Performance Support vs. Training

The August edition of the ASTD Training & Development magazine includes a thought-provoking article (page 23) titled 'Training is Broken'. The authors Bob Mosher & Frank Nguyen state "with training's limitations under scrutiny, it may be performance support's time to shine".

to expand further ....

"The problem with our information age is that even with the most successful of formal learning experiences, the amount of information needed to be effective, combined with the rate at which that information changes, makes many well-intentioned training efforts flawed before they are ever released."


Performance Support is defined as providing the right people with the right information at the right time. In other words: expanding just-in-time 'coaching' to replace (where appropriate) just-in-case training. For example, relying on the Microsoft paperclip comes to mind vs. seeking to learn up-front the full functionality of MS Word.


The authors advocate creating a 'total learning culture', and in particular:

"It is impossible to add PS (performance support) to your array of learning options without it affecting how you design and deliver training. PS enables competency in the way that training enables mastery. The two should not be kept exclusive"


My reaction to this is twofold:

Firstly: further thought needs to be given to the sequencing of training & performance support.

• Depending of the learning objectives for the individual, it may be sufficient to rely on performance support to generate competence ... equally, it may be appropriate for a smaller segment of the workforce to be subsequently formally training to a higher level of mastery (which will in itself create a further channel of performance support for the rest of the workforce).
• To minimise the costs/complexity of creating performance support, it may be more cost effective to provide a cut-down training intervention 'up-front' (to help all learners navigate how to find the support available, rather than relying on automated software). In this case training may be positioned to 'top & tail' performance support.

As the authors state "Changing the strategy from one of knowledge gain to one of knowledge application is the first key step".

Secondly: I'd suggest that consideration should be given to the consequences of different learning styles when creating performance support (as well as for formal training).

Honey & Mumford's work is generally accepted as a helpful model of categorising learning styles.

• For Activists - it may be most appropriate to develop maps ... avoiding performance support (PS) adopting a 'telling' approach, but accelerating skill building by providing structure to the information required to be assimilated. For example: to accelerate networking skills - championing the value of organisational structure diagrams (e.g. linking such graphics with a company's 'yellow-pages' database of employees & their interests).
• For Reflectors - it may be appropriate to link the guidance provided through PS with typical questions that would lead to expanding on the core 'answer'. For example: to accelerate networking skills - providing a report of the 'top five' colleagues citing a particular qualification within a company's 'yellow pages' together with a prompt to consider if additional key words may help refine the data.
• For Theorists - it may be helpful to link the guidance provided through PS with sources of background information. For example: to accelerate networking skills - providing easy to access links to e-learning modules, books & articles from within a company's 'yellow pages' database
• For Pragmatists - it may be helpful to ensure there are rapid e-learning modules / video clips / subject-matter-experts that can demonstrate the steps required. For example: to accelerate networking skills - providing video clips of accelerating a task through effective networking.

If we look to Performance Support (PS) to build a certain level of competence (and thus reduce the need for some forms of formal learning) do you agree that different learning styles matter ?

Reflections on ASTD 2007, part #2

A further theme I focused on at ASTD was the perennial challenge of metrics and measures of Learning.

While I wasn't able to attend the Kirkpatrick session, a colleague provided the following insights (thanks Marianne):

• Don't skip any levels - hence don't overlook the importance of 'smile' sheets
• You cannot do meaningful Level 4 evaluations on Leadership programs or team-building (as there are too many other variables affecting the results/ROI). Level 4 is best suited for Sales Training.
• For Level 3 (Behaviour): Survey &/or interview one or more of the following: boss; subordinate; peer; others. Measure before/after if practical.
• It is 'nice' to have a control group, but this is not always practical.
• Get as much reaction as you can in the least amount of time ! - so use a 5 point scale & use a scale with comments as optional.

Robert Brinkerhoff also presented on 'Training Impact Evaluation That Senior Managers Believe and Use: The Success Case Method', based on his recently published book 'Telling Training's Story' (Berrett Koehler 2006).

The main argument here is that a training intervention is likely to have a predictable Impact Distribution.

1. Those who did not try the new skills/knowledge at all
2. Those who tried the new skills/knowledge but reverted back to old ways resulting in little/no benefit
3. Those who tried the new skills/knowledge and achieve positive worthwhile results

So rather than look for the average outcome, seek to understand & communicate what separates out those in category (3).

In doing this it becomes possible to demonstrate that:

• The training intervention CAN work
• The training intervention DOES work when the following factors are in place.

...the latter often being outside the 'control' of the L&D team (eg the actions of the delegate's own manager)

Moreover, if the % that fall into category (c) are determined, and the value of the outcomes they achieved quantified it is easy to illustrate not only the overall ROI, but also to full potential of the training (and all points in-between).

In my view this approach of stepping away from average data, will be very powerful in helping position L&D professionals as consultants: ensuring we have the data to illustrate the responsibilities of leaders, managers and the delegates to achieve the full potential ROI from learning services.

Reflections on ASTD 2007 Part #1

At ASTD 2007 I attended a couple of sessions focused on e-learning: 'Beyond E-Learning' by Marc Rosenberg and 'eLearning 2.0' by Tony Karrer.

These presentations were in many ways the catalyst for starting this blog - [ Thank you Marc & Tony ! ]

The main points I took from the presentation by Marc Rosenberg were:

• knowledge management (linking 'information repositories', 'communities & networks' and 'access to experts') should be viewed as being at the heart of building a 'learning and performance architecture'.
• e-learning is the next layer of the metaphorical onion: providing both 'on-line training' and 'performance support' ('in the moment guidance' eg drop down menu options)
• Classroom training & coaching are the outer layer

Why is this important ?

Firstly, as we know ... in an organisational context, the proportion of time spent within the job role rather than away from the job is vastly greater.

Secondly, if we accept the need for a learner centred approach (for all the reasons already cited, and yet to be explored on this blog) ... then technology now provides the tools the learner requires to be an empowered knowledge seeker.

This is particularly relevant for learners who are at least competent, or have some mastery of their subject - where the need has moved from 'show me how' & 'help me do better' to 'help me find what I need' and 'I'll create my own learning'

The main points I took from Tony Karrer's presentation were:

• Key new tools for e-learning are: wikis; social bookmarking; blogging; and RSS readers. Together they for the core of what can be described as e-learning 2.0
• e-learning 2.0 should not be seen as replacing 'traditional' e-learning (1.0) or 'rapid' e-learning (so-called '1.3'). Rather they are complementary
• e-learning 1.0 is characterised as LMS based, top-down content with long development times, created by instructional designers and typically 60 mins or more in duration
• e-learning 1.3 is characterised as intranet based, top-down content with rapid development times, created by subject matter experts and typically 15 mins in duration
• e-learning 2.0 is characterised as search / RSS feed accessed content, learner driven with no development lead time, created by users and of very short content size (eg 1 minute).

Why is this important ?

These technologies are emerging alternative learning solutions, that the learning consultant will need to understand to (i) enhance their influence on workplace learning ('glass half full' perspective) and/or (ii) avoid the training profession becomings increasingly marginalised as formal training (on-line or instructor-led) becomes an even smaller percentage time commitment by empowered learners ('glass half empty' perspective).

As cited by Marc from 'The World is Flat' by Tomas Friedman: 'being adaptable in a flat worl, knowing how to 'learn how to learn' will be one of the most important assets any worker can have, because job churn will come faster, because innovation will happen faster.'