Deming Was Right on Training Workers

By Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

Dr. W. Edwards Deming, an American engineer, statistician, professor, author, lecturer, and management consultant, remembered for his vital role in rebuilding the Japanese manufacturing sector after being destroyed during WWII, said “You have one chance to train a worker, just one, so don’t muck it up.” At the time, his theories on management and manufacturing, quality and business longevity, were dismissed by U.S. manufacturers. After quickly helping move Japan’s manufacturing and economy towards competitive status in a relatively short time, U.S. manufacturers reevaluated his theories and practices and began implementing the parts of them that did not significantly affect short-term profitability.

It is not clear if, by the statement, he had the U.S. vocational education and classroom-based training system in mind, or the informal, haphazard and undocumented one-on-one training a worker receives once hired. Either way, one thing in common was that the accelerating rate of technological advancement – post-WWII to 1980 and beyond (computers entered the scene) -forced continuous revision of the learning and training requirements for employment. Literally, technology was changing the nature of work before their eyes leaving manufacturers flat-footed on what to do and education, already technically lagging the current nature of work, in a perpetual and losing state of “catch-up.”

To set the record straight, this is not a criticism of education itself. But the way education institutions are structured, they literally cannot keep up with academic-led innovation let alone employer-led technological innovation. For example:

• innovation occurs
• someone writes and publishes a book (2-4 years)
• an instructor adopts the book and presents it with their curriculum to the review committee (1-3 years)
• a student attends a course that includes the new technology, completes the degree program (2-4 years)
• former student searches for job where skills are relevant (1-3 years)
• former student lands job and can utilize skills (1-2 years)

If all goes well, a student trained to be worker with skills relevant to that technological advancement contributes to the momentum…7-16 years after the innovation was introduced. By then several new advancement were probably either building on the initial advancement or making the initial advancement obsolete.

Education continues to “fine-tune” this model of occupational learning most familiar. Making changes to a massive institution is not easy and takes time – something contrary to the accelerating rate of change. Several forces are altering the nature of work before curricula can be developed and a prospective worker complete a program. Some like to think of this period as one of “creative destruction,” but it could have been “continual destruction.”

Some of the more creative community and technical colleges might innovate enough to create their own training materials, but have a hard time finding an instructor who is retired with current enough expertise to be useful, or cannot pay the price to lure an employee with relevant expertise from an employer who is paying them very well. Those schools successful in establishing credible worker training programs are often derailed when the next economic collapse occurs and budget cutting closes down their effort. When the economy returns, the schools find very few of the worker development experts remained and the historical memory of what worked and what didn’t has vanished.

Those inventing technology seemed bent on designing the human factor out of the performance of work. The premise is that it will make the more productive and efficient. Many see this as cover for eliminating labor which investors have historical viewed as too costly, which is debatable. This begs the question, which no one seems willing to adequately answer, what happens to a society when workers are not necessary? What happens to an economy when workers have no income to purchase goods and services provided by automated means?

The U.S. form of capitalism has morphed into a model which discourages long-term thinking and longevity, and rewards enterprises that can lower costs quarterly to maintain earnings per share no matter the damage done to the long-term. Look around; how many popular companies have moved their jobs overseas to take advantage of much lower labor costs…but all of the training issues and more. As more and more previously viable companies are swallowed up by increasingly growing mega-multinational companies, the focus is making a fast profit by raising earnings per share by cutting costs anywhere and everywhere, not necessarily leaving the operation better off for it. Any firms spun off when no longer useful have a long trek to rebuilding.

What can an educational institution offer new and returning students in preparing workers for companies that do not stay around long enough for them to understand the need, develop foundational skills learning tools and graduate workers? For the last 40 years the problem has been exacerbated by government policies that change the nature of the band-aid and flow massive amounts of funding to maintain the illusion something is being done to keep the worker in the game, no matter what frightening changes they see. Instead of sound incentives to dis-incentivize investors from funding ventures that do not remain, create and maintain jobs in the U.S. and incentivize companies that do, workers will remain insecure as to their and their family’s future. No amount of education will help them and more likely will plunge them further into debt doing what the experts recommend – go back to school.

For those employers that are independent and want to remain so, and who do not want to see American manufacturing die, Deming’s statement “You have one chance to train a worker, just one, so don’t muck it up” should make sense. They see more closely the effects of under- or inadequately-trained workers on quality, productivity, profitability and the company’s competitiveness. They are closer to the symptoms. They know that to expand to reach new markets requires new workers and more time from existing experts to train them. They need help on many levels and would be grateful for it. They need education and those who provide training services to bring honest, strategically impactful approaches.

It boils down to this: education should focus on what they do best; building a worker’s skill foundation, continually making their tools better and job-relevant. Relevant core and industry-general skills can build a solid foundation upon which an employer can build while transforming that worker into an experienced, confident worker able to adapt and evolve. Employers need to step-up and treat the worker as an asset and worker development as an investment in building and maintaining that asset for the highest return. Be focused, deliberate and document the increasing value of each worker to both measure progress and as an incentive for employees to want to learn. Provide opportunities and pathways to credentials that summarize a worker’s increasing value built on tasks they can perform in employment and the skills they are demonstrating in applying those skills to the task.

Neither education nor employers can do the job alone and shouldn’t be expected to. Education shouldn’t need to buy expensive equipment that they believe is an industry’s standard and try to find instructors to train workers in a 2-year program that quickly makes the equipment and trainee obsolete – especially when the employer already has the latest equipment and a corral of subject atter experts who could deliver the training in the normal course of training a new-hire. Employers have to quit hoping and praying that education will come up with a solution for worker development and deliver a pool of workers ready to hit the ground running – just so it can save the “cost’ they perceive in training a worker they need to the specifications required. That dream hasn’t come true in the last 40 years and is only being pushed out further.

If you recognize these challenges and have shed your fear of even looking for other solutions, check out Proactive Technologies’ structured on-the-job training system approach to see how it might work at your firm, your family of facilities or your region. Contact a Proactive Technologies representative today to schedule a GoToMeeting videoconference briefing to your computer. This can be followed up with an onsite presentation for you and your colleagues. A 13-minute promo briefing is available at the Proactive Technologies website and provides an overview to get you started and to help you explain it to your staff. As always, onsite presentations are available as well.