As part of the recruitment process for a recent training manager opening, I was asked to respond to a couple of typical screening questions. My manner is rather direct, so I let them know my view of the training and learning functions in organizations today. I must admit, I felt I was stepping out on a limb. In the case of that particular interview, I was. But as I have shared my answer with others, the response has been surprisingly positive and supportive. See what you think!

The Screening Questions:

1.	Five years down the road, describe the company's training department from your vision.
2.	What do you want to accomplish in the next 3-5 years?

Responses:

1. Step out of the box with me a moment. My answer to No. 1: There will not be one (a training department).

2. As I explain, I hope you will get a glimpse of my vision and what my 3-5 year plan would entail. I intend to create a self-reliant learning organization. In it there would be no "trainers". The real training would be peer-to-peer, with Subject Matter Experts pulled in where needed. We should get out of the business of "training". This often entails just institutionalizing another department. As a result, bureaucratic inertia sets in and others feel the training department is serving its own ends, not the needs of those adding value to the business.

Instead, we need to get on with the business of creating opportunities for others to learn rapidly, and to apply in real time what they learn to what they do. That learning should focus on bottom line results. Training for training's sake is passé. A self-reliant learning system is a feasible alternative to the traditional training paradigm. In fact, I am developing the techniques to do it right now. The impetus came from the unambiguous signals I received from managers and business leaders with whom I worked. The approach compliments broader initiatives like ownership, performance and process improvement.

In my vision the boundaries separating operations, training, and business functions must dissolve. Learning should be coordinated as part of a seamless activity for obtaining high performance business outcomes. In the past one thing held us back from this ideal: scalability. You had to get Jim or Jane scheduled to take a training course and get the instructor and his/her materials there on time, too. You needed at least quasi-experts for the instruction, and most of their time was spent pouring data into heads. It was a laborious exercise in logistics. This meant, in the old days, you needed a separate training department. As with all such structures, encumbrances came with the package. In some cases it became a barrier to change. In all cases it was a drain on the operational budget.

Technology – and a new paradigm - can help us remove this barrier. The key is to leverage information technology to increase participation and ownership, thereby increasing productivity and desire to learn. Clearly, of course, the technology must be in place and widely accessible, and the leadership and culture of the organization must be adapted to change (the subject of another conversation). With advances in technology, ownership can blossom. By managing information well, the average Joe or Jane can become increasingly able to contribute to the creation of his or her own work flow instructions or participate fully in process redesign. Clearly, if Jane helps write those instructions, she is more likely to learn and do them well. This is the key: leverage information technology to increase participation and ownership, and thereby increase productivity and desire to learn. So you can see that when I spoke of leveraging the technology it is for more than the narrow purpose of "delivering training". I foresee people moving seamlessly from learning to doing. That is, I want the transition between learning how to do "x" better and changing how we now do "x" to be invisible. To the extent that I can use technologies that work in both arenas (the operational and the learning arenas), I can make that a surer possibility.

You may have the Campbell’s Soup Reaction: “Ummmm .... good buzzwords”, but what does that mean in practice. OK, imagine I am a production worker in a cookie factory (or an office worker, a professional or service worker – just like you). I arrive in the morning and walk over to my operator's station (or desk or work counter). There's a screen in front of me. I turn on the computer and up comes my "digital dashboard". Up pops a "To Do" list on the left. Below this is a list of steps to be taken to accomplish the first item on that list (make cookies). To the right is a work instruction screen. When I slide the mouse over an item on the task list, the appropriate set of work instructions appear, explaining what I need to do to accomplish my task. Training guides are built in. If I need to learn how to perform the job, I just click the link and it walks me through training-on-demand. Too easy? Not really. This works (I am developing such a system right now) for two essential reasons: ·

First, Joe was there with his team in a facilitated session to establish those work instructions. They are in constant (real-time) revision and his team meets weekly just to check up. Joe has direct ownership of those steps. ·

Secondly, the whole process – the business - is visible to Joe as are the work/training aids. He can view real-time production data and he can access any training materials he needs on the spot. His crucial role in the success of the business is at the forefront of his attention all the time.

Suppose Joe needs more information about how to perform a task and/or he needs to talk to someone about something he does not understand. This is where a peer-to-peer system engages. Jane, Joe's teammate, need not be a professional trainer. That laborious work has already been done (by the team) in its creation of the work/training aids. Jane just needs to communicate well, be patient with Joe, listen to his problem, and coach him on the best way to solve it (skills which may have been obtained, in part, in a traditional training setting). The technology has already been leveraged so that Jane can keep her energy focused on the real need - Joe. And the "technical training" has already been delivered. Did you see it? No?! Good, you weren't supposed to. But it got there and in a way that will persist and be significantly more robust than Joe's in-class "how to make a cookie" class. Now take three steps back and watch this occurring all over the enterprise – from shop floor to top floor. What you see is a self-reliant learning organization. And it is one in which a training department in the traditional sense just does not exist. That's where I am going. I am developing the techniques and products as we speak. Want to come along?

Randall Kindley is a Consultant and President of The Performance Group, Minneapolis, MN. He can be reached at (612) 721-6752, kindley@dialupnet.com