s e ffective ly, many com pan ie s

have ach ieve d short-term productivity gain s by layin g off

workers. Th is has been done time and again without

any regard for worker we lfare or conside ration of long-

term consequence s on the local, regional or national

econom y. Specifically, many organ izations have failed

to upgrade worker skills to leve ls com patible with

advan ced manufacturing technologie s ( Bute ra and

Thurman 1984 , Gerwin and Taronde au 1982, Shaiken

1984, King and Majchrzak 1996) . The workers, thus,

have been le ft with fewer care e r options and lim ited

e con om ic opportun itie s. It h as be e n sh own th at

variable s such as comprehensive train in g are essential

to hum an re source m anagem ent practice s, particularly

in advanced manufacturing environments ( Walton and

Susm an 1987, Com mission on the Skills of the Amer-

ican Workforce 1990, Hitt et al. 1991 , Perry 1991, Sne ll

and Dean 1991 ) . Still, re lative ly few American industry

workers rece ive training ( if workers do rece ive training,

the train ing budge t is one of the first item s to be cut

when austerity m easures are effective ) .

A survey of auto workers at a General Motors

assem bly plan t reve ale d that le ss than 20% of produc-

tion workers re ce ive d te chn ical train ing, although

nearly 83% rece ive d some form of train ing. A survey

of contract labor in the US pe tro-chemical industry by

the John Gray Institute ( 1991) reve ale d that le ss than

33% of workers re ce ive d compan y train ing upon

entering the industry. Furthe rm ore , 20% of th is sam e

labor force reporte d rece iving no on-going train ing

throughout their employment.

It is also known that the am ount of train ing is a

function of professional position , with manage rs receiv-

ing far more train ing than line workers ( Carnevale

1991) , profession al associations/ status un ion labor

rece iving sign ifican tly greate r train ing than non-un ion

labor ( Joh n Gray Institute 1991) , and dire ct-h ire s

re ce iving double the leve l of on-going train ing as

con tract labor ( Joh n Gray Institute 1991) . It is

importan t to note that Japan , an econom ic gian t

second on ly to the United States, spends conside rable

time and e ffort in in -depth train ing of its workers in a

varie ty of skills ( Muram atsu et al. 1987) . Such a

ph ilosophy is rare ly seen in industry in the United

States, exceptions are plan ts using Japanese manage -

m ent techn ique s. Also of conside rable im portance is

the fact that workers, in the presen t atmosphere of

downsizing, need to be trained in a varie ty of skills to

improve their chance s of regain ing m eaningful em ploy-

m ent. The need for such train ing has been reported in

a study of workers at Toyota ( Muram atsu et al. 1987) .

A number of inve stigators have shown that worker

skill leve ls are a dire ct de term inan t of leve ls of quality

pe rformance ( Flynn et al. 1995 , Hackman and Wage -

m an 1995) . It is also re asonable to sugge st that

inve stments in hum an resource s should keep pace with

the changing technology particularly if the workers are

to take re sponsibility for quality, productivity, and

custome rs ( Majchrzak and Wan g 1996) . Am erican

industry train ing program s provide inadequate train ing

for succe ss in contem porary manufacturing, and also

Framework for train ing workers in man ufacturing 293

the y are gene rally not linked to product de signs

( de te rmin ing the manufacturing technologie s and skills

nece ssary to produce a quality product) . Without such

linkage , it is not possible to optimize worker and,

consequently, organ izational productivity and product

quality. Such a linkage will also assist in evaluating

needs for updating and m odernizing worker skills.

1.2. Human resource man agement options

O ptimal utilization of human resource s require s

that workers will possess the skills required to use the

technology e ffective ly. As discussed above , Am erican

workers are not ge tting adequate train ing to deve lop

the nece ssary skills. Moreover, m any workers do not

eve n have the skills needed to m ake an effective use of

availab le technology, particularly computer-based tech-

nology. According to the report of the Comm ission on

the Skills of the American Workforce ( 1990) , the re is

`conside rable evidence that the curren t skill leve l of the

industrial workforce leave s the United States le ss able to

de rive com pe titive advan tage from new technologie s

than our com pe titors’ . According to Adle r ( 1991) ,

the re is a ge ne ral trend towards h ighe r skill require -

ments am ong manufacturing workers due to the speed

of the autom ate d equipm ent. The rationale for acquir-

ing specialized main tenance skills is equally pe rsuasive

( Bushne ll 1983 ) . At the ve ry least, the re is a perceive d

need for an increase in basic skills in m athem atics, and

ve rbal and written com munication among workers

( Jacobs 1994) . These ge neral findings are in agre ement

with surveys conducted by the United States Depart-

ment of Labor ( 1993 a, b) , and Johnston and Packer

( 1987 ) . According to the United States Departm ent of

Labor surve y ( 1993 a) , indications are th at future

workers in manufacturing will need exceptional pe rfor-

mance in the following five compe tencie s.

( 1) Man agin g resource s.

( 2) Inte rpe rsonal skills for team problem-solving.

( 3) Inform ation science , including identification,

in te gration , assim ilation , and storage an d

re trieval of in formation from differen t sources;

preparation , m ain tenance and in terpre tation

of quan titative and qualitative records; the

conve rsion of in form ation from one form to

anothe r and the comm unication of in form a-

tion in oral and written forms.

( 4) Systems, including understanding the in te rcon-

nections be tween system s, identifying anom a-

l ie s in syste m p e rfo rm an c e , in te gratin g

multiple displays of data and linking sym bols

with real phenom ena.

( 5) Technology, including com petence in selecting

and using appropriate technology for a job,

visualizing operations, and monitoring, m ain -

tain ing and trouble -shooting of com plex equip-

ment.

Train ing of workers to acquire such skills is there -

fore critical if the American manufacturing organ iza-

tions are to remain globally compe titive . Re cogn izing

this fact, a recent workshop sponsored by the National

Science Foundation recom mended that train ing issue s

in advan ced manufacturing ( that is investigating and

establishing skills needed for future technology, deve l-

oping techn iques for asse ssing training needs, deve lop-

in g p r o c e d u r e s fo r e va lu a ti n g c r o ss-tr a in in g

effective ne ss, and deve loping inte ractive train ing sys-

tem s) have an imm ediate and special role to play in

preparing the American workforce for global com pe ti-

tion beyond the ye ar 2000 ( Mital 1995 , 1996) .

1.3. Objective and scope of this work

The objective s of th is paper are to: ( 1) review

published train ing lite rature , ( 2) identify re search

de ficiencie s in industrial worker train ing area, and ( 3)

propose a ge ne ric framework for train ing industrial

workers. The discussion is limited to and is in the

context of product m anufacturing. The em phasis is on

deve loping a train ing proce ss fram ework that would

allow workers in m an ufacturin g organ ization s to

acquire skills needed to harne ss the late st technology.

2. Train ingÐ p erspective and sign if icance

Industrial psychology lite ratu re de fine s train ing

from train ee and traine r pe rspectives. From a trainee

pe rspective , train ing is `. . . the system atic acquisition of

skills, ru le s, con cepts, or attitude s that re su lt in

improved performance in another environment . . .’

and whose effectivene ss `. . . stem s from a learning

atm osphere systematically designed to produce change s

in the working environment ( Goldste in 1986) .’ From a

trainer’ s pe rspective , including the organ ization provid-

ing the train ing, train ing is `. . . a planned effort by an

organ ization to facilitate the learn ing of job-re lated

behavior on the part of its employe es . . .’ ; the te rm

`behavior’ include s knowledge and skills acquired by

the em ploye e through practice ( Wexle y 1984) .’ Train-

ing as an activity was form ally recognized as early as the

Industrial Re volu tion. The spurt of industrial activity,

howe ve r, did noth ing to support workforce train ing,

partly due to the fact that mach ine s we re conside red far

A. Pennathu r e t al.294

more efficien t than the workers at the time , and partly

due to the social legislation that existed in the 18th and

19th centurie s in England ( Downs 1983) . Eve n towards

the end of the late 19th century, industries considered

train ing workers a waste of re source s. Frede rick Taylor

( 1911) change d attitude s towards worker train ing with

his scientific manage m ent methods; he advocated the

se le ction of the be st workers for d iffe re n t tasks,

followed by extensive train ing for such tasks. The two

World Wars prom oted system atic train ing and se le ction

of personne l for the wars. Subsequently, the United

Kingdom promulgated the Industrial Train ing Acts of

1964 and 1973. Train ing was, thus, formally recognized

as an im portant activity ( Latham 1988) . In the United

States, Federal legislation such as the Area Re deve lop-

ment Act of 1961 , the Man power Deve lopm ent and

Train ing Act of 1962, the Vocational Education Act of

1963 , and the Economic Opportun ity Act of 1964

recogn ized the im portance of train ing the workforce

for improving the economic choice s of the workers

( Walsh 1967 ) . Title VII of the 1964 US Civil Rights Act

re sulte d in conside ration of train ing and train ing

bene fits as em ploym ent decisions. According to Latham

( 1988) and Mealie a and Duffy ( 1985) , employe rs in the

United States have , by and large , pursued a train ing

ph ilosophy ( organ ization identifies the de ficiencie s in

workers and trains them to im prove perform ance ) ,

rath e r th an a se le ction ph ilosoph y ( organ ization

identifies individuals with strong potential and prepare s

them for positions in which they are expected to

advan ce ) . The pursuit of a `train ing ph ilosophy’ , as

opposed to a `se le ction ph ilosophy’ , and the em phasis

towards train ing as a tool to facilitate em ploye e learn ing

is re flected in McGehee and Thaye r’ s ( 1961) de finition

of train ing. Accordin g to McGehee and Thaye r, `. . .

train ing in industry is the formal procedures which a

company uses to facilitate employee s’ learning so that

the ir re sultant behavior contributes to the attainment

of the company’ s goals and objective s.’ In the eve nt

train ing is used as an employee se le ction tool, the

United State s case law require s that pe rform ance

during train ing corre lates sign ificantly with job perfor-

mance ( Latham 1988) . Train ing program s are now

conside red vital instructional systems that m eet specific

learning and behavior needs of the workforce .

