Apprenticeships – An Alternative to the “400 Hours For Drill Press” Training Model

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.
.
“Time-in-Job” Does Not Equal ”Tasks Mastered.” It does not reveal much about the level, quality, relevancy and transferability of the “on-the-job experience.” It is akin to students tests being graded on how long they sat in the classroom. But yet this approach endures. Don’ get me wrong, it is better than no on-the-job training effort. However, I think we all agree that it leaves a lot of opportunity on the table.

An unfortunate hold-over from the traditional U.S. apprenticeship is the standard practice of defining the on-the-job training requirement in terms of “number of hours.” General work areas that are thought of as representative of the job are selected, a number of total hours for each area totaling the on-the-job training requirement are prescribed, and this with the required related technical instruction are registered.

We all know that we have worked, or are now working, next to co-workers who have been in the job classification for many years but for one reason or another seemed to not be able to perform all of the required tasks of the job. Some are called “area specialists,” but may have specialized in only the tasks they like to perform. Some might not have had an opportunity to learn and master certain tasks. When they are asked to train the next worker, their scope is limited to the tasks for which they specialized, and the pattern continues when that new person becomes a trainer later on. When Proactive Technologies sets-up a structured, task-based on-the-job training program and assesses incumbent workers to discover any gaps that might exist so that the on-the-job training can close them, it is common to find some long-time workers in the job classification that may have only mastered 20 or 30% of the total tasks that make up the job classification.

So what does the number of hours spent in a job area tell a person about the skills attained by the apprentice? How is this seemingly subjective metric measured and how is it tracked? Does it matter?

Wikipedia describes apprenticeships as “The system of apprenticeship first developed in the later Middle Ages and came to be supervised by craft guilds and town governments. A master craftsman was entitled to employ young people as an inexpensive form of labour in exchange for providing food, lodging and formal training in the craft. Most apprentices were males, but female apprentices were found in crafts such as seamstress,[1] tailor, cordwainer, baker and stationer.[2] Apprentices usually began at ten to fifteen years of age, and would live in the master craftsman’s household. Most apprentices aspired to becoming master craftsmen themselves on completion of their contract (usually a term of seven years), but some would spend time as a journeyman and a significant proportion would never acquire their own workshop.”

Since the number of apprentices was limited to one or two at a time, the master craftsman spent enough direct-contact time with each to drive the skill development and recognize proficiency when the required tasks were mastered. The quality of the apprenticeship was measured in terms of time in the craft, and somewhat by the quality of the skills developed. The master craftsman had a lot of latitude in determining who became a master craftsman out of those who completed the program.

Efforts were occasionally made to modernize this apprenticeship model. However, unlike European models of apprenticeship that were established, perfected and engrained into the social fabric of the country, the models in the United States always seemed like an afterthought. For the few people who have heard of an apprenticeship, more people knew someone who started an apprenticeship than completed one.

Prior to 2008, that same model remained the only accepted form of apprenticeships. Still seven to eight years long, and although offering much more in industry-general related technical instruction, apprenticeships used the same type formula for on-the-job training. To register an apprenticeship with a state or federal agency, a template was followed to define the on-the-job training. For example, for the craft of Tool & Die, one state’s apprenticeship council template recommended something that looked like this:

1. VERT. MILLING MACHINE (CNC & MANUAL)
   1. Manual – 1700 Hours
   2. CNC – 1000 Hours
2. LATHE (CNC & MANUAL)
   1. Manual – 900 Hours
   2. CNC – 500 Hours
3. HORIZONTAL MILLING MACHINE (MANUAL) – 450 Hours
4. DRILL PRESS – 400 Hours
5. GRINDERS SURFACE – 500 Hours
6. SAWS VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CUTOFF – 300 Hours
7. PLANERS, SHAPERS, SCREW MACH. & PUNCH PRESSES – 300 Hours
8. HEAT TREATING – 350 Hours
9. DIES, JIGS, FIXTURES – 600 Hours
10. BENCH WORK – 400 Hours
11. WELDING – 200 Hours
12. CASTING MACHINING – 200 Hours
13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS –  200 Hours
14. DESIGN, DRAWING AND MAKING OF:
    1. Tools – 500 Hours
    2. Dies – 500 Hours
    3. Jigs – 500 Hours
    4. Fixtures – 500 Hours

                                                                                                 TOTAL 10,000 Hours

Each category had further guidance such as:

1. VERTICAL MILLING MACHINE (CNC & MANUAL) Manual 1700 Hours; CNC – 1000 Hours
   A. Set Up Work
   B. Programming
   C. Loading Programs
   D. Select and Load Tolling
   E. End Milling
   F. Straight Milling
   G. Face Milling
   H. Slotting
   I. Rotary Table & Indexer Work
   J. Drilling, Reaming, Tapping
   K. Speeds and Feeds

This is far as the guidance went. The apprenticeship host was responsible for dividing up the recommended hours into the sub-units of on-the-job training. Most had no structure to develop/deliver/track/document, no resources, nor no desire to formalize the on-the-job training, so they left it to the master craftsman trainer’s discretion. More often these hours were “summarized” in a measure of “time in job classification” than specific tasks mastered. A “10,000 hours of on-the-job training” apprenticeship requirement divided by 2080 hours per year per typical employee (for those in an employment-based apprenticeship) = 4.8 years, but what part of the 4.8 years could be considered “training” and how many hours were devoted to each area? Some completing the related technical instruction classroom and online courses, while in the job classification’s apprenticeship for 7-8 years, surely had to have mastered the listed on-the-job training requirements… it is thought.

Many employers in sectors of industry – especially manufacturing – were reluctant to host this type of apprenticeship. Many were put off by the subjective assignment of hours to a machine. Some saw no relevance between the machines they have and for which they need trained workers, and skill areas listed on the template. Yet others couldn’t fathom an 8 year apprenticeship and all of the administrative support to host one when their business model doesn’t even look out that far.

