Has anyone tried to calculate the enormous hidden, but real, cost of unused worker capacity, manifesting itself as hiring too many people when workers you already have hired never had a formal. structured, deliberate development plan? Or how low worker productivity, lower than expected quantity and quality of work, lack of compliance with work processes, quality plans and safety requirements, eats into profits?

For capital investments, on the other hand, textbooks have been written on how to classify them, and how to predict and measure return-on-investment. It is unthinkable for a firm to invest in a $1,000,000 piece of machinery and be satisfied with it putting out 50% less than advertised. Yet, the same principles should apply to the investment in workers. Why would anyone be satisfied with every worker hired only being trained and capable of performing 30-50% of their job? Still, decisions are made to keep the underperforming equipment and not funding the training of the operators to run it…until backed against the wall and the decision is made to cut the “cost” of the workers themselves. Read More

Educational assessments have been adapted for use in workforce development and employment, used to assess a prospective employee’s suitability for a job opening, with limited success. They often measure more of what, if anything, a student learned and retained before graduating than how they match the employer’s actual job opening. Psychological assessments have been adapted to measure a prospective employee’s sociability to the workplace, morphing into a new category called “psychometric assessments.”

We have seen a growth in the employment assessment industry over the past 2 decades, particularly after 9-11. Read More

These institutions are often encouraged to use their limited resources to buy equipment or build facilities in order to support “customized, hands-on training.” The employer already has the facility and the latest technology in that community. The hard part has been convincing the employer that the school has a viable strategy that makes the employer want to imbed structured on-the-job training into the onsite natural order of learning the job. It would be even harder to convince them a training program, targeting a specific job of theirs, can be more effective offsite at a training facility than onsite.

Technology shifts so fast these days, and the focus of workforce training is so volatile, that it makes little sense for educational institutions to purchase equipment for training when only a few employers have similar equipment and the equipment may be obsolete before the school gets through the purchasing, installation and instructor training stages let alone before someone completes a 2-year training program. In addition, the company or companies that were targeted for this training might be acquired, closed or moved – leaving before any return on the investment of time, money and facilities are realized. Read More

Over the years, I have noticed that many employers’ idea of a worker training strategy is a hodge-podge of classroom and online training. This seems to be based on the assumption that all of the right people have been hired, they all have mastered the tasks of the job and that a few classes will drive each worker’s performance to higher levels.

Where does this assumption come from? Why do employers collectively settle for this type of model even though decades of experience and day to day worker performance offer many clues that this model of worker training is not as effective as hoped? Too often the feedback from workers attending classes is, “I don’t know why the company had me attend that class.” “That was a waste of time.” In an informal way, this is a form of “content validation,” or in this case “invalidation.”

“Conceptually, a better overall approach is simple, accurate, efficient and effective. If an employer isn’t including these simple steps in their worker selection, development and performance evaluation strategy they might be wasting company time, money and resources.”

This legacy approach is a comfortable model to explain. Everyone has attended school; some higher education as well. It is what we grew up with and the sentiment has become acceptance from familiarity. Some accept this approach because they are unaware of better alternatives. Read More

There are few steps that can help any organization achieve a best practice, which is related to the quality assurance notion of “repeatability.” Each systematic step is important to ensure credibility of use of the title. In addition, this approach helps to minimize the tendency to over-analyze a procedure and dwell on the least important aspects for benchmarks and metrics.

1. Define the Task or Procedure – In order to analyze a task/procedure, it must be targeted at the task level, which means: “A unit of work that has a beginning point, ending point and a series of steps in between, and when the steps are performed correctly and in the right order a desired outcome is achieved.” Without clarity of the target task, the process of defining each step of the task as a best practice component may be difficult and/or the sequence can become convoluted.
2. Determine Best Practice(s) – If the desired outcome is accurately known, it is easier to define the steps, or “inputs,” that lead to that outcome.  Read More

Thinking it through a little further, one might struggle to explain how the expert performer developed these traits. Someone showed them how to perform a task, and repetitive performance developed new, retained skills. They are now operating as a “robot” while performing a task, seldom thinking about the subtleties and nuances of each task (filed in memory long ago), which makes them fast, consistent workers – something the employer can notice an appreciate.