2.1. Why train ing?

There are som e basic que stions, such as `Why

train ing?’ and `Does train ing have any performance

bene fits?’ , that one needs to address. Train ing the

workforce has two im portan t econom ic advantage s: it

provide s workers’ job options and choice s, and poten-

tial for highe r earn ings, and it leads to an ove rall

improve ment in an organ ization ’ s perform ance and,

consequently, its productivity. Nearly half of a worker’ s

life time earn ings are affected by train ing in school and

on the job. Learn ing occupational skills in school has a

conside rable in fluence on a person ’ s earn ings. For

instance, according to the US Department of Educa-

tion, in 1985 college graduate s we re earn ing 38% m ore

than h igh school graduate s ( Carnevale and Goldste in

1990) . The earn ing potential for college graduate s is

conside rably greate r in technology-in tensive industrie s

su ch as m an ufac turin g. In ge n e ral, h igh sch ool

graduate s in h igh-technology industries earn more

than twice as m uch as a h igh school drop-out; college

graduates earn m ore than twice that of a high school

graduate ; and workers with post-graduate education

e arn m ore than 30% that of a college graduate

( Carn evale and Goldstein 1990 ) . Learn ing workplace

skills on the job has also been shown to positive ly affect

earn ing rate s ( nearly 25% increase in earn ings in som e

case s) of workers ( Carnevale and Goldste in 1990 ) . For a

worker, train ing and learn ing on the job also have

consequence s beyond the curren t job. According to the

studie s done by Lillard and Tan ( 1986) , the positive

e ffect of workplace train ing lasts longe r ( alm ost 13 ye ars

com pared to train ing in school lasting on ly 8 years) and

re sults in increased earn ings at new jobs when train ing

is done in prior jobs.

Worker train ing has also been shown to improve the

productivity and the quality of goods produced. A 1991

study of formal train ing programs in 180 m anufacturing

firms in the United States, conducted by the United

States Departm ent of Labor, indicated that industrie s

that introduced a form al train ing program afte r 1983

expe rienced at least a 17% increase in productivity in 3

years than industries that did not in troduce a train ing

program . This increase was nearly 20% for production

workers. Another survey of 157 sm all ( 500 or fewe r

e m ploye e s) m an ufacturing industrie s in Mich igan

found that the re ject rate of fin ished products had

sign ificantly dropped afte r the in troduction of form al

worker train ing ( nearly a 7% reduction in scrap by

increasing formal train ing from 15 hours to 30 hours)

( US Department of Labor 1993 b) . In a 1992 Massa-

chuse tts Institute of Technology study in 62 autom obile

p lan ts, repre sen ting 24 produce rs in 16 countries

( multi-skilled employee s in plants with flexib le produc-

tion operations) , em ploye e train ing in flexible produc-

tion system s com pared to mass production systems,

reduced scrap and im prove d the quality of products.

There is now a ge ne ral consensus among industrie s,

m any Federal gove rnm ent age ncie s, re searchers in

academ ia, an d industrial practition e rs that for a

m anufacturing entity to be compe titive in the global

Framework for train ing workers in man ufacturing 295

market, the deve lopment of the hum an resource s base

in manufacturing is critical ( Re port of the President’ s

Comm ission on Industrial Competitiveness 1985, Na-

tional Academy of Enginee ring 1988 , National Re -

search Council 1990) . In fact, many of the se reports

highligh t the fact that, among countries with large

manufacturing base s, the United States no longe r

dom inate s in th e cre ation of n ew and advan ced

technology, and that many countries now have the

scien tific and technological in frastructure to create new

technology. What then m ust make a positive difference

to US industrial compe titiveness, these reports con-

clude, is the existen ce and the continued deve lopment

of a skilled human resource s base . The train ing of

workers to acquire skills nece ssary to use the late st

technology e ffective ly is thus a dire need.

3. Sum m ary of train ing re search

In orde r to deve lop a com ple te understanding of

worker train ing, it is e ssential to revie w theorie s

dealing with learn ing, factors affecting learn ing, and

the methods of le arn ing/ train ing that have been

described in the published lite rature . It should be

noted that, without exception , mate rials re lated to

the se aspects of train ing are found in behavioural,

social, and psychological lite rature . The review of th is

lite rature is pertinent if the le ssons learned e lsewhere

are to be app lied succe ssfully in m anufacturin g

se ttings.

3.1. Train ing needs assessment

The systems approach to train ing include s a `needs

asse ssment phase ’ . Needs asse ssment is a comple te

analysis of the tasks, behaviors and the environment in

which train ing is to take place . The obje ctive s of the

train in g program , th e crite r ia and m e asure s for

evaluation of the training program , and the de sign of

the train ing program are dependent upon a sound

asse ssm e nt of th e n e e ds. Train in g an alysts have

traditionally used organ izational analysis, task analysis

and person analysis as the steps towards obtain ing the

needs profile for a train ing situation ( McGehee and

Thaye r 1961) . Organ izational analysis re fe rs to an

exam ination of the system-wide components of the

organ ization that m ay affect a train ing program ’ s

factors beyond those ordinarily conside red in task and

person analysis ( Goldste in 1986 , 1991) . Included in

organ izational analysis are such factors as the exam ina-

tion of organ izational goals, organ izational re source s,

clim ate for training, and in ternal and exte rnal environ-

mental constraints. When the goals of an organ ization

are incom patible with the goals of the train ing

program , trainee s are le ft with knowledge , skills, and

abilitie s ( KSA) that are not usable on the job. Train ing

program s, the re fore, m ust focus on teaching techn i-

que s and m ethods that are consistent with organ iza-

tional practice s ( Sonnenfeld and Pe ipe rl 1988 , Schule r

an d Jackson 1987, Carn e vale and Goldste in 1990,

Carn evale and Schulz 1990, Rosow and Zage r 1988) .

Wh ile such an alyse s are organ ization -specific, the

lite rature provides some ge neral guide line s ( Goldste in

1986) :

( 1) specific goals for the organ ization need to be

clearly de fined and translated into specific

goals for the train ing programs;

( 2) organ izations should not expect train ing pro-

gram s to de liver unspecified and un iden tified

organ izational goals;

( 3) train ing program s should consider the trainee

as an individual with social needs.

The organizational clim ate for training is dete r-

mined with a vie w to resolving any potential conflicts

am ong member groups in the organ ization ( Rou illie r

and Goldstein 1991) . Som e possible m em ber groups

include gove rnment sponsors of the train ing program,

em ploye rs, train ing departments, and worker unions.

Perhaps the m ost important factor affecting organ i-

zational analyse s is the identification of the exte rnal

factors that in fluen ce train ing de sign . The se m ay

include social ( for exam ple , use of social learning

theory for cross-cu ltural train ing ( Black and Menden-

hall 1990) , legal, e conomic, and political factors. In the

context of our discussion , rapid advan ces in manufac-

turing technology is one crucial external factor that

affects train ing needs of the organ ization, and also has a

direct bearing on the econom ics of decision m aking.

The literature on train ing falls short of sugge sting

me thods to pe rform organ izational analyse s when

technological changes affecting organizational train ing

requirements are expected.

An analysis of the hum an and physical re source s

availab le is anothe r important factor to be conside red

during organ izational analysis. Table 1 pre sen ts a

sam ple re source analysis inve ntory ( McGehe e and

Thaye r 1961 ) .

The next step in needs asse ssment is task analysis

wh ich re sults in a statement of work activitie s pe r-

formed on the job and the conditions under wh ich the

job is pe rform ed. A task description, followe d by a

de tailed specification of the tasks, and a scaling of tasks

on various dimensions, such as criticality and frequency

of occurrence , make up the steps in task analysis.

A. Pennathu r e t al.296

The task description , according to The Re vised

Handbook for Analyzing Jobs ( US Departm ent of Labor

1991 ) , is a statem ent that describe s all the e ssential

activities of a job ( table 2) . A comple te specification of

the task follows its de scription . Information for com -

plete specification of a task involve d in a job is typically

obtained from experts, or by observing the job be ing

pe rform ed. A number of rule s for task specification

have evolved ove r the ye ars and include directions on

the gramm ar, sen tence structure , and the language of

the analyst US Department of Labor 1991 , Am m erman

and Pratzne r 1977) . Judgm ents regard ing the re levan ce

of task specifications for train ing program design are

th en colle cte d from subje ct m atte r e xp e rts ( for

exam ple , expe rienced workers and supervisors) . Table

3 presents a sam ple list of dimensions to include in

specific que stions about each identified task ( Am m er-

man and Pratzner 1977) . Data colle cted from ques-

tionnaire s can be analyze d for statistical m easure s of

re sponses from the differen t expe rts. The next key issue

in task analysis is the deve lopment of KSA ( knowledge ,

skill, and ability) attributes of the individuals under-

going train ing, de fined as follows ( Prien 1977) .

( 1) `Knowledge ( K) is the foundation upon wh ich

abilities and skills are built. Knowledge re fers to

an organ ized body of inform ation usually of a

factual or procedural nature , which , if applied

m akes adequate job perform ance possible . It

should be noted that the possession of knowl-

edge does not insure that it will be used’ .

( 2) `Skill ( S) re fe rs to the capability to perform job

operations with ease and precision. Most often

skills re fer to psychom otor type activitie s. The

specification of a skill usually implie s a pe rfor-

mance standard that is usually required for

e ffective job operations’ .

( 3) `Ability ( A) usually re fers to cogn itive capabil-

itie s nece ssary to pe rform a job function. Most

often abilitie s require the application of som e

knowledge base ’ .

Train ing analysts ge ne rally recom mend that task

in formation deve loped from task analyse s be supplied

to a panel of expe rts and knowledge able persons, and

they be asked to answer questions such as `Describe

the characte ristics of good and poor workers on name

Framework for train ing workers in man ufacturing 297

Table 1. Sample human resources inventory ( McGehee andThayer 1961) .

a. Number of employees in the job classificationb. Number of employees needed in the job classification

c. Age of each employee in the job classificationd. Leve l of skill required by the job of each employee

e. Leve l of knowledge required by the job of each employeef. Attitude of each employee toward job and company

g. Leve l of job performance , quality and quan tity, of eachemployee

h. Leve l of skills and knowledge of each employee for otherjobs

i. Poten tial replacements for this job outside companyj. Poten tial replacements for this job within company

k. Training time required for potential replacementsl. Training time required for a novice

m. Rate of absen tee ism from this jobn. Turnover in th is job for specified period of time

o. Job specification for the job

Table 2. Essential activities of a job.

a. The worker’ s actions.

b. The obje ctive or purpose ( what ge ts done as a result ofworkers actions) .

c. The machines, tools, equipment, and work aids (MTEWA)used to attain an obje ctive or pe rform a worker action.

d. The materials, products, subject matter, and services(nece ssary to place the job in its general occupational area

and to contribute to an understanding of the basicknowledge required) .

e . The work performed and worker characteristic ratingsincluding information on worker re lationship to data,

people , and things, worker functions, work fie lds ( specificmethods characteristic of MTEWA) , and worker charac-

teristics ( physical demands, environmental conditions,temperaments, and aptitudes) .

f. Criteria for acceptable work ( job standards or measuresfor acceptable work performance) ( US Department of

Labor 1991) .

