designing effective training through the technological life cycle

Designing Effective Training through the Technological Life Cycle

PAUL S. GOODMAN AND STEVEN M. MILLER

New technology-specifically, computer-aided design, computer- aided manufacturing tools, computer-based information systems-represents one major strategic option for increasing organizational effectiveness. But for organizations to reap full benefits from the technology they introduce, it must be fully utilized. That is where training-any mechanism that contributes to acquisition of skills, knowledge, and behavior-comes in. Effective training is, in fact, a key element of successful utilization. No wonder, then, that some firms are spending millions of dollars in training for new technology. Given the potential and the demands of the new technology, the relationship between the vendor and user in delivering training is paramount.

The following guide on improving training for new technology is based on research in a major manufacturing corporation with three new assembly plants using state-of-the-art production technology, including a sophisticated, computer-integrated manufacturing system.

GOOD TRAINING AT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY When trying to determine how users and vendors can design and deliver

more effective training, it is important to keep in mind the life cycle of any large-scale automation project. The major phases in this life cycle are

Initial contracting between the user and vendor Designing of hardware and software Building and testing of hardware and software at the vendor’s site and

Formal classroom instruction Installing and integrating equipment at the user’s site Piloting of equipment Accelerating the process to planned volumes and steady state operation

visiting other plants

While the reader might like to reorder or relabel these phases, the Paul S . Goodman is professor of Indurtrial Administration and Psychology, and Director of the Center for Management of Technology at Carnegie Mellon University’s Graduate School of Business Administration in Pittsburgh. Steven M . Miller is a professor of Economics at the Graduate School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University. National Productiv@ R~viewlVol. 9, No. 2JSpring 1990 169

PAUL S. GOODMAN AND STEVEN M. MILLER -

principal point to remember is that all phases of the life cycle are critical to the training effort. Each phase provides direct and indirect opportunities to learn about the new technology, and what happens in one phase determines the learning opportunities in another.

Training in this is used in a broad sense to refer to any mechanism that contributes to the acquisition of skills, knowledge, and behaviors relevant to new technology. The following table presents several types of learning mechanisms. Some are formally, others informally, initiated, and some are more structured than others.

LEARNING MECHANISm

Formally Less Formally Initiated Initirued

Structured * Classmm * Working with vendor‘s resident expert in plant

Less Structured * Working in a build * Observation of resident expert

* Handson * Talking with peers experience

* Stan-up

Classroom training is formally initiated and structured. Under a formally initiated but less structured arrangement, in some firms employees are sent to work for several weeks in the vendor’s factory, or build shop. Here they help assemble and debug the new equipment. Other skilled tradespeople have learned to manage new technology by working out a structured relationship with the resident expert. This “apprenticeship relationship” is particularly important in developing skills to diagnose downtime problems with new technology. A lot of learning also occurs through talking to coworkers and experimenting with the new equipment.

Interviews with managers and employees reveal that these learning mechanisms are important. There is no evidence from the interviews that the formal classroom training, which is probably the most frequently men- tioned learning mechanism, is the most helpful. All types contribute to learning and are important in vendorhser training. Indeed, the combination of different learning mechanisms is critical.

FACTORS THAT FACILITATE OR INHIBIT LEARNING IN THE TECHNOLOGICAL LIFE CYCLE

Moving through the technological life cycle, this article will examine the factors that vendors and users-including line managers, staff, and hourly

I70 National Productivity Revie wlVol. 9, No. 21Spring I990

DESIGNING EFFECTIVE TRAINING THROUGH THE TECHNOLOGICAL LIFE CYCLE

personnel-believe facilitate or inhibit learning. It is important to note that these factors affect all employees, whether they are on the production, engineering, or management end.

Initial contracting between the user and vendor. Early in a modernization program, the user chooses the vendor and formalizes commitments for purchases. Although our discussion of the implementation life cycle begins at this contracting phase, clearly, this is not the beginning of the user’s relationship with a vendor, since extensive discussion precedes the final choice of who will provide a technology. This is especially true if the equipment to be purchased is sophisticated and requires extensive applica- tion-specific engineering.

The important thing to remember here is that the tone of the general relationship between user and vendor is set during the contracting process. Why is this relevant to training efforts? Interviews on vendorhser training showed that relationships between users and vendors dominated training issues. These relationships varied from ones that were very cooperative, flexible, and productive to those that were high in conflict, inflexible, and low in productivity. In very cooperative relationships, the two parties seemed to work out effective training strategies. In situations where there was a great deal of conflict, however, negative feelings permeated the training effort.

Facilitators of learning.

The user’s corporate staff involves representatives from the plants in the initial establishment of the user-vendor relationship and in the contracting of the system.

* The user and vendor provide detailed specifications on requirements for classroom and informal training.

