When completing a Point-of-Work Assessment (PWA) we have the opportunity to dig for details specific to task-level work activity and the restrainers of the performance related to that work. Do we rely upon Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) or should we seek out Business Matter Experts (BMEs)?
As with any journey, even the GPS is useless without identifying the point of origin. We know where we need to go…our stakeholders have an idea of what they want from our efforts…but we need to establish a current state of performance measures to establish a “before” benchmark if we hope to provide evidence of improvement in future state outcomes in our “after” benchmarks at Levels 3 & 4. Neglecting this level of assessment dramatically limits our ability to show evidence that L&D contributed meaningfully to the bottom-line…which by the way is atypical of a cost center.
Why L&D is so resistant to Change…Change specific to adopting an evolved paradigm that keys on enabling workforce performance solutions that actually render performance outcomes. The common lament seems to be “Why isn’t training in all it’s innovations not delivering the results?” That thread and others prompted the main question for me, “What if we stop trying to change L&D’s paradigm, and facilitate a new one outside of L&D?”
My advice…step away from bright, shiny Productivity Acceleration Technology until you’ve established a benchmark of current state technology, where it’s headed, what new technology is planned, when it’s going to happen, and who’s going to be responsible to utilize it successfully. This may be over simplified, but these elements of knowledge will inform a decision regarding Productivity Acceleration Technology that will be as brilliantly planned and executed 18-months down the road as it was 30-days after GoLive.
Content & Resources the Knowledge Worker relies upon to optimize their individual performance at the task-centric and role-specific levels. Assessing attributes across critical Content & Resources overlaps directly with Workflows & Processes although is more specific to efficient accessibility and effective application at the Moment of Need at the Point-of-Work. Why? Would you stop at assessing the toolbox and not include the tools inside?
PWA deliverables facilitate “different conversations” we must have with operational stakeholders to position that their training requests and our subsequent training solutions may only partially address the productivity and performance challenges they face. Training may or may not be a viable solution. It’s our job to make that distinction, and doing so shifts our role to a true business partner as opposed to running a drive-through window where training orders are quickly filled.
I’ve often read corporate vision statements and have even been part of organizations that boast “People Are Our Greatest Asset”. That’s great, and it should be a Truth that is practiced not just spewed. Sorry if that’s too harsh, but a more believable Truth, and even harsher…though it is either ignored or not even on the radar…reads something like this: “People Are Our Greatest Asset, and We Will Train Them to the Point of Being Our Greatest Liability”.
Clearly that is not anyone’s intent; however, it represents a Truth when we rely upon a Training Paradigm to inject competency into our workforce to sustain workforce productivity and performance. Can we handle the Truth(s) of a Training Paradigm?