Table 3. Sample list of task dimensions (Ammerman andPratzner 1977) .

Importance of the taskImportance of criticality of task for the job

Importance of consequences of error in task performanceTime-frequency

Tasks actually pe rformed the previous yearFrequency of task performance on the job

Most recent time task was performed on the job

Difficulty of learning of taskHow difficult is it to learn task?How difficult is it to learn task on job?

How much opportunity is given to learn task on job?Difficulty of task performance

How difficult is it to perform task?

Why is it difficult to pe rform task ( task complexity, lack oftraining, monotony, fatigue, e tc.) ?

Miscellaneous

Where should task be learned?

What level of worker proficiency is expected after training?

of task;’ `Th ink of som eone you know who is be tter

than anyone e lse at name of task.’ `What is the reason

they do it so we ll?; `What does a pe rson need to know

in orde r to name of task?’ ; `Give concre te exam ple s of

effective or ineffective pe form an ce and lead a discus-

sion to explain causes or reasons’ ; `If you are going to

hire a pe rson to perform name of task, what kind of

KSAs would you wan t the pe rson to have ?’ ; `What do

you expect pe rsons to learn in train ing that would

make them effective at name of task?’ Future -oriented

task analysis ( Schne ide r and Konz 1989 ) and future -

oriented critical incident analysis ( Cam pbe ll 1988) are

two evolving procedures that a job analysts can use for

e lic itin g in form ation from the expe rts regardin g

future train ing expectations for a task. The job analysts

would then write KSA statements for jobs keeping in

m ind issue s such as ge ne rality ve rsus specificity,

redundancy in statements, and triviality of in form a-

tion .

Another approach uses worker traits and in terpre ts

jobs in te rms of human attributes ( attitudes, tem pera-

m e n ts, in te re sts, e tc.) n e ce ssary for succe ss ( US

De partm e nt of Labor 1991) . In structional system

deve lopm ent ( Ryder et al. 1987) , think-aloud ve rbal

protocols and psychom etric scaling ( Cooke and Scha-

van eve ldt 1988, Green and Gihooly 1990) , are evolving

m ethods from artificial in te llige nce and cogn itive

psychology fie lds to e lic it in form ation about jobs from

experts.

The th ird and final step in needs assessment is

pe rson analysis. It de termine s the type and content of

train ing needed by an individual. The obje ctive of a

pe rson analysis is to enable the train ing analyst to

identify criteria that m ust be used to better tailor the

train ing program design to the characte ristics of the

train ee population .

3.2. Train ing program design

There is recognition that train ing and instructional

program s in organ izations are but one part of the

complex system that an organ ization is, and that the

efficacy of train ing can affect othe r subsystem s of the

massive system that is the organ ization . Not on ly does a

system s vie w of the train ing function provide a fram e-

work for studying the in teraction of other components

and subsystem s involve d, it he lps in de sign ing appro-

priate feedback m echan isms for correcting and modify-

ing instruction ( Goldste in 1986) . Indeed, all re search

efforts in train ing and deve lopment embody principle s

of the system s framework.

The use of learning principles as the basis for

instructional design is dependent upon the be lie f that it

is possible to de sign an environm ent for instruction

wh ich can later be transferred to a job se tting. Howeve r,

it is the opin ion of m any in the train ing field that

learning theory has tended to focus on high ly specific

laboratory expe rimentation, and that the principle s

that have re sulted from such experimentation have

yie lded them se lve s to ve ry little gene ralization to fie ld

se ttings ( Goldste in 1986 ) . It was observed that some of

the core learn ing principle s, such as feedback, practice

distribution , and mean ingfu lness, were inadequate in

de sign ing effective train ing situations ( Gagne 1962) .

Learning theory adds little to explain ing complex

human behaviour such as problem solving, perceptual

motor learning, concept learn ing, e tc. ( Baldwin and

Ford 1988, Cam pbell 1988) . According to Goldste in,

the se deficiencie s in learn ing theory have re sulted not

only in train ing practitione rs ignoring learning princi-

ples, but also in the deve lopment of instructional

theorie s out of expe rience s from instructional settings.

In fact, most of the curren t theore tical framework that

exists in train ing lite ratu re is base d upon th e se

instructional theorie s.

Theorie s of instruction attem pt to re late specified

events comprising instruction, to learning proce sses

and le arn in g outcom es, drawin g upon knowle dge

ge ne rated by learn ing research and theory ( Gagne

and Dick 1983, Gagne and Glase r 1987, Pintrich et al.

1986) . These theorie s are prescriptive in nature and

categorize learn ing outcom e s to organ ize h um an

perform ance .

When learning outcomes, or learned capabilities,

are m atched with differen t instructional eve nts such as

informing the learne r of the obje ctive of the instruc-

tion, or e liciting the pe rformance from the learne r, or

asse ssing pe rform ance of the learner, or enhancing

re ten tion and transfer of the instruction, differen t ways

of man ipulating instructional eve nts for the differen t

categorie s of learning outcom es re sult. Table 4 provide s

an exam ple of some of these instructional eve nts and

the conditions of learn ing im plied by the se instruc-

tional eve nts for the five differen t type s of learning

capabilitie s.

Re cent advan ce s in cognitive psychology ( Anderson

1985) and cogn itive approache s to learning such as

autom atic processing, m ental m ode ls and schema, and

meta-cogn ition ( Howe ll and Cooke 1989) add to the

understanding of basic human learn ing. These are

evolving concepts and the use fulne ss of the se concepts

in train ing de sign rem ain s to be seen .

The principle s of train ing program design include

identifying tasks and task components of a job ( needs

asse ssment) , building the se tasks and task com ponents

in the train ing program, and arranging the actual

learn ing of the se task com pone nts in an optim al

A. Pennathu r e t al.298

sequence ( Cam pbe ll 1971) . Needs assessment he lps

deve lop objectives for the training programm e that are

then transferred to the trainee in an appropriate

learn ing environm ent through appropriate instruc-

tional or train ing m edia.

3.3. Factors affecting train ing

Apart from the differen t type s of instructional and

train ing m edia, train ing de sign requires conside ration

of the train ing environm ent and the trainee behavior.

The factors that affe ct a trainee ’ s behavior be fore

train ing include train ee readine ss and trainee motiva-

tion ( Noe 1986) . Train ee readine ss involve s both

maturational and experimential factors in the learne r

background ( Goldste in 1986) . Information about trai-

ne e backgroun d ( what the train e e s know be fore

beginn ing trainin g) is there fore im portant for train ing

de sign .

The motivation of a train ee to undergo train ing is

anothe r im portant precondition to learn ing. Motivation

has been observed to involve behaviour that is active ,

purposive , and goal-dire cted ( Bourne and Ekstrand

1973 ) . Eve n though m ost theoretical and em pirical

re search on motivation has been done in re lation to

pe rform ance on the job, industrial psychology has two

theorie s to offer about m otivation . The first theory

seeks to explain how behavior is ene rgized, dire cted ,

sustained and stopped. The second theory, the theory

of content, seeks to explain what th ings motivate people

( Steers and Porter 1983) . There are also theorie s that

aid in the e stablishm ent of m otivational leve ls in

train ing and learn ing se ttings:

( 1) the re in forcem ent theoryÐ the response of a

person to stimuli re inforce s or rewards the

person, wh ich positively orien ts trainee s to-

wards pe rformance ( Pedalino and Gam boa

1974, Yukl and Latham 1975) ( tim in g of

re in forcem ent, partial re in forcem ent, and pun-

ishm ent, are also important factors) ;

( 2) the instrum entality theory ( Vroom 1964 ) Ð cog-

n itive expectancie s concerning outcom es that

are like ly to occur as a re sult of the partici-

pant’ s behavior;

( 3 ) th e n e e d th e ory ( Atkin son an d Fe ath e r

1966 ) Ð behavioral tende ncy to strive for suc-

ce ss;

( 4) the theory of h ie rarchy of ne eds ( Maslow

1954 ) ;

( 5 ) th e two-fac tor th e or y ( H e rzb e rg et a l.

1959 ) Ð postulate s the existence of extrinsic

( pay, job security, e tc.,) and in trinsic ( recogn i-

tion , re sponsibility, e tc.) factors;

( 6) the goal-se tting theory ( Latham and Locke

1979 , Locke et al. 1981 ) .

The exten t of original learn ing occurring during

train ing is known to influence the amount of transfer of

train ing that will occur during pe rformance of the job

( Goldste in 1986) . Th is im plie s that de sign of the

learn ing environment should ensure substantial learn -

ing for its e ffect to be transferred over to actual job

performance . The size of the train ing unit ( whole

versus part learning) is one of the im portant variable s

th at h as be en sh own to affe ct task pe rform ance

( Holding 1965 ) . The difficulty of the total task has

been sugge sted to be the sum of the difficulties of the

Framework for train ing workers in man ufacturing 299

Table 4. Sample instructional events, conditions of learning for the five learned capabilities ( Gagne et al. 1979) .

Instructional

Type of learned capabilities

event Inte llectual skill Cognitive strategy Information Attitude Motor skill

Informinglearner of

objective

Provide de scriptionand example of the

pe rformance to beexpected

Clarify the generalnature of the

solution expected

Indicate the kind ofverbal question to

be answered

Provide example ofthe kind of action

choice aimed for

Provide ademonstration of the

performance to beexpected

Eliciting the

pe rformance

Ask learner to apply

rule or concept to

new examples

Ask for problem

solution

Ask for information

in paraphrase , or in

learner’ s own words

Ask learner to

indicate choice s of

action in real orsimulated situations

Ask for execution of

the performance

Enhancing

retentionand transfer

Provide spaced

reviews including avarie ty of examples

Provide occasions

for a varie ty ofnove l problem

solutions

Provide verbal links

to additionalcomplexes of

information

Provide additional

varied situations forse lected choice of

action

Learner con tinues

skill practice

sub-tasks involve d in perform ing the total task. O ne of

the principle s of train ing design sugge sts that when a

task has high organ ization, whole methods are m ore

e fficien t than part m e th ods for incre ase s in task

complexity. When a task has low organ ization , part

me thods are more e fficien t than whole m ethods for

increase s in task complexity ( Naylor 1962) . Also, for

tasks that can easily be separate d, combin ing them at a

later time does not pose any difficulty for the learne r

( Holding 1965 ) . In such a case , proper analysis of the

job is im portant for correct sequencing of com ponent

learn ing, and for ensuring that the learner has the

proper capabilitie s to perform the com ponents ( Briggs

1968 ) . The principle of mass ( no rest) ve rsus distrib-

uted ( with re st) practice is also im portant in enhancing

transfer from the learning environm ent to the actual

job. Re st inte rvals during practice se ssions ( distributed

practice ) have been shown to be more e ffective in

train ing than mass practice for enhancement of motor

skills ( Lorge 1930, DeCe cco 1968) . It is ge ne rally

though t that massed learning conditions on ly ham per

pe rform ance but not learn ing ( Holding 1965, Re ynolds

and Bilodeau 1952) .

