Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.
For years the debate has continued whether classroom-based, which includes computer-based learning and training, is more effective than on-the-job training (“OJT”) that is task-based. Many of us see no debate; and no controversy. The two domains of learning are more compatible, if done right, than mutually exclusive.
Yet, a lot more attention has been directed at classroom and computer-aided training because the established institutions know classroom training best, and computer-aided learning is a natural extension of content that was previously delivered by an instructor; the instructor is now electronic. Also, the administration of computer-based learning can be centered at the same brick and mortar institution that previously asked the client to come to and learn in the classroom.
While all of this can be familiar, never mind the fact that there are huge industry pressures on schools to conform to the agenda that the computer and computer-based learning industry exerts, how close the material matches the actual need determines the cost-effectiveness of the delivery approach.
The nature of work has been changing at an accelerated rate ever since the introduction of computers. The core knowledge, skills and abilities necessary for one to learn the job for which they were hired is very dynamic as the job classification evolves with technology. To further complicate matters, employers have never allowed a job description to stand in their way. Even in the 1990’s there were some human resource professionals and consultants who thought we should do away with job classifications all together – a proposition which conflicted with any practical management theory on process control and work quality.
In fact, most “reality-based” managers and supervisors trended the opposite. They consolidated work to reduce the number of job classifications only to find that there were no “super-employees” available and no training programs to develop an expert. Furthermore, employers were reluctant to pay someone the realistic wage levels necessary to attract and retain that skilled person. So they slowly split the job classifications back into, in many cases, their original state.
Another trend came along, LEAN manufacturing that required the logical relocation of tasks for best efficiencies. However, training to the changed tasks was an afterthought and usually limited the efficiency improvement. Today, job classifications are very different from the job title (within and between employers the same job title may be extremely different jobs), which makes it difficult to select and develop good classroom and computer-based training without a detailed job/task analysis. For more information click here.
Several other factors enter into the discussion: Cost: the cost of developing classroom curriculum or computer-assisted learning programs can be initially expensive and take quite a while to develop. Often the target job classification can go through several substantial changes during the development cycle, which brings up the hidden costs. The cost of maintaining the computer-based system plus the cost of ongoing revisions to keep the materials content valid and legally defensible can be enormous and complicated. On the other hand, the cost of developing and maintaining structured, task-based OJT can be done far less expensively – using existing subject matter experts to define the initial job-data set, revising the content and even deliver the OJT just as they would have been asked before informally, but now in a formal, deliberate way. Unlike classroom and online learning, the cost per person for each new trainee decreases once the original investment to set-up the structured OJT program is made.
Fidelity: Fidelity is a term more appropriate for a simulated learning system, and it means “how close a representation to reality the system exhibits.” Whereas structured OJT materials are created and maintained with strong, inherent content validation by using people currently in the job classification, classroom and computer-based learning materials cannot always say the same. Without an current analysis of the job classification, materials may do more to reflect the recollection of the instructor, the bias of the software developer than the job itself or the agenda of the learning systems industry.
Effectiveness: Cost and fidelity are larger contributors to effectiveness of a learning delivery strategy. Another is the natural nature of the system, the deference given to the employer’s priority of making or doing things first; training second or sometimes third. Incentives help, and need not be financial, to encourage employees to learn. Having a training program that an employee and employers can both see how someone completing the program will be a better employee (i.e. higher capacity, higher work quality and quality, safe performance) leads to better cooperation, participation and support of whatever the learning strategy is.
Which brings us back to cost. In order for a manager to sell the need for obtaining training services or materials to their manager, they have to be able to explain the cost and benefit. In turbulent economies, “training” is see by accountants as a cost and usually the first to be cut – even the human resource development staff if the organization has one. Any training-related strategy that is seen as a cost, not by value, will not be acquired nor implemented.
Areas of Compatibility – Blended Learning Approaches: One approach that is simple, makes sense and clearly, if structured right, emulates the concept of value over cost is a blended strategy. This approach includes the best aspects of classroom/computer-based learning and structured OJT into a coherent, deliberate and manageable process that is far more affordable and which makes it easy to explain the investment nature of the system rather than the cost. However, it must be done right, with a thorough job/task analysis, a selection or development of the most job-relevant core skill learning which types logically into a mastery of the job classification through structured OJT. Anything less grossly misses the reason for the effort.
Conclusion: Classroom/computer-based learning and structured OJT cannot, and should not, operate alone. What good is developing core skills and competencies only to have the job candidate fail because there exists no structure to help them apply those skills to work the employer needs peformed. Conversely, what goods is a structure OJT program when a person lacks the core skills needed to learn the tasks. This is a case with the right blend of both can lead to greater efficiencies in worker development and lower overall costs.
Proactive Technologies, Inc.®; PROTECH; Human Resource Management for Tomorrow...Today!® and logo;