I was honored to kick off 2020 with David James. This post is a replay of the 48 minute podcast. With the recent frequency of posts on the Point-of-Work topic, the podcast may help fill in the gaps. As always, David James did a superb job of interviewing…I just tried to keep up. It must […]
Category: Continuous Learning
The Point-of-Work Assessment (PWA) methodology is agile enough to handle unique iterations of a mix of core discovery questions consistent as common denominators with additional unique questions defined by the gap(s) between Perceptions in a Top-Down discovery cascade to Realities only found at the Individual Contributor level at the Bottom. Training may be the routine, default solution…but what if the performance restrainers pit Perceptions of Training as the default solution against the Realities that Training will NOT deliver the impact required?
The Point-of-Work Assessment (PWA) is a discovery discipline designed to examine sources of performance and productivity restrainers in the Workflow. The outcome delivers findings across six categories of attributes limiting optimization of workforce capability. Traditional Training Needs Assessments typically only cover one – People/Capability – in search of training solutions. That’s great…but not enough!
Join Gary Wise on 7/9 at 2PM ET for a hashtag#VirtuallyThere series with his event, “Performance Support: Accelerating hashtag#Productivity at a Point-of-Work.” Register here: https://hubs.ly/H0jmDkp0
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)?
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?
The diversity of optimizing an ecosystem with multiple, interdependent microsystems with training solutions will not sustain workforce performance at Point-of-Work. An initiative to evolve L&D strategy, tactics, and technology represents an entry point for optimizing the convergence already on the table. This “new information” represents different conversations within L&D, from leadership to individual contributor roles, as well as operational stakeholders.
There is another aspect of intentional design I refuse to put into just another bullet because it is foundational to successful and sustainable adoption of a performance paradigm. I could argue it’s the longer lens I mentioned in the beginning of this post, but it’s more than that. It’s the motivation…the commitment…the willingness…the readiness…to shift from a Culture of Learning to a holistic Culture of Performance.
IT will do an outstanding job of testing, validating, fine-tuning, and deployment of the transitioned systems. My question is this, “Is L&D equipped to invest that kind of pre-launch rigor and…more importantly…to post-launch support to the knowledge worker’s in their respective workflows and moments of need?”
Have we lost sight of the end-game? This old dog was raised with the notion pounded into his head that if L&D does not produce measurable BUSINESS IMPACT, our jobs were at risk for being active participants as expenses in a cost center. Being viewed as an “expense” is not a safe place to be when decisions are made as to who goes and who stays. Trust me, if the choice falls between a department generating positive business impact with one that is contributing expenses to the bottom-line, the decision is easily made.