O ve rlearning has im plications for skill acquisition

and transfer of train ing. O ve rlearn ing is im portant for

thorough learning of the task ( McGehee and Thaye r

1961 ) and to m aintain pe rform ance during em er-

gency and stre ss conditions ( Fitts 1965) . Knowledge

of results or `feedback,’ eve n though questionable in

tracking and trouble -shooting tasks ( Gagne 1962) ,

im prove s pe rform an ce due to m otivation al an d

in formational functions involve d in feedback ( Hold-

ing 1965, Thorndike 1927 , Komaki et al. 1980 ) . The

concept of reten tion of previously learned mate rials

has be e n stud ie d m ain ly in laboratory se ttin gs

( Johnson 1981) . The few studie s that have been

perform ed in military settings ( Hagm an and Rose

1983) have shown that re te n tion of learn ing is

in fluenced by the degree of original learn ing, the

mean ingfulne ss of the mate rial pre sen ted to the

train ee , the am ount of in te rference ( from previously

le arned m ate rials and from activitie s that occur

during learn ing of the original mate rial that affe ct

recall) , and the motives and perception of activitie s

associated with tasks.

3.4. Train ing methods

Train ing lite rature is rep le te with a varie ty of

instructional m e thods, such as classroom lecturing,

program m ed instruction, com puter aided instruction ,

mach ine sim ulators, behavior m odification techn ique s,

sim ulations involving busine ss gam e s, role playin g, and

behavioral role -m ode ling used. Revie we rs ( Cam pbe ll

1988, Tan nenbaum and Yukl 1992) have , howe ve r,

concluded that m ost re search studie s on train ing

methods have been demonstration-type studies invol-

ving com parison of one train ing m ethod with anothe r

or to a no-learn ing control condition . These studie s

dem onstrate that a m ethod `works’ or is `superior’ to

another method, but add little practical value as they do

not show why a ce rtain method enhance s learn ing or

how a ce rtain method can be used m ore e ffective ly for

train ing ( Tan ne nbaum and Yukl 1992 ) . In the following

paragraphs, some of the more com monly used m ethods

of train ing are brie fly revie wed.

Simulations and gam es seem to be popular m ethods

of train ing in the m ilitary and for train ing manage rs. To

sim ulate is to replicate essen tial characte ristics of the

real world in order to facilitate learn ing, and transfer of

such learn ing. Simulation s vary in size and scope

depending on the com plexity of issue s be ing simulated

and the participan t size .

The m ost important, and perhaps controversial,

issue involving the use of simulation is sim ulation

fide lity ( Hays and Singe r 1989) . Man y sim ulators, such

as those used for flight sim ulation , carry a great deal

of physical fide lity ( representation of actual flying

characte ristics) , but lack psychological fidelity, the

ability of the sim ulator to reproduce, during train ing,

behavioral processes e ssential for job perform ance .

Most simulations use partial task simulation due to

eithe r the proh ibitive cost, the dange rs involve d in

sim ulating entire tasks, or the non-im portance of

certain factors in contributing to the learn ing of a

task ( Goldste in 1986) . For exam ple, the inclusion of

motion in flight sim ulation , in addition to possibly

be ing a non-contributing factor to learning, costs an

additional $250 000. In addition to issues involving

sim ulation fide lity, simulations utilized in team train -

ing environm ents presen t unresolved research issue s

such as individual versus team feedback affecting team

perform ance ( see Swezey and Salas 1992) , for othe r

issue s in team train ing) ; identification and quantifica-

tion of param eters de scribing team behavior and team

communication ; and coordination and decision mak-

ing ( Denson 1981) . Re search on original learning

efficiency, tran sfer of learn ing to the new task, and

re te n tion of le arn ing, all im portan t m easure s in

evaluatin g transfer of train ing and all vital to the

integrity of sim ulation results, is plagued by design

problems due to lack of a control group ( Goldste in

1986) . There is also ve ry little inform ation on long-

term re ten tion of skills obtained through sim ulation

( Willige s et al. 1972) . Efforts to de sign be tter sim ula-

tors wh ich im prove learn ing during train ing are

currently underway.

A. Pennathu r e t al.300

Techniques such as role -playin g also provide trai-

nee s an opportun ity to expe rience and explore solu-

tions to a varie ty of on-the -job problem s. Role -playin g is

used primarily for in te rpe rsonal problems and attitude

change and deve lopment of human -re lations skills

( Bass and Vaughhan 1966 ) . This m e thod succeeds only

when the participants actually willingly adopt the role s

and react as if they were really in the work environment

( Cam pbe ll et al. 1970 ) . There are differen t form s of

role -playin g such as train ee s playin g reve rse role s

( Speroff 1954) , multiple role -playing among trainee s

( Maie r and Zerfoss 1952 ) , and se lf-confrontation ( King

1966 ) .

Behavioral role -modeling, an approach based on

social-le arning theory ( Bandura 1969 , 1977 ) , is an

approach for the acquisition of nove l re sponses and

modification of human behavior through observation,

mode ling and re in forcem ent. Some of the key e lem ents

of the behavior role -modeling approach for train ing

include:

( 1) providing the trainee with numerous, vivid,

de tailed displays ( on film , videotape or live ) of

a manager-actor ( the m ode l) pe rform ing the

specific behaviors and skills for the train ee to

learn ;

( 2) giving the trainee considerable guidance in

and opportunity and encourage m ent for beha-

viorally rehearsin g or practicing the behaviors

he / she has seen during role playing;

( 3) providing h im / he r with positive fee dback,

approval or reward as h is/ her role playin g

enactm ents increasingly approximate the be -

havior of the mode l ( Goldste in and Sorche r

1974) .

In addition to the techn ique s de scribed here , there

are othe r train ing techn ique s for manage rial and

inte rpersonal skills: ach ievem ent motivation train ing

( McCle lland and Win ter 1969) , leade r match train ing

( Fie lde r 1964, 1967, Fiedle r et al. 1971 ) , and train ing

the rate rs ( Latham et al. 1975) .

O ne of the most wide ly used methods of train ing a

worker is on-the-job train ing. Howe ver, there seems to

have been very little re search done on the utility of

this me thod. Most of the train ing re searche rs seem to

use th is m ethod as a control procedure for re search

in ve stigating othe r train ing techn ique s. The be st

availab le in form ation for the on-the -job train in g

method is based only on in tuition ( Goldste in 1986) .

This is all the m ore striking, as on-the-job train ing is

often the only instruction that m anufacturing workers

m ay rece ive for ce rtain type s of jobs. Eve n th is

instruction m ay be lim ited to the worker sim ply

watch ing an experienced worker pe rforming a task.

With proper de sign of the on-the -job train ing proto-

col, the re could be ce rtain advan tage s to th is train ing

m ethod ove r othe rs. Transferring the train ing be -

com es le ss difficu lt as the worker is be ing trained in

exactly the same physical and social environment in

wh ich he is expecte d to pe rform afte r train in g.

Be sides, we ll designed on-the -job train ing provide s

workers with an opportun ity to practice the required

behavior, and could re sult in the collection of m ore

job-re levan t evaluation crite ria. Howe ve r, on-the -job

train ing can be easily abused by using sim ple instruc-

tions and poor train ing de sign. O n-site and on-the -job

train ing seems to be the least re searched and the most

poorly de signed method of train ing at the presen t

time .

The le cture method is often inexpensive com pared

to the other me thods of train ing; the re is a tendency

am ong researche rs to use the le cture method for

control purposes, and to proclaim the superiority of

othe r me thods. It is popular in educational and school

se ttings, but it is insensitive to individual difference s,

and provide s limited feedback to the trainee . Th is

techn ique, howe ve r, may be used when knowledge

gain is the ultimate goal of train ing. The m ethod may

also be used to im part in form ation of gen e ral

aware ness nature. There is little empirical evidence

in the train ing lite rature on the e fficacy of the le cture

m ethod.

The late st me thod that has ge nerated excitement

am ong train ing practitione rs is the use of computers as

tools for instruction, com monly refe rred to as compu-

te r-assisted instruction ( CAI) . There are a num ber of

com puter-assisted train ing techn ique s in vogue, am ong

which the most im portant are the drill-an d-practice

m e th od ( Suppe s an d Je rm an 1970 , Suppe s an d

Morningstar 1969 , McCann 1975 ) , and the tutorial

form of instruction ( Collins and Adams 1977 ) . The

m ajor advan tage s of CAI are the individualization of

in struction , provisions for good re in force m e nt of

learn ing, and good data-colle ction provisions. The

m ajor disadvan tage s are the cost and affordability of

CAI system s, and the issue of whe the r a mach ine -

orien ted learning environment is enough stimulus for

learner satisfaction , m otivation , and furthe r deve lop-

m ent.

In comparing the pros and cons ( cost and proxim ity

to real working atm osphere ) associated with various

train ing methods, it appears that on-the -job training has

the be st potential, provid ed that the shortcom ings

gene rally associated with it ( that is, lack of proper

instructions) are ove rcome . The most de sirable attri-

butes of the m ethod are its low cost and the ability to

replicate the working environm en t.

Framework for train ing workers in man ufacturing 301

3.5. Evaluation of training

Evaluation is de fined as the system atic colle ction of

de scriptive and judgmental information required to

make e ffective train ing decisions related to the se le c-

tion , adoption , value , and modification of various

instructional activitie s. Som e of the difficulties with

evaluatin g train ing program s in clude d ifficulty in

establish ing re levan t evaluation crite ria, lack of pe rson-

ne l train ed in the evaluation m ethodology, difficultie s

in showing statistical differences be tween alte rnative s,

and the fear of negative consequence s of a poor

evaluation ( Goldstein 1986 ) .

Deve loping e ffective evaluation criteria is the first

step in evaluation. The most important requirement in

establish ing evaluation criteria is the relevance of the

criteria in evaluating succe ss in pe rform ing the task. If

pe rform ance during train in g is used as a m easure of

succe ss on the job, the evaluation should attempt to

establish the re lationsh ip between perform ance s during

train ing and on the job. A similarity be tween the

train ing e valu ation crite r ia an d job perform an ce

evaluation criteria is suggested by Thorndike ( 1949) .