But if we ask “who trained this expert,” “how was he or she trained,” or “what specifications and standards were emphasized,” we come up empty. By just playing the role of a trainee, and allowing one of these experts to train you on a task, will reveal a lot as to what the new-hire or cross-trainee can expect. If we compare this expert’s task performance to other peer experts, we probably will notice slight differences in performance between them, which means workers that each trained may be trained differently on the same task. Sometimes these differences can be subtle and of no consequence, sometimes they become a point of contention, lead to confusion and/or unsafe and incorrect task performance.

Every work environment is less than ideal for learning. Production pressures, personality clashes, learning style and teaching style differences, and departmental boundary incursions do not make it easy for a trainer to train or a trainee to learn without structure and guidance. If any of our experts train the next wave of new-hires or cross-trainees without structure, tools and standards – the building blocks of “best practice” performance – some of the expertise might not transfer and the differences between them become more obvious with each wave. This can often lead to frustrating confrontation between shifts, with one shift declaring the other two shifts as incompetent. Read More

Too often, in this age where every quarterly report has to be as good or better than the one before – actually earnings per share – even if the economy currently doesn’t allow it, well-run businesses are pressured to cut into the bone; driving down wages, cutting benefits and ultimately eliminating workers. Investment in worker training isn’t permitted. It doesn’t take an accounting genius to make sweeping, ill-informed cuts, but it does take a pretty savvy leader to recognize and avoid this perilous track or, worse yet, pick up the pieces after these mistakes have been made. Read More

For companies expanding, if a sound structured on-the-job training infrastructure is in place it is simply a matter of scaling. More work means more employees that have to be trained before adding value to the operation. Sometimes expansion includes a segway from straight-line scaling, such as new products and services requiring new equipment, which in turns requires new/improved core skills before structured, task-based on-the-job training can be implemented to build upon incumbent worker skill sets. A solid structured on-the-job training infrastructure can easily adapt to new work, new tasks, new technologies and new trainees.

For companies contracting, one would think this would just be scaling but in a negative direction. It usually ends up more complicated than that when work for three different areas are consolidated on top of the work performed by the workers in the fourth area. If left alone this will produce an obvious bottleneck to say the least. With consolidation of the jobs, and therefore the consolidation of the tasks required of workers in each, intuitively it would stand that recipients of these tasks should be trained on the best practice of these new processes and necessary compliance. Otherwise, contraction of an enterprise will continue as overall capacity dwindles and decreasing output results.

In a third scenario, when a company acquires another site or other sites, the acquiring enterprise usually brings in an expert who can unify HR and HRD strategies and already knows how to analyze what is needed. An effective expert will make sure inventories are taken at each site to formulate a strategy on how to consolidate differing systems and policies into one unified system – hopefully flexible enough to accommodate the uniqueness of each site. The process flow follows a logical track: Read More

Considering the U.S. has been warning about the “skills gap” for over 40 years, the amount of money lost – spent on accommodating, or wrongly addressing, the symptom – the total cumulative loss could be in the significant trillions of dollars…not to mention the resources misapplied. And millions of workers who want, and wanted, to work in a career and employers that could/could have employed them were, both, left empty.

This history has led some to suggest the skills gap is a farce. Even if your concerns aren’t that extreme, one has to wonder why with all of the money spent, the resources applied and the employers and trainees impacted, we seem to still be struggling with a skills gap that started to reveal itself in the 1980’s.

The fact of the matter is that employers have been just as unfocused and ambivalent about defining the problem as government has been zealous about having the only “solution.” While employers say they need and expect workers that can “hit the ground running,” “think outside the box,” “have skills for the jobs of tomorrow” and all of the other buzzwords and phrases circulating, what they really need is workers that can perform their unique tasks and processes, on their unique equipment, in their unique environment within their unique pay structure in a world of change. Not only do employers lack a clear definition of the job as it exists today, internal and external forces never allow a job to fully materialize before it is significantly changed by design or by changes in technology, or relocated out of the education system’s service area. Read More

It is bewildering why management would spend the time and money, and risk employee morale time and again, on a employee measurement that isn’t.

