Much has been written about the technology of training. The story is often the same: companies are chomping at the bit for the opportunity to exercise the latest and greatest training technologies in an effort to reduce costs and reach employees effectively.
The trend is understandable. Technology has made training much more convenient, and essential for global enterprises that need to train employees across the world. Instead of big travel budgets to bring employees to the home office or training center, companies are reducing the bottom line by using technology to push training out into regional offices.
But are employees better trained as a result of this technology boom? With companies fast abandoning traditional instructor lead training in favor of tech-based training, it is increasingly important to ensure technology remains the training messenger and does not become the message.
Regardless of whether a training system is a high-ticket technological wonder, or simply a bound, paper manual, the quality of training results should be the same. All training methods should:
•Accelerate the productivity of new and existing employees.
•Accelerate the identification of poor performers.
•Provide the structure required to use existing resources and implementation tools efficiently.
•Create “across the board” accountability for training results, from top management to every new hire.
•Enhance the ability of the trainer/supervisor to provide effective training.
Technology can enable such results, but it can’t assure they’ve been achieved. Technology can provide a platform for imparting knowledge, but it can’t distinguish between theory and practice.
Technology can be used to measure quantitative retention, but it can’t evaluate qualitative application. Such assurances, distinctions, and evaluations can only be provided by people.
Thus the question technology can’t answer: are employees actually learning from technology based training programs? When the training is complete, are employees able to demonstrate comprehension and application of their knowledge in real-world situations, removed from the classroom and pointed questions?
Training vs. Learning
In typical training scenarios the trainer does 80% of the work, and while participants may be able to pass a final written or computer test, they have only a 10-30% retention rate and in many cases are not expected to demonstrate application-based knowledge.
By contrast, in performance-based learning environments where participants are expected to discuss, explain and demonstrate application, participants perform 80% of the work, resulting in a retention rate of 50-80% of the knowledge.
The moral? Even million-dollar Internet delivery systems can be ineffective unless three basic, decidedly non-technical cornerstones are established for all training programs. First, there must be an effective human intervention strategy. Second, accountability for results must be established. Third, there must be an instructional design that empowers trainees to take ownership of their learning. With these simple foundations in place, every company can experience superior learning results with the help of technology.