It should be noted that evaluation criteria could be

de ficient in a number of ways. One de ficiency could be

that an important KSA attribute is identified but le ft out

of the crite rion constructs. It is also possible that KSAs

ide ntified during the needs asse ssme nt phase are

required for pe rformance of a job, but not included

in train ing. Also, the evaluation criteria used should

re flect the fact that trainee s will not be able to perform

as we ll as an expe rienced worker, at least in itially, and

the perform ance will im prove with train ing ove r a

pe riod of time .

It is also possible that extraneous e lements such as

opportun ity bias ( individuals havin g differing opportu-

nitie s for succe ss at job, unre lated to skills deve loped

through trainin g) , group-characte ristic bias ( characte r-

istics in the group se tting not pe rmitting trainee s to

dem onstrate skills gain ed from training) , knowledge of

train ing pe rform ance ( individuals pe rforming we ll in

train ing be ing similarly evaluated in the job setting)

may contam inate crite ria for evaluation . It should be

noted that m any factors may affect the re liability of

evaluation criteria. These factors m ay include : the size

of the sam ple , variation in the ability among the

participan ts, am biguity of instruction s, variation in

conditions during m easurem ent pe riods, and assistance

provided by instruments. Under such circumstance s, a

measure of re liability for the evaluation criteria should

be added ( Nagle 1953) . Also, whe neve r, possible ,

multiple and independent evaluation crite ria should

be used to provide som e re liability. At least four leve ls of

cr ite ria ( reaction , le arn in g, behavior and re su lts)

sh ould be in cluded ( Kirkpatr ick 1959) . Re action

denotes what trainees th ink of the train ing program.

It can be m easured by a questionnaire designed on the

basis of in form ation obtained during needs asse ssment.

Learn ing m easures should include components that

measure learning during train ing ( for exam ple , written

tests and learning curve s) . Good train ing pe rform ance

may not re sult in good job perform ance if there are

difficultie s in transfer setting de sign. Measures that are

used during train ing can typically be also used for

measuring job perform ance . Re sults, including such

measures as costs, turnove r, absentee ism , grievan ces,

and morale , can be used to re late re sults of the train ing

program to organizational goals and objective s ( Kirkpa-

trick 1959) .

There are othe r measures, such as traine rs’ atti-

tude s, the trainee s’ expectations from the train ing

program s, learn ing and perform ance , that can be used

to evaluate train ing programs. Learn ing criteria m ea-

sured early in train ing, and behavior crite ria measured

afte r train ing and transfer to the job, should re flect the

effects of the tim e dim en sion upon learn ing as time of

data collection adds to the variation in crite ria used in

evaluatin g train ing.

Evaluation criteria could also be classified in to

criterion- and norm -refe renced m easures, and objec-

tive and subje ctive m easure s. Crite rion-re fe renced

measures provide an ach ieve m ent standard for in -

dividuals as com pared with specific behavioral objec-

tive s; norm-refe renced measure s, on the othe r hand,

compare the capabilitie s of an individual with those of

othe r trainee s in the program. Measures that require

judgment, and opinion , are subjective ( such as rating

scale s) .

The most important que stions to be answered in

evaluatin g the e fficacy of train ing program s are :

( 1) has a real change occurred?

( 2) is the change attributable to the instructional

program?

( 3) is the change like ly to occur again with a new

sam ple ?

A pre -train ing and post-train in g te st will h e lp

de te rm ine if the train e e s’ pe rform ance im prove d

significan tly afte r train ing. The most importan t con-

side ration in th is testing is the timing of the post-test. It

has been sugge sted that two post-train ing tests should

be given so that comparisons can be made be tween the

pre-train ing test and first post-training test, the pre -

train ing test and the second post-training test, and the

first and second post-train ing tests ( Goldste in 1986) .

Measures associated with the objective s of train ing

should be used in the te sts.

A. Pennathu r e t al.302

A num ber of possible source s of e rror have been

poin te d out in the lite rature , sugge sting possible

conside rations of the se as control variable s in the

expe rimental de sign . Threats to valid ity could com e

from:

( 1) h istory ( e .g. time lag in admin istration of

te sting) ;

( 2) m aturation , re fe rring to the biological or

psychological e ffects that system atically vary

with tim e ( such as fatigue and in tere st in the

program ) ;

( 3) testing ( such as influence of pre-test on the

scores of the post-test) ;

( 4) instrum entation ( any change s in te sting instru-

m ents between pre - and post-te sts) ;

( 5) errors due to statistical regre ssion;

( 6) differential se le ction of participants;

( 7) expe rim ental m ortality ( diffe re n tial loss of

participants from control or treatm ent groups) ;

( 8) inte ractions;

( 9) diffusion or im itation of treatm ents with in an

organ ization ;

( 10) com pensatory equalization of treatm ents ( ben-

e fits that control subjects ge t which wipe out

m easured differences) ;

( 11) com pensatory rivalry be twee n re spon de nts

rece iving le ss de sirable treatm ents;

( 12) de m oralization of re sponde n ts in control

group ( Cook and Cam pbe ll 1976, 1979) .

Threats to gene ralization of the study to othe r

groups or train ing situations could com e from:

( 1) increased sensitivity of participan ts afte r pre -

te st;

( 2) in te raction of se le ction an d expe rim en tal

treatm ent;

( 3) aware ne ss of participation , or the `I’m -a-gui-

nea-pig effect’ ;

( 4) carry over e ffects of othe r treatm ents ( Cam p-

be ll and Stan ley 1963) .

The differen t type s of expe rim ental de signs used in

train ing include :

( 1) pre -expe rimental de signs involving e ither a

one-group post-test on ly de sign , or a one-group

pre -test/ post-test de sign ;

( 2) pre -te st/ post-test control-group designs;

( 3) quasi-expe rim ental or time -serie s designs ( si-

m ilar to ( 1) except that a serie s of measure -

m e n ts are take n be fo re an d afte r th e

training) .

4. Gene ral review find ings

Base d on the revie w of published lite rature, a

number of observations we re m ade . Som e of the se

have been poin ted out earlier. The following are the

m ain observations re sulting from this revie w.

Ve ry little train ing-re lated work exists in enginee r-

ing. Most research lite rature on training is concen-

trated in the behavioral science s. Engin ee ring train ing

lite rature , whatever little the re is, gene rally deals with

the deve lopment of mathem atical mode ls for a flexible

workforce ( not reviewe d in th is pape r) or surveys of

human resource m anage m ent practice s in industries.

The ove rall conclusion of surve ys is that training the

workforce is indeed e ssen tial. There are , howe ve r, no

system atic investigations of train ing methods in the

m anufacturing context that have been reported in

engin ee ring lite rature .

Train ing research in the behavioral science s has

re sulted in use ful insights in to considerations that

should be taken in to conside ration whe n designing

train ing expe riments or train ing program s. Man y of the

approache s to train ing that have been discussed in the

behavioral lite rature, such as the system s approach , and

specific techn iques and methods in train ing, including

task analysis and job analysis, have been in existence

and in active use in industrial enginee ring se ttings for

job and work design for a long time . Application of

the se techn iques in train ing research in m anufacturing

organ izations, there fore , should not require deve loping

new techn ique s and approaches.

No on -site train ing stud ie s in m an ufacturin g

organ izations we re identified in the published lite ra-

ture. The bulk of train ing re search in the behavioral

science s has dealt with non-m anufacturing occupa-

tions, such as music, police work, train ing in the

m ilitary, and language s. As mentioned earlie r, the se

studie s provid e insigh ts in to train ing methods, factors

affe cting train ing and in fluencing train ing outcomes,

train ing perform ance m easures, and human behavior.

However, they provide very little insigh t in to train ing

practice s, needs, me thods, and evaluation criteria,

that one would find use ful in deve loping train ing

program s for workers in a m anufacturing environ-

m ent. Such insights are vital in order to deve lop

e ffective train ing program s and strategie s for prepar-

ing the Am erican m anufacturing workers for global

com pe tition .

Be side s the above de ficiencie s, the curren t de ficien -

cies in the behavioral train ing re search on train ing

humans apply as well. The late st availab le revie w on

train ing humans conclude s that researchers are only

now beginning to `. . . conside r train ee s as active

participan ts in th e syste m who in teract with the

Framework for train ing workers in man ufacturing 303

environment be fore train ing, during train ing, and after

train ing . . .’ . Furthe r, the re is a `. . . parad igm shift from

research designed to show that a particular type of

train ing `works’ , to re search designed to determ ine

why, when and for whom a particular type of train ing is

e ffective ( Tan nenbaum and Yukl 1992) .’ Also, the

conclusion of Tan nenbaum and Yukl that train ing

re searche rs need to conside r the purpose of the

train ing and the type of learning involved in training,

is equally valid for any future train ing re search in

m anufacturin g. The se reviewe rs also sugge st that

cogn itive con ce pts an d h igh te ch no logy train in g

methods are becom ing increasingly popular in train ing

se ttings. In addition , these revie we rs conclude that the

distinction be tween on-the-job train ing and off-site

train ing is becom ing blurred due to the deve lopment

of on-line train ing technologie s.

5. A prop osed fram ework for train ing m anufacturing

workers

In th is section , we presen t a fram ework for train ing

worke rs in a m anufacturin g environm e nt. In the

lite rature review, we identified two main reasons for

train ing: to provide the worker with more job options

and choice s, and to improve the productivity of the

company. A m anufacturing organ ization is driven by

the products its deve lops and m arke ts. The productivity

of the organ ization is improve d by deve loping proce sses

th at aid in m anufacturing the product with th e

required quality, short lead time s, and low unit cost.

Som e specific reasons for train ing m anufacturin g

workers include .

( 1) Lack of ade quate in struction s: m ost work

instructions or proce ss plan s require an under-

standing of the process. It is difficult for a

novice to be involve d in the production of parts

because of a lack of understanding of the

te rm inology and operations of the manufactur-

ing proce sses and systems. Training increase s

the dom ain knowle dge that th e ope rator

possesses and the refore improves the proce s-

sing operation. Th is re sults in lowe r scrap rates,

lower production cost, shorter cycle tim es, and

be tter quality of the product.

( 2) Im prove m ent of efficiency: train ing m ay also

be required for the operator to deve lop a

thorough understanding of the proce ss such

that instructions, written or othe rwise , are not

required for continued perform ance of the

tasks. This will improve the e fficiency of the

operation , thus reducing tim e and cost. The

learn ing proce ss will also re sult in reduced

scrap rate s.

( 3) In ade quate m an -m ach in e in te rface s: m any

train ing issue s arise because of inadequate

design of the user in terface s on mach ines.

O perators will have to be trained to understand

and adequate ly operate the equipm ent. Such

train ing will also re sult in be tter products,

lowe r lead times, and lower cost.