Inhibitors of learning:

The vendor’s sales group promises to meet all the user’s training requirements. The vendor’s training group is not involved in the contracting phase and does not have the resources and capabilities to provide the promised training. The user and vendor have different expectations about acceptable performance under the contract.

The dilemma in this first phase is that on one hand, there are many different groups-for example, engineering, reliability, production, central staff, and vendor sales-with different goals that need to be met by new technology. On the other hand, there must be a common cooperative

National Productivity ReviewlVol. 9, No. USpring 1990 171


relationship with common expectations between user and vendor. The results of this initial contracting phase are critical to the whole training effort. The quality of classroom training and the user’s access to vendor expertise are determined by the character of the userhendor relationships established during this period.

Designing of hardware and software. There are several ways in which the design of an automated system affects training. First, the design of modem automated systems is inherently complex, requiring knowledge from many areas-for example, mechanical, electrical, and software. Second, multiple vendors supply machines, computers, and software, which adds to the complexity. Therefore, training must deal not only with different types of knowledge from different sources but also with the integration of complex information. Third, if the design of the technology requires the use of new and unproven hardware and software components, there will be a great deal of uncertainty about system performance. This will affect the later phases in the life cycle, particularly the timing and resources needed to train for the installation and use of the new system.

Facilitators of learning:

The user and vendor work together to develop and refine functioal specifications for the system. The vendor simulates design options for the user to help validate design concepts and to eliminate many of the design and manufacturabiliy

problems early in the process.


The user does not provide a detailed functional specification to the

Requirements for integration with other vendors’ equipment are vendor for design.

ambiguous.

The dilemma during this phase is that the design of a new automated system takes place in an uncertain environment. How the user and vendor work through this uncertainty will determine the level of crises during the building and installation phases. These, in tum, will determine the quality of training.

Building and testing of hardware and software. Once the equipment has been designed, major pieces of hardware and software are constructed at the vendor’s plant. Sending user personnel to work and observe at the vendor’s facility gives them the opportunity to learn about the technology early in the

172 National Productivity ReviewfVol. 9, No. ZfSpring 1990

DESIGNING EFFECTIVE TRAINING THROUGH THE TECHNOLOGICAL LIFE CYCLE

life cycle. Besides enabling the user’s technical personnel to see how equipment is put together, this residency period also gives them a chance to learn how to identify and solve problems. Production workers who are tar- geted to be machine attendants can also benefit from visiting the vendor’s facility. This is an example of a relatively unstructured training activity.


The user that the lead vendor (the one responsible for the integration of the full system) test and demonstrate equipment capabilities in the vendor’s facility. The user sends skilled trade and production workers to the vendor’s for several weeks to get hands-on experience with the vendor’s equipment.


The vendor does not have the equipment available to dedicate to visiting can get hands-on experience. Skilled trades and production workers are exposed only to equipment made by a particular vendor, and not to the integrated automated system that will eventually be installed in their plant.

This phase represents one of the first real learning opportunities for a broad group of the user’s employees. For the visits to work, there has to be a major commitment of time for planning to ensure that people and resources are available during the visit. During this period, there are tremendous demands on the vendor to build the equipment and meet deliv- ery schedules. Providing the user with opportunities for observation and hands-on experience helps to transfer knowledge to the user’s personnel, but distracts the vendor from building the equipment as quickly as possible.

Formal classroom instmctwn. The classroom phase provides much of the conceptual apparatus for effectively operating and maintaining the new technology. And many employees will have to learn new skills, such as programming, at this time.


The lead vendor thoroughly understands and can train on

The vendor completes installation in time for formal training to be held subcontractor’s equipment.

both in the classroom and on the plant floor.

National Productivity ReviewlVol. 9, No. 2lSpring 1990 173


Training is scheduled close enough to the start-up date so users can go straight from class to use without an extended wait during which they might forget what they learned in training. The instructors maintain their credibility in the classroom by being very knowledgeable about the system.


The user does not establish and maintain training and production priorities. There is no single coordinator and information system to manage the multiple-vendor training. No cross-training is provided for skilled trades personnel. Training materials, such as documents about the equipment, are not well-prepared or available on time.

During this phase, the dilemmas revolve around resistance to learning, finding the right balance between theoretical and practical learning, finding the right timing for classroom training, and finding the right balance between training people well in their own areas and teaching them about the related areas in an integrated, automated system. Complicating these dilemmas is the inevitable threat of delayed equipment installation.

Installing and integrating equipment at the user’s site. While the equipment is being installed in the plant, the user’s technical personnel have many opportunities for relatively unstructured learning. Primarily, they learn a great deal from the vendor’s on-site personnel. These interactions may be formal-for example, the user and vendor may assign people to work together in teams-or informal-for example, users and vendors may talk on the shop floor or in the cafeteria and other common areas.


Under the vendor’s supervision, the user’s tradespeople help install

The user forms a start-up team to monitor and coordinate the installa- the equipment.

tion and debugging of the system.


