Of course, “lean manufacturing,” or lean anything (as in, avoiding/eliminating waste)  is still a useful approach for certain situations, assuming it is implemented in a smart way. That is true with everything. The odd thing is that the “lessons learned” are the same every time no matter which trend you are dissecting.

• You need employee involvement/engagement
• You also need for leadership support and ownership
• Always tailor the <insert technique or method name here> to your situation — don’t use a cookie-cutter approach
• Don’t expect the new thing to solve all your problems while requiring no work or discipline to implement it.

This is all common sense though. Why do we not learn it?  I am pretty sure that if I went on the speaker’s circuit with the above message, I would gain exactly zero traction…why not? (I once had an article for publication rejected because the reviewer thought that “everyone knows this already. We don’t necessarily do though…you are right about that.” I don’t know what to say about that. It may be that as simple as “common sense and thinking are hard to do…so we want a magic bullet…even if we know there is no such thing, do you have one”?

Or is it just different people learning these same lessons every time? Do we just not know how to pass on this kind of wisdom? Does everyone get promoted during the initial hysteria and the next crop of people repeat the same process because they saw that it worked for the previous person in their role?

On the other hand, maybe we need a new thing every now and then to get excited about and recharge our organizations. Once it is implemented and the benefits are gained, maybe it is reasonable at that point to start looking around for the next thing. The article on lean (mentioned above) indicated that many organizations did have initial gains but then plateaued.

I think one aspect is that people often want to make a career out of a specific technique. Whether that is Six Sigma, Lean, or something else, this allows you to differentiate yourself in the market (whether inside or outside a company). It provides opportunity for visibility and advancement. So if you are a line manager and you get efficient with your process you get some recognition/reward. If you have a swat team that comes in and “fixes” lots of peoples’ processes, you get even more recognition/rewards. But then the “thing” has become the primary focus, rather than the business.

Oh well, it seems unlikely that any of our services are at risk of becoming a fad in the near future (but if one did, I’d be OK with that). In fact, our entire approach is based on the assumption that we need to understand client/business needs first, then figure out how best to improve things, and then design and implement a solution. It’s a lot like that unpopular common sense approach described above. Wait…maybe that could become the next new thing after all. If I could just come up with a catchy name for it…

We do this work frequently but this time I was struck by the tension between streamlining and standardizing work and individual efforts to get each assignment done quickly…that is, following the standard process vs. coming up with your own steps and even tools to make yourself efficient.

Because the majority of the work performed by these particular roles is done individually on a computer, it is very easy for individual performers to develop their own forms, templates, spreadsheets, and so on. Depending on the assignment, they may need to deliver portions of their output early for review by other team members so they come up with lots of shortcuts…or even change the way they do downstream tasks based on the shortcuts they took at the beginning. Much of the shortcutting has to do with exporting data out of one program, manipulating it, and then importing it back into the original program. It leads to very convoluted work processes with lot’s of exceptions.

Not a big deal for our purposes…we will incorporate the “standard process” into any future training. But for the people in charge of standardizing the work, it presents a significant challenge. What is the best way? Or, should they just prescribe the sequence of outputs and let people do the steps however they want? What if the standard way results in more labor time but forcing everyone to adhere to it will allow the company to more effectively utilize their resources because they can break up the work and share it between more people…but only if they all do things the same way? Will forcing standardization reduce innovation? Should we believe that only the central organization is capable of innovation?

It is weird that all the peripheral stuff consumes so much time and energy that the whole substance and purpose of the trip almost gets lost. Instead of it being an exciting opportunity to check out the state of the industry, you spend a lot of the time checking on the state of your plans. What’s the weather? Is the flight delayed? What should I do? Try to get an earlier flight? And what about that Web meeting in an hour…can’t do it from the shuttle…or can I? And what about that in-person meeting tomorrow?

Even so, I would have to say that this year, both conferences were worth the time, cost, and effort. There was lots of interest in the topic of testing…and in particular, the larger strategy questions like why test? What test approach will be effective in this situation? Which capabilities warrant verification? And so on.

In particular, there was a lot of interest in on-the-job performance testing. There was some well-placed skepticism about an over-reliance on commercial web-based test tools. And it seems that the standard pencil-paper multiple choice test is often the default choice for managers and some professionals…old habits from all those years in school die hard.

So, the question becomes, whether to go next year. Many professionals I work with are unapologetic about not going…they believe they can get the same benefits using other means. Maybe they are right. I need to find out where the conferences are being held next year. And if we do attend next year, note to self: leave more time to enjoy the city beyond the conference hotel. That’ll happen.