Conceptually, the performance review has a purpose. It is to measure employee performance during a review period, identify areas of weakness and strength, and offer guidance on how an employee can improve on shortcomings and expand potential. But that is only possible if it is accurate to the job classification against which an individual is measured.

Several decades ago, performance review criteria became a template – one form fits all. In order for that to be possible, the metrics had to become more general, such as whether the individual “works well with others,” “completes projects on time,” “shows initiative.” At best, these types of measures leave the reviewed wondering whose job performance is being discussed. At worst, these subjective measures leave a lot of latitude for the reviewer who sometimes deliberately or inadvertently punishes an otherwise good performing employee. Read More

“Futile” since, concurrent with this transformation, government was compounding this disruption with trade agreements and incentives to a smaller and smaller concentration of corporations that encouraged the exportation of the jobs that education programs were targeting. Additionally, employers imported workers to fill these positions (through visa programs) who would perform the same work at a fraction of the established compensation levels – many of whom attended the same U.S. education institutions.

We unfortunately know now that what followed was a rapid churning of jobs that used to provide income security and fulfilling careers to all levels of the workforce and made it nearly impossible for anyone to enroll in a 2 or 4-year education program confident there will be jobs waiting for them upon graduation. Read More

For some firms, just-in-time manufacturing and extreme lean engineering has made it difficult to ride out the economic effects of the pandemic. Without having warehouses of inventory to call up while the supply chains straighten themselves out, the effects are immediate and debilitating. Many firms frantically attempted to reinvent themselves, in some cases in the most extreme way, without a clearly defined market or consumer, while other firms found themselves “checkmated” nearly overnight.

Those that survived had to scramble to stock their shelves, staff and restaff their organizations while reconsidering every aspect of their operation. The economy and its current inflationary effects are straining workers – who might have just been given a raise – once again, who find it increasingly difficult to support themselves. Companies supported by private equity or who are publicly traded find themselves forced to quarterly cut costs – no matter how practical or short-term – to appease their boards of directors. Continuing a decade’s-old practice of denial, of employees being considered a “cost” no matter the employer’s years of investment in developing them nor the wealth of knowledge and skills expertise each represents, are first in line to be discarded.

As pawns in this transformation, workers – some with extreme experience – are vulnerable to being reconsidered out of the equation along with the newly hired. Read More

This highlights several other preexisting issues in addition to the obvious. First, if the company is ISO/AS/IATF certified, an auditor would be appalled and likely “gig” the company for the use of uncontrolled “process documents.” Notes in toolboxes and lunchboxes are not revision controlled. If the company has even questionable process documents that they claim drive their “high level of quality performance” the existence of operator notes are a strong contradiction. A client visiting the site may have serious doubts about the practices, as well.

The next issue is, “what role do these notes play in the training of new-hires and cross-training incumbents?” Does the trainee even know these are available? My experience has been that each trainee is on their own to create their own notes…if they even think it is necessary. So now we have multiple sets of notes for each machine, seldom compared and standardized, AND the company’s process documents if they exist. This is a recipe for incidents of scrap, rework and equipment damage at a minimum. Read Article

Is important to distinguish between four different types of labor turnover to be accurate. First, there are the individuals that apply for a job, are hired, but do not appear the first day of work. The only investment the company made is the time it took to interview the individual and log them in as an employee.

The second type of turnover concerns the individuals that have gone through the interview process, showed-up for work, stayed for a few weeks and then decided the job wasn’t for them for whatever reason. In this case, the company has more of an investment in developing the employee, but it is still rather insignificant.

The third type of turnover concerns employees that have been hired, who received a significant amount of training and pay while in training and have stayed for several months – almost reaching a recognizable level of productivity and return on the employer’s worker investment. Understandably, the employer has more of an investment in this type of employee and their loss is felt more if they leave.

The fourth type of turnover is more critical. The loss of employees that have been trained, have been with the company for the long-term, in whom the company has made a significant investment and their contribution to the operation is felt more deeply.