The user’s people monitor the vendor’s installation of the system but the vendor does not allow them any hands-on involvement. The user does not dedicate enough people to work with the vendor’s personnel.

174 National Productivity ReviewlVol. 9, No. 2fSpring 1990

DESIGNING EFFECTIVE TRAINING THROUGH THE TECEMOLQGICAL LIFE CYCLE

Conflicts arise between the union and management over the rights of the vendor to work in the plant, and the job classification system, which may inhibit many opportunities for cross training. The vendor does not have enough support staff on site to meet installation deadlines and simultaneously respond to questions from the user’s personnel. The lead vendor who is responsible for system integration does not have extensive system-level knowledge and project management experience.

The dilemma here stems from trying to balance two priorities: minimizing the time to install the equipment and maximizing the learning experi- ences of the user’s personnel. The quicker the vendor works, the sooner the vendor can complete its tasks, leave the plant, and turn the facility over to the user. The sooner the facility is ready, the sooner the user can move on to the next stage in the implementation life cycle. Under this arrangement, however, minimizing installation time conflicts with maximizing the amount of knowledge and experience transferred from the vendor to the user.

Piloting of equipment. During the pilot period, the user simulates live operating conditions with the full-scale process. Equipment is cycled with actual material running through the major processes, although processes are not necessarily run at full speed. The emphasis is on testing the process, and operations are carried out in an environment sheltered from the pressures of meeting real production schedules. The pilot phase provides extensive learning opportunities for all personnel in the plant.


The vendor has a technical support person or team in the user’s facility nearly full-time to help supervise the repair, maintenanc and operation of the system. The vendor actively encourages users to modify and fine-tunesystems on their own to take away the “black box” mystique. The user’s resident experts gradually begin to assume the supervisory role previously filled by the vendor’s on-site support personnel. The user’s people, with expertise in different areas of the equipment system, work together in problem-solving teams.


The vendors does not retain knowledgeable people on site to help solve the user’s problems.

Nafional Productivity ReviewlVol. 9 , No. USpring 1990 175

PAUL s. GOODMAN AND STEVEN M. MILLER

The user and vendor continually disagree about responsibility for a problem. Turnover of user and vendor personnel creates gaps in knowledge- about the new technology. Systems created by multiple vendors are not reliable. No update classes are provided to reinforce critical concepts and problem-solving techniques and to provide background for employees recently transferred into the area. Few or no documents on the new technologies are available, prevent- ing users from learning on their own.

The major dilemma during this phase is to refocus on how training can contribute to the full use of technologies during the steady-state period. During acceleration, the focus was on production-related issues. As acceleration goals are achieved, new kinds of training are needed. The organization must move from thinking about training for starting up the new technology to thinking about training over time to use the new technology more effectively.

FOUR FACTORS TO REMEMBER There are a number of factors to be reviewed in concluding this analysis.

The first is that the general character of the vendorhse relationship largely determines whether training will be effective. But how does one develop a cooperative relationship? For starters, the user’s overall corporate philosophy is critical. New technology is leading to greater levels of interdependence-both within the organization and between the organization and its vendors. The corporate philosophy, therefore, must acknowl- edge this state of interdependence by identifying vendors as partners and not as adversaries. In addition, the process of developing the user-vendor relationship, particularly during the initial contracting phase, is very important. Good contracting sets common expectations, which creates the proper conditions for good training. Another way to build cooperative relationships is to have a third party audit the relationships during the life cycle and intervene when conflicts arise.

A second important factor is the existence of multiple training mechanisms. Training occurs in the classroom, at the vendor’s site, through informal problem-solving meetings between the vendor’s representatives and the user’s technicians, and through a variety of other mechanisms. AZl these mechanisms help people acquire knowledge and skills to manage new technology. The issue is not whether one mechanism is more effective than another, combinations of all four mechanisms are important.

Third, although technical training is crucial, major training resources must be devoted to developing group or team skills. All of the plants studied are organized around production teams, and these teams play a major role

176 National Productivity ReviewlVol. 9, No. 2lSpring 1990

DESIGNING EFFECTIVE TRAINING THROUGH THE TECHNOWGICAL LIFE CYCLE

in production and quality. The point is, introduction of new technologies requires changes in the total organization-in both the technological and social systems. Therefore, both technical and social training are necessary.

Finally, training does not end with the last phase of the technological life cycle. High-technology organizations need a mechanism to constantly evaluate training needs and the effectiveness of existing learning opportunities, and to propose new forms of training. This mechanism could be a task force made up of a diagonal slice of the organization-for example, line supervisors, maintenance workers, production personnel, engineers, vendors, and union representatives. To get the maximum benefit from any technology they introduce, managers must realize that training is a continu- ous process.

N o t i o ~ l Prod~ctivity ReviewlVol. 9, No. 2lSpring 1990 z 77

designing effective training through the technological life cycle

Documents