The future is what we decide to make it, so the right future strategies might not be simply an extension of the state-of-the-technology.  For example, Dr. Ruth Clark has been recently publishing on evidence-based training and it would be terrific if that mindset were to become a key driver, or at least a governor on decision-making around training design and delivery.

In terms of technology, it is safe to say that digital technologies and social media will continue to play an increasing role — though they are just new ways of delivering information and managing instructional processes, people are using (and talking about) them heavily.

Some other possible future growth areas:

• At least for technical jobs, it seems likely that learning will continue to migrate more to the workplace. For example, on-line procedures, web and mobile reference content, and small “how-to” modules available on-demand.

• For jobs where people are working “in the field” and not in close contact with co-workers, some social media, such as Twitter, may help tap other experts’ or peers’ know-how when needed. (There are tools that are similar to Twitter but are more secure, for example, you can limit the access to only employees.) This is less a learning strategy than a performance-support strategy but it will probably take the place of or supplement some formal learning.

• Simulations in virtual environments. For some applications, it may be worth the expense to build the environment (using something like Second Life) but for many, it won’t be.

• I’ve been seeing alot of articles lately on the importance of mentoring, though that really isn’t my area. It does seem to be growing (maybe as a reaction against all the recent technology emphasis). Again, social media could support this, especially if the mentor and worker are not co-located.

• More companies are using “workflow” programs to move work and decisions through the company. Managers will need to be able to use these tools effectively (e.g., derive metrics, monitor work quality, etc.)…I suppose this is more a training content issue than strategy issue though.

• I wouldn’t be surprised if standard “CBT or WBT” programs level off or even decline in use. At least, several of my contacts whose companies have used it heavily in the past are not entirely happy with the results. (Of course, I think they over-used it.)

• I would personally like to see more use of a bigger picture integrated development strategy, where career paths, capabilities, and learning plans are coordinated and driven to meet business and individual goals. This would focus more on the capabilities needed in the organization than specific learning events. It would require business leaders, HR, and training people to work cross-functionally and maybe on shared systems.

As a starting point for figuring out what makes sense for your situation, you might start with two areas of inquiry:

1. For the audiences you serve, what is likely to change in the way they perform? Are they going to do more with computers? Change roles frequently? Work in teams? Require knowledge about a wider range of domains (e.g., regulations, quality, technical, interpersonal)? Are your recruiting strategies likely to change? Any significant change in their work has a potential for causing performance gaps and may need to be supported by training and other performance support.
2. What learning strategies does your organization use currently? Where do these strategies fall short? Where are business leaders asking for things you can’t deliver? What do you not get asked to deliver but think you should? Gaps in your current methods may be practical starting points for improvement. Plus, when you are introducing innovation, you have to consider how much change the organization can absorb. And, technology always requires infrastructure so, again, you want to be strategic in deciding what to invest in.

As a learning tool, I thought it was great! Specifically, there were three key lessons that were relevant and fun.

1. What options are in front of the legislature today? This tool gave the gist of each proposal, along with a sense of relief that the law makers are actually working on things besides their next campaign.

2. What is the potential impact of each proposal? How often do you hear people getting all worked up about something that, in the big picture, isn’t going to make much difference?

3. The influence of self-interest on decision-making. It was next to impossible NOT to react strongly (that is, without even reading or considering a proposa)l that seems likely to affect you negatively.

4. In spite of #3, how much easier it is to be objective and make tough decisions when you don’t have to deal with the angry reactions of the people you represent (and who can vote you out of work). But, that’s enough sympathy for the politicians…

After completing this exercise, I wished I could have emailed my answers to my congressman. (Maybe I could have but just didn’t know how.)

It also made me wish that we had some decision support information like that for elections. How convenient would it be if you could look up the gist of a candidate’s positions at the ballot box so you could feel more sure of your vote? (Particularly for less visible roles.)

Even better, what if we just picked the positions we agree with and the computer recommends the candidate?

Bottom line: a simple, fun, and effective way to share news info, engage the audience, and educate people on a complex subject.

Of course some people have more ability to pay attention, and even to notice when something they are not focusing on is happening around them. I’m not talking about multitasking…I think some people might just pay more attention in general. This is the person that notices you are looking the other way and avoids running into you. Probably, we have to admit that some people are just smarter than others. But that doesn’t stop smartphone makers and programmers from trying to make up the gap with engineering.