When employers are literally trying to find anyone with a heartbeat to interview and hire, and some even skip the interview process, it shouldn’t be any wonder that a large portion of those individuals may not show up the first day of work or stay around very long. Read More

When I became familiar with Structured On-The-Job Training (SOJT), I appreciated SOJT because SOJT built from the bottom up. The training delivery structure was designed around the actual tasks the employee is expected to master, for which the employer hired the individual in the first place. Structuring the best practices into training delivery so that workers can learn faster how to perform each task and to standardize the delivery between each shift’s trainers and each trainee gets to the company’s bottom line. It is seen as an investment that can be defended to accountants, unlike core and technical instruction.

There’s always direct evidence that mastering one more task means an incremental increase in worker capacity. Read More

Economic development agencies and government leaders have always talked about helping locally grown enterprises which create an estimated 70-80% of the new jobs in the country. As they start, grow and expand they would hire more, provide more in taxes and be more likely to stay put. As large corporations gained more control of the policies and policy makers of the states and the federal government, the focus drifted away from local small and mid-size businesses and toward policies and strategies that helped large corporations at great expense.

It may be time for an economic development strategy that, out of necessity, focuses on smaller enterprises with solid ties to the communities as more and more large corporations with multi-national ties contribute less and less to local and regional economies and tax bases. It may be time to focus on local start-ups, small and medium size enterprises, and on companies that are bucking the “offshoring of jobs” trend and on to companies that are reshoring, relocating or expanding here from other countries. The cost of investing in economic development may shrink, economies may stabilize and grow, and communities and societies may be driven from despair toward hope and vitality with each new opportunity. Read More

Still, no matter how well or how poorly institutions prepare the workforce for employers, the employer cannot deny their responsibility to continue the training process and train the worker for the organization’s specific use. The degree to which they take this responsibility seriously will determine the success of the institution’s efforts to prepare workers, how much value the worker adds to the operation, and how well the operation performs in the market. Any apprenticeship that lacks an aggressive structured on-the-job training program cannot be the robust experience it is meant to be. By definition, an apprenticeship without structured on-the-job training really isn’t an apprenticeship.

But the success/failure doesn’t stop there. A successfully and fully trained (to the tasks required) staff prepares, and keeps, the organization prepared to seize opportunities, adjust to disrupters and weather unforeseen forces. Failure at preparing and maintaining each worker’s job mastery, as part of system, can exacerbate an organization’s challenges and, potentially, lead to failure or irrelevance of the organization. Read More

It is interesting to see CEO’s marvel at how difficult it is to learn the job tasks they previously thought were inconsequential and not worthy of attention. Previously known only as a word on a report, the fact that how the tasks are performed by these neglected employees are the reason the corporation exists goes unnoticed and unappreciated. Some episodes look like popular television shows of the 50’s and 60’s, “I Love Lucy.”

A typical Undercover Boss episode might reveal:

• Unstructured, inconsistent and incomplete training;
• Uneven and uncertain motivation;
• Conflicting operating orders;
• Unexpectedly outdated or inoperable equipment;
• Unclear standard practices;
• Unexpected lack of leadership at the local level spawned by unexpected lack of leadership at the upper levels;
• Unvarnished displays of workers rising above these organizational inadequacies and their own personal challenges to ensure product gets out the door and services are performed with pride.

Focusing on one aspect, in each case the resident expert was selected to train the covert executive. These attempts at unstructured, task-based training give a vivid picture of the limitations, risks, and failures of foregoing a deliberate training strategy. CEOs, who previously were told that the corporate training programs proliferated to each facility were “state of the art” and “working quite well” are now exposed from the end-users perspective. In a typical episode, if you look past the entertainment factor, one can easily detect: Read More

We are bombarded by the current “reason” for this uncertainty that will always lead to a disproportionate impact on workers, and it is “inflation.“ What is it? Inflation is generally defined as “too many dollars chasing too few goods.“ It’s the old “supply and demand“ scenario and we have been taught when demand exceeds supply, prices rise.

The Federal Reserve defines inflation as “the increase in the prices of goods and services over time. Inflation cannot be measured by an increase in the cost of one product or service, or even several products or services. Rather, inflation is a general increase in the overall price level of the goods and services in the economy.”