Ove rall, the need for train ing in m anufacturing

environments is driven by the need for the manu-

facturing pe rsonne l to deve lop an understan ding of

the products, proce sses, and systems that they are

required to manufacture / operate . Be cause the nature

of proce sses and systems is dictated by the products,

the first step in deve loping a train ing program has to

concentrate on product design . Figure 1 outline s the

proposed fram ework for train ing workers in manu-

facturing environments. It is based on the prem ise

that for a manufacturing entity to comple te e ffective ly

in a global m arket, it must manufacture quality

products that users wan t or need. These products

should be usable and re liable , and able to be

produced quickly and econom ically. The ve ry first

requirem ent is to de te rmine and conside r users’

needs and wan ts. The product de sign must conside r

the se along with the function the product is supposed

to pe rform. Figure 2 presen ts a structured approach

to im plem enting a m ajor part of the fram ework ( up

to skill gap identification) and specifie s the m ajor

activitie s, and the in form ation flows re quire d to

accom plish them .

A longe r-term approach to deve loping train ing

program s should be based on a technological forecast

and strategic plan that outlines what markets the

company in tends to penetrate and there fore what new

products are expected to be deve loped. The product

concepts as well as expected advan ce s in product

deve lopm ent related technologie s will provide a long-

term vision of the type s of technologie s that the

manufacturing personne l will deal with during pro-

duction . As shown in figure 2, the identification of

short- and long-te rm strategic needs should be done

by th e com pan y’ s upper m anagem e nt base d on

information about the econom ic environment and

competitor positions. The constraint on th is activity is

that the strategic needs should focus on ly on the

company’ s core com petencie s, i.e . the special knowl-

edge and skills that it possesses that makes it a

succe ssful competitor in the marketplace . The output

of th is activity would be the strategic goals that the

company would be required to ach ieve in the short-

and long-te rm.

A. Pennathu r e t al.304

O nce it has been ensured that the product has

been designed to mee t the specifications and needs

of the market, e fforts need to be directed to the

asse ssment of technologies available to manufacture

it. The technology conside red should include not only

what is availab le in -house but what is used by the

competition as well. For a short-term train ing e ffort,

the focus on proce sses required to m anufacture a

particular product may be appropriate . Howe ve r, a

long-term m anufacturing technology forecast should

also be deve loped to identify the knowledge and skills

the pe rsonne l will be required to have in the future .

Knowing what technology is availab le in -house and

what should be procure d from outside to rem ain

com pe titive will le ad to de te rm in ing in ve stmen t

needs. Se le ction of new equipment should also be

based on the quality of the user in te rface s. As shown

in figure 2, the deve lopment of a technology forecast

should be pe rformed by the m anage m ent based on

surveys of expe rts, and othe r techn ique s for obtain ing

in formation on expected advan ce s in m anufacturing

technology. The forecast should be directed by the

strategic goals of the company, i.e . it should be

focused on topics and areas that directly contribute to

the com pany’ s near- and long-te rm growth objectives.

Anothe r constraint on the forecast deve lopm ent is the

technology curren tly used by the company. A forecast

of advan ce s and evolutions in m anufacturing technol-

ogy should addre ss how it will affe ct the curren t

m anufacturing capabilitie s of the company. Specific

focus should be on whethe r the curren t equipment

would continue to be use ful, or could be upgraded to

adapt to the new product and proce ss requirements.

The output of this activity is the manufacturing

proce ss technology forecast.

The availab ility of capital will de te rm ine equip-

m ent and automation capabilitie s, wh ich in turn will

in fluence the m ethod( s) of manufacture. The meth-

ods of manufacture in this context include the choice

of mate rials, and consequently manufacturing pro-

Framework for train ing workers in man ufacturing 305

Figure 1. A proposed framework for training manufacturing workers.

cesses, me thod of assem bly and quality requirements.

Th e e xte n t of au tom ation m ust be base d on

econom ic justification ( Mital 1992) as we ll as the

capabilitie s of the humans and the equipment. The

capabilitie s of humans and mach ine s are e ssen tial for

allocating functions ( Mital et al. 1994 a, b) and for the

final de te rm ination of the equipm ent needed. The

exte n t of autom ation as we ll as th e particu lar

equipm ent se le cted will have a m ajor impact on the

complexity of instructions give n to the humans to

operate the mach ines. The tim e and cost of produc-

tion as dictated by the leve l of autom ation and the

type of equipment will have to be used to evaluate

alternate product de signs. Thus, afte r the method( s)

of manufacture have been de termined for a particular

product design option, the de sign should be reex-

am ined to identify opportun itie s for rede sign that

could directly impact the production time and cost,

now based on an understanding of the availab le

equipm ent capabilitie s.

The allocation of functions also provide s a basis for

determ in ing what skills the workers will nee d. A

comparison be tween the availab le and needed skills

will iden tify skill de ficiencie s that will have to be made

up through train ing. In the de sign and deve lopment

of the train ing program, it would be worthwh ile to

conside r im mediate , short-term, and long-te rm skill

requ ire m e nts. As shown in figure 2, the se skill

requirements will be a function of the technology

forecast. Base d on th is forecast, the company should

ide ntify potential use rs, i.e . pe rsonne l in various

functional units that will be affected by the predicted

product and process change s. Th is activity should be

done by lowe r leve l manage ment and re lated en-

gin ee ring pe rsonne l. The output of th is activity would

be the list of affe cted function al un its and the

corre sponding personne l that would need to be

train ed . Using in te rvie w, surve ys an d oth e r data

colle ction instruments, the availab le skills inve ntory

of the affected pe rsonnel needs to be de term ined. By

understanding the technology forecast, the required

skill sets can be identified. The asse ssment of the gaps

between the availab le skills inve ntory ( where they are

now) and the required skill se ts ( where they need to

be) will re sult in the skill gaps that would need to be

filled by appropriate train ing.

A. Pennathu r e t al.306

IDENTIFYNEAR-TERMSTRATEGIC

NEEDS

DEVELOPTECHNOLOGY

FORECAST

IDENTIFYPOTENTIAL

USERS

IDENTIFYREQUIREDSKILL-SET

IDENTIFYSKILLS

INVENTORY

ASSESSSKILLGAPS

Figure 2. An abbreviated methodology for identifying skill needs.

As the revie w in Section 3 indicate s, the design and

deve lopm ent of the train ing module will need to

conside r at the very least, the following questions:

( 1) should the workers be trained in several skills

or on ly a particular skill?

( 2) should the focus be on building up on availab le

skills ( re training) or is the technology chosen

such that it would amount to fresh train ing ( for

fresh train ing, the re sidual effect of olde r skills

will need to be considered) ?

( 3) what train ing method should be used ( sim u-

lator, le cture , on-the -job, e tc.) ?

( 4) what should be the pe rform ance measure s

training should enhance and how are they

related to workers’ perform ance on the actual

job?

( 5) what should be the criteria for evaluating

worker proficiency during and afte r train ing?

It should be noted that the train ing framework

proposed in figure 1 and brie fly discussed above is

sole ly based on the revie w of publishe d train in g

lite rature and corresponding de ficiencies. There are

many issue s that are still unresolve d. For example , is it

better to train workers in seve ral skills ( cross-training)

or a specific skill ( longitudinal train ing) ? Cle arly, cross-

train ing enriche s the individual but m ay result in

penalizing e fficiency, whereas longitudinal train ing will

reve rse those e ffe cts. What should be the balan ce to

ach ieve enrichment as we ll as e fficiency? Such issue s

need to be addressed in future research . The fact that

such issue s are ye t to be re solve d, howe ve r, should not

re strict us from deve loping a ge neric train ing process

fram ework. Such e fforts, at the ve ry least, will focus

atten tion on issue s of imm ediate concern that future

re search will need to address.

6. Sum m ary

In th is paper we have e stablished the need for

train ing m anufacturing workers in skills the rapidly

changing technology dictate s they have . Upgrading

worker skills is necessary not on ly for com pe ting

succe ssfully in th e global m arket but also for

properly managin g our human resource s. We have

provided a brief revie w of the training lite rature ,

wh ich primarily exists in the behavioral science s area,

and established that there are certain de ficiencie s

( for exam ple , a se rious lack of onsite industrial

stud ie s) th at future train ing re se arch ne eds to

address. Finally, we have provided a framework for

train in g m anufacturin g worke rs th at take s in to

account users, product de sign conside rations, manu-

facturing technologie s, technological change s, and

availab le worker skills.

Re fe rence s

ADLER, P. S., 1991, Capitalizing on ne w m anufacturingtechnologie s: current problems and emergent trends in

US industry. People and Technology in the Workplace (Wa-shington: National Academy Pre ss) .

AMMERMAN, H. L., and PRATZER, F. C., 1977, Performance Content

for Job Train in g. R & D Se ries 121 ± 125, Vols 1 ± 5

(Columbus, OH: Center for Vocational Education) .ANDERSO N, J. R., 1985, Cognitive Psychology and its Implications

(New York: Freeman) .ATKINSON, J. W. and FEATHER, N. T., 1966, A Theory of Achievement

Motivation (New York: Wiley) .BALDWIN, T. T., and FORD, J. K., 1988, Transfer of training: a

review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychol-

ogy, 41, 63 ± 105.

BANDURA, A., 1969, Principles of Behaviour Modification (NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston) .

BANDURA, A., 1977, Social Learning Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ,Prentice-Hall) .

BASS, B. M., and VAUGHAN, J. A., 1966, Training in Industry: The

Management of Learning (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth) .

BLACK, J. S., and MENDENHALL, M., 1990, Cross-cultural traininge ffectiveness: a review and a theore tical framework for

future research. Academy of Management Review, 15, 113 ±136.

BO O TH RO YD, G., 1990, In C.W. Allen ( Ed.) Simu ltaneous

EngineeringÐ In tegrating Manufacturing and Design (Dear-

born, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers) , pp. 90 ± 91.BO URNE, L. E. and EKSTRAND, B. R., 1973, Psychology: Its Principles

and Mean ings (Hinsdale , IL: Dryden) .BRADY, M., GERHARD, L. A., and DAVIDSON, H. F., 1984, Robotics

and Artificial Intelligence (Berlin: Springer-Verlag) .

BRIGGS, L. J., 1968, Sequencing of Instruction in Relation to

Hierarchies of Competence (Palo Alto, CA: American Institutesfor Research ) .

BRO DNER, P., 1985, Skill-based production: the superior

concept to unmanned factory. In H.J. Bullinger and H. J.Warnecke (Eds) Towards the Factory of the Future ( Be rlin:

Springer-Verlag) .BRODNER, P., 1987, Strategic options for new production

systems: computer and human integrated manufacturing.