I recently read an article about a new wave of smartphones and related applications being designed to make it easier and safer for pedestrians to use their smartphones while walking! Apparently, record numbers of people are walking into manholes, into intersections, into signs, and whatever else because they are texting and not looking where they are going. In the article, one person managed to find a silver lining — because so many people have cellphones they can get an ambulance to the injured person more quickly. But the bulk of the attention was on how smartphone makers can improve the use of their devices to make them safer. For example, a transparent screen so you can see the sidewalk (and the person you are about to run into) through your text message. Or, “text to speech” (and vice versa) to avoid having to look at a screen and push buttons.

Maybe we need “heads-up displays” for smartphones so you can see the message in transparent letters on special goggles. Or, maybe we should just make a helmet law for smartphone users. Or, maybe we should just make a helmet law for everyone all the time because you never know when a distracted texter is going to run into you.

That is actually the worst part of the whole thing. You can no longer feel that, by driving defensively, you are giving yourself the best likelihood of avoiding an accident because some knucklehead may still randomly just ram into you or walk out in front of your car because they aren’t paying attention. Accidents happen. Many, in retrospect could have been prevented. But accidents caused by not paying attention to what you are doing are completely preventable.

At some point, we just have to wake up and be more responsible. Pay attention. Remember that there are other people sharing the planet. Don’t do stupid stuff. At some point, I wonder if the more we try to protect people from themselves, the stupider we all get.

In general though, when we hear someone speak “with authority” we assume they know what they are talking about. This assumes that they have developed confidence based on years of study, hard work, and even being wrong enough times to have “learned the hard way.”

But, that is not always a safe assumption. (Are any assumptions ever safe? Never mind, different topic.) Often people who are not that competent over-estimate their own competence. That’s not too surprising. The real surprise is that people who are very competent often under-estimate their competence. As a result, if you listen to people’s own PR, you run the risk of trusting the less-competent individual!

In 1999, Justin Kruger and David Dunning, then both of Cornell University published the results of a study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Their “Dunning-Kruger Effect” noted that, with a range of skill areas (from playing chess to driving to reading) the following are typical (emphasis added).

1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

Another psychologist, C.F. Downing determined that this sort of reverse bias applies to intelligence, with more intelligent people believing they are less intelligent than they are and less intelligent people…well, you get it by now. It leads all the way to “depressive realism” which argues that people who are depressed actually have a more accurate view of what is going on!

What does it all mean? It just means that the more you know, the more you know there is more to know. And, that we should avoid using self-assessment when getting an accurate assessment is important.

I have a series of things to do on Wed. But I’m just an attendee on Tues and Thurs. The kick-off is usually the time to figure out the “big ideas” for the conference…hopefully, we will be focusing on more than just elearning and technology this year…

Wednesday will be busy.

• 10:30am  Hosting a table for the ISPI Pharmaceutical Industry group. We’ll be talking with people about the team’s purpose and what we’ve been doing. The goal…recruit some new members and build interest in the team.
• Noon   Hosting a “Chat and Chew” table on the topic of “Web-based Collaboration Tools.”
• 2pm  Presenting an educational session “A System for Developing and Assessing Performance.” This is a case study of an accelerated training and performance-based qualification project for a major pharmaceutical organization.
• 6pm  Participating in a reception for authors who contributed to ISPI’s new book series “Improving Performance in the Workplace.” (I contributed a chapter in Volume 3: Measurement and Evaluation titled “Testing Strategies: Verifying Capability to Perform.”

After that, Thursday should be cake!

As with any conference, it is a great opportunity to catch up with people you don’t see too often. And it is a chance to sort of step back and look at where the profession has been and where it could be going. I’m looking forward to it!

What’s different, is that Peters goes further in citing a number of seemingly little things that drive that effectiveness. For example, co-locating people. Using round conference room tables. (You can listen to a chunk of this book on the web (read by Peters) at http://www.tompeters.com/books/little-big-things/ by the way.) Ultimately, he argues that by continuously identifying and tweaking seemingly insignificant details, you eventually end up with excellence. I think this type of excellence is also very difficult for your competitors to imitate and the day they decide to, they are starting way behind you.

Anthony Bourdain in “Kitchen Confidential” makes a related point. He argues that the real heroes in a restaurant ktichen are not the high-profile celebrity chefs, because many of those can be prima donnas…you can’t function with a kitchen full of them. You really need a crew of dependable, consistent, hard-working line cooks who won’t compromise on quality, speed, or accuracy. In short, they work toward excellence by executing a lot of little things right, consistently.