There are different causes of inflation which determine the rate of inflation. Capital.com says “a sudden increase in the price of goods and services has a domino effect on the economy. The depreciation of money comes with a decrease in demand for products and services. Unemployment rates rise, as manufacturing firms are forced to lay off workers. The fear of inflation can also result in hoarding, when retailers and consumers buy excessive amounts of certain goods to not pay higher prices once inflation occurs.” They go on to say the main causes of inflation are “demand-pull inflation” and “supply-push inflation,” which determine the rate of inflation increase: moderate inflation, galloping inflation or hyper-inflation.

Most economists believe that inflation is usually a monetary phenomenon, meaning the appearance and rate of inflation are determined by the Federal Reserve Central Bank. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: maximizing employment, stabilizing prices, and moderating long-term interest rates. But many feel so much money has been created over the last three decades by the Federal Reserve, providing easy, low (almost zero) interest borrowing to banks and, therefore, large institutional borrowers such as banks that speculate, private equity investment groups and wealthy individuals that there is a lot more to the story than traditional inflation. Read More

Enormous amounts of money in direct expenditures, workers and management time, opportunity costs, etc. could be expended, only to wind up at a under-whelming end. At the same time a seasoned expert in worker development would have predicted the failure if someone could coherently explain to them what the plan was. Far too often the training strategy boils down to putting two people together and hoping for the best, with a class here and a class there, a job/safety analysis that is never used, illustrated work processes that quickly grow obsolete and unusable, color-coded pie charts that really don’t say much and/or a policy saying workers will be trained that is ignored. Granted, a few of these strategies combined might provide recognizable progress if aligned and implemented correctly. But often each of these has a different brain behind them, residing in a different department with a different directive and budget – each unaware of the other’s activities. Read More

For decades prior to the Crash of 2008, Proactive Technologies, Inc. worked with a lot of employers by job/task analyzing their critical job classifications – initially hourly positions but a growing salary class of positions as well. This approach “captured the expertise” of the aging workers to use it to develop the tools which would allow the company to train nearly anyone with a sufficient core skill base, replicating experts as needed.

Then the Crash of 2008 happened and employers found themselves unexpectedly and unwillingly accelerating the loss of technical experts at all levels. For employers late to the game, there was no longer time to capture expertise; it had already left the building. We saw this phenomenon repeating itself with the Covid-19 pandemic.

In a Plant Services 2019 Workforce Survey report, almost 50% of employers surveyed answered that knowledge capture/transfer was one of their “organization’s biggest workforce challenges” – a number rapidly growing. Today, employers have been urgently revisiting the expertise capture idea, and not for just hourly positions such as tool and die, production worker, machine operator, maintenance and quality control, but for critical support positions such as material buyer, office manager, administrative assistant, and metallurgical lab technician – typically in that “gray area” of jobs considered as indispensable… until the resident expert is gone. Read More

When in doubt, some employers pull out a sample written process and a few random specifications for compliance to focus the discussion. Seriously, I have been in meetings when an employer pulled out a 15 year old job description, which was a cut-and-paste of a 20 year old job description, and gave it to the community college and said, “we need workers trained for this.” Not surprisingly, they are disappointed and disillusioned when what the community college came up with seems irrelevant when shown to workers currently in the job classification.

There are at least two critically important reasons why current and accurate job data makes or breaks a worker development partnership. First, the education and training provider’s role with related technical instruction is to build each candidate’s core and industry-general skills foundation upon which the employer can train them further for their employer-specific work tasks. If the employer cannot accurately define and express their specific needs for each job area they need workers to the training provider, everyone’s time and money is wasted. When that employer–specific data is unavailable, educational institutions turn to “industry-general” standards, developed by a panel of retired CEO’s and educators over coffee and donuts. It is better than nothing, but not even close to finishing the job of worker development. Read More

As reported in Industry Week, a group of CEOs from major U.S. corporations, The Business Roundtable, released a statement saying that shareholder value is no longer its primary focus – shifting their practices to line up with their new definition of the “purpose of a corporation.” The new vision emphasizes investing in employees, supporting communities, dealing ethically with suppliers and providing customers with value. “The group signed the Business Roundtable’s new Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation. It’s a sea change that moves companies away from the age-old philosophy that companies’ main goal is to look after shareholders.”