Commission of the European Communities, FAST Report,

Brusse ls, Belgium.BULLINGER, H. J., and WARNECKE, H. J., (Eds) , 1985, Factory of the

Future (He ide lberg: Springer-Verlag) .

BUSHNELL, D. S., 1983, Training for New Technology ( New York:

Pe rgamon Pre ss) .BUTERA, F., and THURMAN, J. E. (Eds) , 1984, Automation and Work

Design (Amsterdam: North-Holland) .CAMPBELL, J. P., 1971, Pe rsonne l training and deve lopment.

Annual Review of Psychology, 22, 565 ± 602CAMPBELL, J. P., 1988, Train ing design for perform ance

improvement. In J.P. Campbe ll et al. (Eds) , Productivity in

Organizations ( San Francisco: Jossey-Bass) .

CAMPBELL, J. P., DUNNETTE, M. D., LAWLER, E. E., III, and WEICK, K.E., Jr., 1970, Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effective-

ness ( New York: McGraw-Hill) .

Framework for train ing workers in man ufacturing 307

CAMPBELL, D. T., and STANLEY, J. C., 1963, Experimental and Quasi-

experimental designs for Research (Chicago: Rand McNally) .CARNEVALE, A. P., 1991, America and the New Economy ( Washing-

ton: American Society for Training and Development) .CARNEVALE, A. P., and GOLDSTEIN, H., 1990, Schooling and

training for work in America. In L.A. Ferman et al. ( Eds) ,

New Developments in Worker Training: A Legacy for the 1990s

(Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association) .CARNEVALE, A. P., and SCHULZ, E. R., 1990, Evaluation practices.

Training and Development Journal, 44, 23 ± 29.

COLLINS, A., and ADAMS, M. J., 1977, Comparison of twoteaching strategies in computer-assisted instruction. Con-

temporary Educational Psychology, 2, 133 ± 148.

COMMISSION O N THE SKILLS OF TH E AMERICAN WORKFO RCE, 1990,

America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages (Rochester, NewYork) .

COOK, T. D., and CAMPBELL, D. T., 1976, The design andconduct of quasi-experiments and true expe riments in field

se ttings. In T.J. Bouchard Jr. ( Ed.) Field research methods:Interviewing, que stionnaires, participant obse rvation, sys-

tematic obse rvation, unobtrusive measures. Handbook of

Indu strial and Organizational Psychology (Chicago: Rand

McNally) .COOK, T. D., and CAMPBELL, D. T., 1979, Quasi-experimentation:

Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (Chicago: Rand-McNally) .

COOKE, N. M., and SCHAVANEVELDT , R. W., 1988, Effects ofcomputer programming experience on network repre sen-

tations of abstract programming concepts. International

Journal of Man ± Machine Studies, 29, 533 ± 550.

CORBETT, J. M., RASMUSSEN, L. B., and RAUNER, F., 1991, Crossing

the Border (Berlin : Springer) .

DECECCO , J. P., 1968, The Psychology of Learning and Instruction:

Educational Psychology ( Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall) .

DENSO N, R. W., 1981, Team Train ing: Literature Review and

Annotated Bibliography (Brooks Air Force Base , TX, Air Force

Human Resources Laboratory) .DOWNS, S., 1983, Industrial training. In A.P.O . Williams ( Ed.) ,

Using Personnel Research (Aldershot, UK) .ETTLIE, J. E., 1988, Taking Charge of Manufacturing ( San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass) .FIEDLER, F. E., 1964, A contingency mode l of leade rship

e ffectiveness. In L. Berkowitz ( Ed.) Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology ( New York: Academic Pre ss) .

FIEDLER, F. E., 1967, A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness (NewYork: McGraw-Hill) .

FIEDLER, F. E., MITCHELL, R. T., and TRIANDIS, H. C., 1971, Theculture assimilator: an approach to cross-cultural training.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 95 ± 102.FITTS, P. M., 1965, Factors in complex skill training. In R.

Glaser (Ed.) , Training Research and Education (New York:

Wiley) .FLYNN, B. B., SCHRO EDER, R., and SAKAKIBARA, S., 1995, Determi-

nants of quality pe rformance in high- and low-quality

plants. Quality Management Journal, Winter, 9 ± 25.

FRY, E. B., 1963, Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruction

(New York: McGraw-Hill) .

GAGNE, R. M., 1962, Military train ing and principle s oflearning. American Psychologist 17, 83 ± 91.

GAGNE, R. M., and BRIGGS, L.J., 1979, Principles of Instructional

Design (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston) .

GAGNE, R. M., and DICK, W., 1983, Instructional psychology.Annual Review of Psychology, Palo Alto, CA.

GAGNE, R. M., and GLASER, R., 1987, Foundations in learning

re search . In R. Glaser ( Ed.) , Instru ctional Techn iques:

Foundations (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum) .

GERWIN, D., and TARO NDEAU, J. C., 1982, Case studies ofcom puter-inte grated m anufacturing system s: a view of

uncertainty and innovation processes. Journal of Operations

Management, 2, 87 ± 92.GILL, K. S., 1990, Summary of human centered research in

Europe . Research paper, SEAKE Centre, Brighton Poly-

techn ic, UK.

GOLDSTEIN, A. P., and SO RCHER, M., 1974, Changing Supervisor

Behaviour (New York: Pergamon Press) .GOLDSTEIN, I. L., 1986, Training in Organizations: Needs Assess-

ment, Development, and Evaluation (Mon terey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company) .

GOLDSTEIN, I. L., 1991, Training in organizations. In M.D.

Dunnette , and L.M. Hough ( Eds) , Handbook of Industrial

and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2.

GRANT, R. M., KROSHNAN, R., SAHNI, A. B., and BAER, R., 1991,Appropriate manufacturing technology: a strategic ap-

proach. Sloan Management Review, 33, 43 ± 54.GREEN, A. J. K., and GILHOOLY, K. J., 1990, Individual differences

and effective learning procedures: the case of statisticalcomputing. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33,

97 ± 119.HACKMAN, J. R., and WAGEMAN, R., 1995, Total quality manage -

ment: empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly, 40, 309 ± 342.

HAGMAN, J. D., and ROSE, A. M., 1983, Retention of militarytasks: a review. Human Factors, 25, 199 ± 214.

HAMMER, H., 1992, The economics of flexible manufacturingsystems contingent upon ope rating and service personne l.

European Journal of Production Research, 16, 38 ± 41.HARTLEY, J., 1984, Robots at Work (Bedford: IFS) .

HAYS, R. T., and SINGER, M. J., 1989, Simulation Fidelity in

Training Systems Design (New York: Springer-Verlag) .

HERZBERG, R., MAUSNER, B., and SNYDERMAN, B., 1959, The

Motiviation to Work (New York: Wiley) .

HITT, M. A., HOSKISSON, R. E., and HARRISON, J. S., 1991, Strategiccompe titiveness in the 1990s: Challenges and opportunities

for US executives. Academy of Management Execu tive, 5, 7 ± 22.HOCKLEY, J., 1990, Manufacturing strategies ( editorial) . Com-

puter Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 4, 59.HOLDING, D. H., 1965, Principles of Training (London: Pe rga-

mon) .HOWELL, W. C., and COO KE, N. J., 1989, Training the human

information processor: a review of cogn itive mode ls. In I.L.Goldste in ( Ed.) , Training and Development in Organizations

( San Francisco: Jossey-Bass) , pp. 121 ± 182.JACO BS, J., 1994. Skills and education requirements. In G.

Salvendy and W. Karwowski (Eds) , Design of Work and

Development of Personnel in Advanced Manufacturing (NewYork: Wiley) .

JOHN GRAY INSTITUTE, Lamar University, 1991, Managing Work-

place Safety and Health: The Case of Contract Labor in the U.S.

Petrochemical Industry, 93 ± 116.JOHNSON, S. L., 1981, Effects of training devices on re tention

and transfer of a procedural task. Human Factors, 23, 257 ±272.

JOHNSTON, W. B., and PACKER, A. H., 1987, Workforce 2000: Work

and Workers for the 21st Century ( Indianapolis, IN: Hudson

Institute) .

A. Pennathu r e t al.308

KEARNEY, A. T., 1989, Compute r in tegrated manufacturing:

compe titive advantage or technological dead end? Techni-cal report, London.

KIDD, P., 1992, O rgan ization, people and technology inEurope an manufacturing. Report no. DG XII/ Monitor/FAST, Contract No. MOFA-0004-D ( MB) , Commission of

the Europe an Communities, Cheshire Henbury Research &Consultancy, Maccle sfield SK11 8UW, UK.

KING, P. H., 1966, A summary of research in training for

advisory role s in other cultures by the behavioural science s

laboratory ( Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aero-space Medical Research Laboratories) .

KING, N., and MAJCHRZAK, A., 1996, Concurrent engineering

tools: are human issues being ignored? IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management, 43, 189 ± 201.KIRKPATRICK, D. L., 1959, Technique s for evaluating training

programs. Journal of the American Society of Train ing Directors,13, 3 ± 9, 21 ± 26.

KO HLER, E., 1988, Te chnology and the improvement ofworking and living conditions. Conference on Joint Design

Technology, Organisation, and People Growth, RSO Milan, Italy.KOMAKI, J., HEINZMANN, A. T., and LAWSO N, L., 1980, Effect of

training and feedback: Component analysis of a behaviour-al safety program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 261 ± 270.

LATHAM, G. P., 1988, Human resource training and deve lop-ment. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 545 ± 582.

LATHAM, G. P., and LOCKE, E. A., 1979, Goal se tting: amotivational technique that works. Organizational Dynamics,

8, 68 ± 80.LATHAM, G. P., WEXLEY, K. N., and PURSELL, E. D., 1975, Training

managers to minimize rating errors in the observation ofbehavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 550 ± 555.

LILLARD, L. A., and TAN, H. W., 1986, Private sector training:who gets it and what are its e ffects? R-3331-DOL-RC, Rand

Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.LOCKE, E. A., SHAW, K. N., SAARI, L. M., and LATHAM, G. P., 1981,

Goal se tting and task performance . Psychological Bu lletin , 90,

125 ± 152.

LORGE, I., 1930, Influence of regularly in terpolated timeintervals upon subsequent learning, Teachers College

Contributions to Education, No. 438, Teachers CollegePre ss, Columbia University, New York.

MAIER, N. R. F., and ZERFO SS, L. R., 1952, MRP: a technique fortraining large groups of supe rvisors and its potential use in

social re search. Human Relations, 5, 177 ± 186.MAJCHRZAK, A., 1988, The Human Side of Factory Automation ( San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass) .MAJCHRZAK, A., and WANG, Q., 1996, Breaking the functional

mind-set in proce ss organ izations. Harvard Business Review,Sept. ± O ct., 93 ± 99.