In the 1990’s, this model lost more of its practicality as employers in all industries started to encourage short craft careers, most likely in an effort to keep wages paid for expertise down. Workers drifted from job classification to job classification – sometimes by choice, sometimes not. Committing to a 7-8 year apprenticeship seemed impractical to an employee and employer.

On October 29, 2008 a major change was made to the United States apprenticeship model. Mostly at the encouragement of employers, the U.S. Department of Labor announced two other models they would accept. In addition to the traditional, time-based model, they would now accept “Competency” and “Hybrid” models. Apprenticeships could now be 2 – 4 years in length, depending on the nature of the job classification. These two new models placed more emphasis on the on-the-job training requirement. It was thought that if the employee could complete the apprenticeship while learning, mastering and performing actual tasks required of the employer, that went a long way toward documenting the relevant skills gained by the employee toward the journeyman’s certificate (as opposed to journeyman’s card issued by a registered union organization) worth something. Not all states adopted these two models right away; some just recently signed on.

However, the employers were still on their own to structure the on-the-job training components so that training can be delivered, performance monitored and mastery documented. Employers pride themselves on how lean they operate these days, so asking them to carve out resources and time to become job/task analysts, training program developers and devoted trainers is a non-starter. Sadly, as the U.S. Department of Labor set goals for expanding apprenticeships, the emphasis was on increasing the number of apprenticeships registered rather than maintaining strict requirements for on-the-job training. One would think that in order for a shortened apprenticeship length to remain credible, the quality of the on-the-job training, which develops the most important skills from which a journeyman and employer could benefit, must be even more of a priority. Focused, task-task based training has to be structured to compress an 8-year apprenticeship into 4 and maintain the expected level of skill development.

Instead, many states have developed templates, or adopted templates released by the U.S. Department of Labor, which simply scaled down the number of hours for each category in the old apprenticeship templates. Some have cut and paste close listings from the ONET (previously called the “Dictionary of Occupational Titles”) website.

It doesn’t matter which template is used, the apprenticeship does a disservice to the employer and employee, and wastes taxpayer resources, if modeled after “hours in job.” If the worker completes a template-based apprenticeship containing on-the-job training components that the employer doesn’t recognize (broadly defined to be industry-relevant, and probably out-dated but that fact hidden in the broad definition), the employer will not see the value of the experience and credential, and most likely will eventually be hesitant to host an apprenticeship. The employee will have underutilized some valuable time in developing marketable skills and may not find a job after completing the apprenticeship. The opportunity costs for everyone – even the training providers – is staggering.

Further diluting the value of the apprenticeship, the U.S. government invested a lot of money into expanding the apprenticeship programs. Most of it went directly to community colleges to use that money to offer apprenticeship programs to employers. Who doesn’t like free education? But free comes with a lot of caveats. Some schools repackaged old 2-year associate degree programs as apprenticeships that, prior, did not seem industry-relevant. Some schools through modules and “industry credentials” together, gave it a fancy name and recruited students for these apprenticeships.

All of these “rush to improve numbers” may have a significant negative effect on the value of an apprenticeship in the long-run. Once that happens, they may have made what could have been a viable program and valuable credential… neither.

This can easily be rectified, but it takes a serious commitment to achieving better outcomes for all stakeholders. First, a job/task analysis of the job classification around which the apprenticeship is to be built needs to be performed to define, accurately, the target outcome. Every effort is made to incorporate existing technical documents (such as process sheets, technical procedures, worker notes, etc.) during the job/task analysis and to ensure the training program is aligned with engineering, safety and regulatory compliance so that the structured on-the-job training facilitates greater compliance and injects anything that might conflict with other operating systems in the organization.

From this, structured on-the-job training materials, tracking and documentation instruments can be developed. Related technical instruction can be selected, using the job/task analysis data, that is at least relevant for the job in which the employee is currently is employed. In addition, this approach will link the structured on-the-job training to task-based performance specifications, which will help the employer to comply with ISO/TS/AS type quality requirements, increase safety compliance, and provide content validity for legal defensibility – all helping to strengthen and improve and employer’s business model. This approach promotes the “accelerated transfer of expertise™,” which in turn increases worker capacity, work quality and quality, and return of worker investment…with a decrease in the internal cost of training.

If you want to keep an employer engaged in an apprenticeship, this is how you do it. If the program makes the employee more skilled for the job they are currently in, so that the employer benefits and rewards such skills development and encourages employee retention, this is a huge benefit of apprenticeships to the everyone including the community, region and nation. Once the word gets out to other employers, this model of apprenticeship will spread.

Before you dismiss this as impossible, Proactive Technologies, Inc. has been setting up these types of structured on-the-job training programs for employers and providing technical implementation support for over 3 decades. Often partnering with educational institutions, workforce development agencies, public and private training providers for the related technical instruction, these programs are the most effective yet. If these programs sound logical, practical and feasible it is because they are that. How anyone who manages a complex company, driven by systems to achieve results, can think an unstructured worker training experience can deliver anything worth the investment of time and resources is perplexing. I have to believe it is out of deference to the “experts,” a feeling of comfort being surrounding by other like-minded employers and most often being unaware that there are better ways to train workers than the ones of which they are most familiar. It is important to remember that the experts entrusted with that faith have not improved the skills gap for 30 years.

By either curiosity or intuition, take a few minutes to check out this better approach. What do you have to lose? Visit the Proactive Technologies website for more information on an approach to maximizing the human component, while lowering direct labor and opportunity costs of a productivity measure. View the 13-minute preview, and schedule to attend one of the live online presentations to learn more and/or contact us for more information.