In HPT, we often work with cross-functional teams because we are trying to collect and build know-how and, often, there is no one source for that know-how. I’m going to start thinking more about what little things we can do to improve that process. Not just during our meetings, but afterward.

We also target excellence in our work. In every project we think about what will make this a valuable project for the customer and for PRH Consulting. Where is a boundary where we can really push into new territory? How can we do this differently and better than last time? How can we give the customer what they meant to ask for, if they had known ahead of time what to ask for?

Also though, there are lots of little points to be made, practiced, and reinforced in training. One mention in a training program won’t generate excellent performance. One big idea in a training session might lead to changes in the business but not directly. Often, training needs to include practice and reinforcement of the little things (for example, using simulations or other learner application exercises) to build a foundation for excellence on the job. Of course, if the manager doesn’t continue the reinforcement, the change will be short-lived unless the employee carries the torch.

Both of my sons had to wear braces…one of them liked it so much, he went around twice! We went to a local orthodontist recommended by a friend (don’t remember who but thank you.) This doctor may have never read any of the business books about excellence, quality, customer-focus, etc. but he really practices what they preach and it is very much in line with the idea of focusing on the little things. For example

• Self-check-in using a computer in the waiting room. The interface is so simple that the youngest patients can use it with ease.
• Separate waiting area (with a closed door) for people who want to talk on their cellphones.
• Coffee in the waiting room.
• Usually, some kind of contest, such as guessing the number of items in a jar, identifying pictures of celebrities as kids, coloring, etc. is going for the kids ot play while waiting.
• Occasionally, they will sponsor outings, such as free bowling or skating at certain times for patients.
• They have a standard routine for kids when they come in so they “know the drill.” (They carry their file in, can brush their teeth, and then wait on a bench. Parents not allowed.)
• The initial consultation involves looking at digital photos of the teeth on the doctor’s PC while he explains how and what they can/will do.
• When you leave after an appointment, you get a print-out with a summary of the visit, a reminder of your next visit (which, I think, is in the form of a sticker for your calendar…I might be confusing this with our regular dentist though), and a section you can tear-off to give to the child’s teacher or school office as a doctor’s excuse.
• When it is time to get your braces off, you see your name on a bulletin board congratulating everyone who is getting their braces off that week.
• You also get a gift certificate for portrait photographs for the child when they get their braces off. One copy goes to the orthodontist who hangs it in his waiting room.
• The day the braces come off, the office staff all gathers, claps, and presents the child with a basket representing pretty much everything they weren’t allowed to have when they had braces, including an apple, gum, crackerjack, and even (a little) candy.

By the way, this isn’t some young guy who has way too much energy and is hungry for business…my guess is that this doctor is well over retirement age…he is at least 70! And most of the ideas above really don’t take much cash to implement…just paying enough attention and then putting in the effort. In a world where people dream of retirement and winning the lottery, it is a joy to see someone with so much enthusiasm for his work at that stage of his career. I can only assume he loves people — sure it has to feel good to help others get great smiles but you wouldn’t be that good at it if you were not sincere.

But, instructional design is more than development. I see it as including

• Analysis of performance and identifying the required capabilities
• Designing ways of assessing for and developing those capabilities
• Developing instructional processes and supporting materials (including assessments)
• Evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions

(The above is really a narrow definition of ID because many of us include “performance consulting” as part of our focus.)

It seems to me that if the focus is only elearning and only development, there are a number of key decisions that the ID will not even be involved in and will only be able to influence slightly (if at all). Not good. You can create nifty interfaces for effective teaching programs that are targeted (potentially) at the wrong things. Sure it can be fun and creative but you won’t be able to reliably get results beyond “neato!”

The key benefit an ID can add to a project is really about capability. What capabilities are needed? What capabilities are there? How can we effectively install those capabilities into the target audience(s)? How can we build supporting materials that really work in the instructional process? Or, even as on-the-job references?

Ultimately, we can identify capabilities that are difficult to develop or critical to successful performance and help create plans and strategies for managing the risk. Often, we can identify ways of simplifying the performance or building tools to reduce the load on the performer, which makes a higher level of performance possible.

Somehow, we need to look beyond (and show our clients and colleagues how to look beyond) outputs and focus instead on the desired outcomes, that is, improved performance. This isn’t a new message…but apparently, everyone still hasn’t heard it.

_______________________________

For more information on the field of Human Performance Consulting, check out ISPI.