MASLO W, A. H., 1954, Motivation and Personality (New York:

Harper & Row) .MCCALL, Jr., M. W., and LOMBARDO , M. M., 1982, Using

simulation for leadersh ip and manageme nt research :

through the looking glass. Management Science, 28, 533 ± 549.

MCCANN, P. H., 1975, Train ing Mathematics Skills with Games

( San Diego: Navy Pe rsonnel Research and Deve lopment

Centre) .MCCLELLAND, D. C., and WINTER, D. G., 1969, Motivating

Economic Achievement ( New York: Free Pre ss) .

MCGEHEE, W., and THAYER, P. W., 1961, Train ing in Business and

Industry (New York: Wiley) .

MEALIEA, L. W., and DUFFY, J., 1985, Contemporary training and

development practices in Canadian firms. Annual Meeting of

the Atlantic School of Business, Halifax, Canada.

MITAL, A., 1991, Manual versus flexible assembly: a crosscomparison of performance and costs in four different

countries. In M. Pridham and C. O’ Brien ( Eds) , Production

Research: Approaching the 21st Century (London: Taylor &Francis) , pp. 481 ± 488

MITAL, A., 1992, Economics of flexible assembly automation:

influence of production and marke t factors. In H.R. Parsae i

and A. Mital (Eds) , Economics of Advanced Manufacturing

Systems

MITAL, A., 1995, Integrating humans in advanced manufactur-

ing technology: identification and ranking of research

needs. Journal of Design and Manufacturing 5, 275 ± 278MITAL, A., 1996, Identification and ranking of research needs

in preparing the American workforce for global compe ti-tion beyond the year 2000: the role of ergonomics in

de sign ing for manufacturability and humans in general inadvanced manufacturing technology. Final report of two

workshops submitted to the National Science Foundation,Cincinnati, OH

MITAL, A., 1997, What role for humans in computer integratedmanufacturing? International Journal of Computer Integrated

Manufacturing, 10, 190 ± 198.MITAL, A., and ANAND, S., 1992, Concurrent de sign of products

and ergonom ic conside rations. Jou rn al of Design and

Manufacturing, 2, 167 ± 183.

MITAL, A., MAHAJAN, A., and BROWN, M. L., 1988, A comparisonof manual and automated assembly methods. Proceedings of

the IIE Integrated Systems Conference. Institute of IndustrialEngineers, Atlanta, GA, pp. 206 ± 211.

MITAL, A., and MAHAJAN, A., 1989, Impact of production volumeand wage and interest rates on economic decision making:

the case of automated assembly. Proceedings of the Society for

Integrated Manufacturing Conference. Institute of Industrial

Engineers, Atlanta, GA, pp. 558 ± 563.MITAL, A., MOTO RWALA, A., KULKARNI, M., SINCLAIR, M., and

SEIMIENIUCH, C., 1994 a, Allocation of functions to humansand mach ines in a manufacturing environm ent: Part

IÐ Guide lines for the practitioner. International Journal of

Industrial Ergonomics, 14, 3 ± 31.

MITAL, A., MOTO RWALA, A., KULKARNI, M., SINCLAIR, M., andSIEMIENIUCH, C., 1994 b, Allocation of functions to humans

and machines in a manufacturing environment: Part II ÐThe Scien tific Basis ( Knowledge Base) for the Guide . Ibid.,

14, 33 ± 49.MURAMATSU, R., MIYAZAKI, H., and ISHII, K., 1987, A succe ssful

application of job enlargement/ enrichment at Toyota. IIE

Transactions, 19, 451 ± 459.

NAGLE, B. F., 1953, Criterion development. Personnel Psychology,

6, 271 ± 288.NATIO NAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, 1988, The Technological

Dimensions of International Competitiveness (Washington: Na-

tional Academy Press) .

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 1990, The Internationalization of US

Manufacturing: Causes and Consequences ( Washington: Na-

tional Academy Press) .NAYLO R, J. C., 1962, Parameters affecting the relative e fficiency

of part and whole practice methods: a review of the

literature . Techn ical report No. 950-1, United States Naval

Training Devices Center.

Framework for train ing workers in man ufacturing 309

NEVINS, J. L., and WHITNEY, D. E. ( Eds) , 1989, Concurrent Design

of Products and Processes Ð A Strategy for the Next Generation

Manufacturing ( New York: McGraw-Hill) .

NOE, R. A., 1986, Trainees’ attributes: neglected influences ontraining e ffectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11,

736 ± 749.

NONAKA, I., 1991, The knowledge-creating company. Harvard

Business Review, 69, 96 ± 104.O ’ BRIEN, C., 1991, Pe rspe ctives on curren t production

research. In M. Pridham and C.O’ Brien (Eds) Production

Research: Approaching the 21st Century (London: Taylor &Francis) , pp. 3 ± 8.

ORPANA, V., and LUKKA, A. (Eds) , 1993, Production Research in

1993 (Amsterdam: Elsevier) .

PEDALINO , E., and GAMBO A, V. U., 1974, Behaviour modificationand absentee ism: intervention in one industrial se tting.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 694 ± 698.PERRY, N. J., 1991, The workers of the future . Fortune, Spe cial

Issue , Spring-Summer, 68 ± 72.PINTRICH, P. R., CRO SS, D. R., KOZMA, R. B., and MCKEACHIE, W. J.,

1986, Instructional Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology,37, 611 ± 651.

PRIEN, E. P., 1977, The function of job analysis in con tentvalidation. Personnel Psychology, 30, 167 ± 174.

REPO RT OF THE PRESIDENT’ S COMMISSIO N ON INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVE-

NESS, 1985, Global competition: the new reality. Volumes I

and II, US GPO , Washington, DC.REYNOLDS, B., and BILODEAU, I., MCD., 1952, Acquisition and

retention of three psychomotor tests as a function ofdistribution of practice during acquisition. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 44, 19 ± 26.ROSOW, J. M., and ZAGER, R., 1988. Training Ð he Competitive

Edge ( San Francisco: Jossey-Bass) .ROUILLIER, J. Z., and GOLDSTEIN, I. L., 1991, Determinants of the

climate for transfer of training. Meeting of the Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

RYDER, J. M., REDDING, R. E., and BECKSCHI, P. F., 1987, Train ingdeve lopment for complex cognitive tasks. Proceedings of the

31st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Vol. 2,1261 ± 1265.

SATA, T., 1986, Deve lopment of flexible manufacturing systemsin Japan. First Japan ± USA Symposium on Flexible Automation.

Association of Automatic Control Engineers, Osaka, Japan .SCHULER, R. S., and JACKSON, S. E., 1987, Organizational strategy

and organ izational le ve l as de te rm inan ts of hum anresource management practice s. Human Resource Plann ing,

10, 123 ± 141.SCHNEIDER, B., and KO NZ, A., 1989, Strategic job analysis. Human

Resource Management, 28, 51 ± 63.SENEHI, M. K., BARKMEYER, E., LUCE, M., RAY, S., WALLACE, E. K.,

and WALLACE, S., 1991, Manufacturing Systems Integration:

Initial Architecture Document ( NISTIA 4682) , NationalInstitute of Standards and Te chnology, Gaithe rsburg,Maryland.

SHAIKEN, H., Work Transformed: Automation and Labor in the

Computer Age ( Holt, Rinehart and Winston) .SNELL, S. A., and DEAN, J. W., JR., 1992, Integrated manufactur-

ing and human resource management: a human capitalpe rspective . Academy of Management Journal, 35, 467 ± 504.

SO NNENFELD, J. A., and PEIPERL, M. A., 1988, Staffing policy as a

strategic response : a typology of career systems. Academy of

Management Review, 13, 588 ± 600.

SPERO FF, B. J., 1954, Rotational role playing used to deve lopmanagers. Personnel Journal, 33, 49 ± 50.

STEERS, R. M., and PORTER, L. W., 1983, Motivation and Work

Behavior ( New York: McGraw-Hill) .SUPPES, P., and JERMAN, M., 1970, Compute r-assisted instruction.

National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 54,

27 ± 40.

SUPPES, P., and MORNINGSTAR, M., 1969, Computer-assistedinstruction: two computer-assisted instruction programsare evaluated. Science, 166, 343 ± 350.

SWEZEY, R. W., and SALAS, E., 1992, Teams: Their Train ing and

Performance (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publish ing Corporation) .TANNENBAUM, S. I., and YUKL, G., 1992, Training and deve lop-

ment in work organ izations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43,

399 ± 441.

TAYLO R, F. W., 1911, The Principles of Scientific Management (NewYork: Harper) .

THORNDIKE, E. L., 1927, The law of e ffect. American Journal of

Psychology 39, 212 ± 222.

THORNDIKE, R. L., 1949, Personnel Selection (New York: Wiley) .UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT O F LABO R, 1991, The Revised Handbook

for Analyzing Jobs, US GPO, Washington, DC.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABO R, 1993 a, Skills and tasks for

jobs: a SCANS report for America 2000. The Secre tary’ sCommission on Achieving Necessary Skills, Wash ington DC.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABO R, 1993 b, High performancework practices and firm performance : background material

for the confe rence on the future of the Am ericanworkplace, Washington , DC.

VROOM, V. H., 1964, Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley) .WALSH, J., 1967, Legal aspects of training. In R.L. Craig and

L.R. Bitte l ( Eds) , Train ing and Development Handbook (NewYork: McGraw-Hill) .

WALTO N, R. E., and SUSMAN, G. I., 1987, People policie s for newmachines. Harvard Business Review, March -April, 98 ± 106.

WEXLEY, K. N., 1984. Personne l training. Annual Review of

Psychology, 35, 519 ± 551.

WILLIGES, B. H., RO SCO E, S. N., and WILLIGES, R. C., 1972,Syn thetic Flight Train ing Revisited ( Savoy, IL: Aviation

Research Laboratory) .WO BBE, W., 1992, What are anthropocentric production

systems? Why are they a strategic issue for Europe ? Finalre port no. EUR 13968 EN, DG XII/ Mon itor/ FAST,

Comm ission of the European Com munitie s, Brusse ls,Belgium.

YAMASHITA, T., 1987, The interaction between man and robot inhigh-technology industrie s. In K. Noro (Ed.) Occupational

Health and Safety in Automation and Robotics ( London: Taylor

& Francis) , pp. 139 ± 142.YUKL, G. A., and LATHAM, G. P., 1975, Consequences of

rein forcement schedule s and incentive magnitudes for

em ployee perform ance : proble ms encoun te re d in an

industrial se tting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 294 ± 298.

A. Pennathu r e t al.310