When starting a new change management engagement, you can't even get to finish the tour of the lunch room before someone is telling you how much training this change will require.
Change Training
When implementing new processes, systems and job roles, its important we transfer the skills and knowledge to employees who'll be using them. Inevitably this includes a training needs analysis, consultation with leaders and training experts within the organisation and a thorough training design to meet the needs identified.
As training rolls out, you'll be gathering feedback from those who attended and adjusting the training design or fixing problems in the solution to resolve any issues that surfaced. Metrics like training enrolments, completions and absences will be monitored and reporting requirements complied with.
Training is a valuable tool to deliver the capability to enable the future state in detail, down to the process map and system keystroke.
The Change Training Myth
It's been true in so many cases that the first conversation leaders have with the change manager jumps ahead to detailed discussions of training. Some leaders highlight how much training will be needed, how you should go about the training, when you should do it and who needs to be involved. It can be a little confronting because the solution design hasn't been completed, you haven't seen a project plan and yet you're already being locked into a two-week training window in the sales lull just before Summer peak.
Our brains are good at getting to solutions. Often we need to get there quickly to aid in communication and to feel like the problem is under control. In the classic change training myth, we sometimes see business leaders clutching on to the concept of training like it's a life boat. But in doing so teams and leaders can get lost because they haven't spent enough time with the problem.
In one change assignment with a government agency, leaders pushed hard for multi-layered, detailed training solutions including context-sensitive screen help, classroom sessions mapping process and system together and higher-level case management training to be delivered throughout the management layer.
The context-sensitive screen help was custom designed, meaning it was only useful until the first system update. Given the system was a subscription-based platform hosted externally, this investment was never going to be a long term one. The rollout of this training product became a project in itself as the user desktop environment and IT network was not standard across all sub-agencies. It wasn't even standard across sites within each sub-agency.
The training product and content were high quality, but the metrics showed it was barely used. The classroom sessions were equally well designed and facilitated, but when push came to shove, leaders were not prepared to prioritise attendance over operational needs. Those people for whom training was mandatory at concept stage, were excused from training at rollout stage.
This is not an uncommon phenomenon. Organisations say they want training but they haven't included it in the project budget. They push the change manager on the topic of training and the change manager works a miracle to deliver quality training (without an instructional designer, technical writer, AV production crew or facility coordinator). The training products have sub-optimal take up and the organisation retreats from reinforcing training engagements.
At another engagement in private enterprise, a steering committee was insisting on training being developed. I sought to clarify whether they wanted the training to be made mandatory for impacted employees to complete.
That decision was delegated several steps down the hierarchy as the steering committee members didn't wish to engage with the level of detail it would have required to make that simple decision. Not because the details were beneath their pay grade, but because it raised gaps in their understanding and this made them uncomfortable. Putting forward the strong directive that training will be required changed the abstract problem into a concrete decision, even though it was based mainly on guesses.
Understand the problem first
The problem with jumping to solutions too early is that the development of training products may not be related to the true change intention. If we simply assume we need specific and detailed training then the task becomes about reverse-engineering our plan to ensure training is included. As time goes on, it can become a struggle to agree on the exact nature of the training product - from goals through to features, delivery methods, timing and priorities.
In the meantime, the tangible solution - the mythical training program - has garnered support and the change manager has become responsible to deliver it. And remember, there's probably no training budget and specialist resources may be very scarce.
Define the problem
Develop a problem statement, do this collaboratively with the leaders who require training. Talk to internal training, development or capability units. Include the solution designers and other key product people involved in developing the future state. Have everyone agree on the problem and set in place criteria for solving it.
Do your research. What do you see as the true change need, what solutions are out there that already meet the need, how long will it take for someone to learn the new information they need and will training be the most effective way of delivering the information?
Pull together a written statement that includes
the target training user
what their training goal would be
how they currently do this part of their job
what is changing
what our new solution will do to improve things for them
their role in using it,
how we'll measure whether they can use the new solution successfully.
Develop a targeted solution
Now you have a problem statement that goes to intent, you can circulate the statement among stakeholders, leaders and the solution team. When it comes time for developing training - or alternative - solutions, these can be designed and evaluated against the agreed problem.
You're no longer fighting a mythical creature, you know the size, shape, appearance and strength of the problem; and what it will take to solve it - whether that be training or a better alternative.
For more: www.agenciachange.com
Comments