“There is an effective, proven alternative to cutting labor costs through gutting organizational capacity.”

Focusing solely on shareholder profits has stunted the long-term viability of many a thriving organization. Under the cover of “making the firm more efficient,” when more profits could not be derived from expanding the market and market penetration, some investors forced cuts on firms that determined the firm’s long-term capability to compete, take advantage of emerging market opportunities, and adapt to changing markets and turbulent economic forces. Read More

While making my rounds, meeting the operators and inspecting samples, it seemed I was seeing evidence that management identified the “problem” correctly. I say problem, but my feeling was that I had not gotten to the root cause of what I was observing. I was rejecting parts at nearly every work station, on every pass. I decided to dig a little deeper – get to know the operators a little better to see if I could determine why this was happening.

What I found out was that the operators were, for the most part, experienced and knowledgeable. They knew how to measure their products and should have been able to detect parts drifting out of tolerance. Yet, each station had two barrels – one for scrap and one for rework – as if it were foregone conclusion. And they were working at a very high rate of output with, voluntarily, no breaks or lunch. The effort expended seemed to run counter to the outcome. Read More

Entrepreneurs and engineers that design and fine-tune a production process or service strategy are immersed in it until they feel confident it is ready for scaling. Whether through “expert bias” – the overconfidence that results with satisfaction in discovery leading to the opinion that everyone should understand their innovation – or through mere oversight, a brilliant idea can fail in proliferation during efforts to transfer the processes and techniques without a formal structure. Read More

One over-hyped and inaccurate factor in the U.S. is the shortage of skilled labor, which some workers see as a veiled attempt to justify importing labor who will take the job for significantly less. There are plenty of skilled labor available who were displaced during the Crash of 2008, or recently displaced by the trade wars, and who had to change career course to feed their families. Many of these workers are still waiting, and could be quickly and easily “re-tooled” for today’s manufacturing jobs with a focused structured on-the-job training program. Some are kept from seeking out these opportunities by wages and benefits for the job they once had now offered at 50% – hardly enough to attract skilled candidates back – not to mention for retaining a “skilled worker.”

Some see this as a sort of hypocrisy; the publicized, frantic search for “skilled” and “talented” workers, while offering these skilled workers less for the job they once held with that employer or a similar employer in the industry. So, for now, many of those workers that are that skilled and talented abandoned the career of their choice for the career that pays the bills.

Unless employers can convince their shareholders that wages and benefits have to go up to attract the workers they prefer, employers will have to accept the candidates that remain of which there are plenty. These are the ones with the college degrees you see working in service positions, just waiting for an opportunity to apply their skills to a job with more substance. Read More

This false assumption is challenged when product or services turn up defective, and customers expect an explanation and a corrective action. This is when a weak, or no, connection can be drawn between the policy that guides quality standards, work processes and who trained and certified the employee to perform the task independently is discovered. This is when the records that exist, if any, do not support the assumption that mastery of the task ever occurred. This is when the customer loses faith in the producer or supplier – not just in the task(s) isolated in the one incident, but possibly performance of all tasks on which they depend.

From a learning perspective, manufacturing environments present hurdle after hurdle to learning and mastering the work to be performed. Unrelenting production schedules, technology advancements and continuous improvement efforts – all offer little room for deliberate task-based training while changing the task out from under the worker while they are trying to learn and master it. Read More

Proactive Technologies will be working with Mennel Milling to set-up and implement structured on-the-job training programs for new-hires and incumbent workers for positions such as Maintenance Technicians, Operator, Supervisor and Quality Assurance Technician. Read More

For many organizations, the only way to know the road was bumpy is through negative events; product scrap or rework, lost customers, operator injury or an outcome requiring legal intervention. Perhaps the oversight has been lacking due to a lean or “green” supervisory staff, or a lack of budget for the extra hours or equipment needed to monitor the process, or processes are unsettled and changing rapidly without those individuals performing them being immediately notified.

For any reason, relying on a negative event to prompt scrutiny can be very costly – much more than the investment needed to prevent this. Worse yet, an investigation too narrowly focused resulting in remedies that overlook the obvious reasons for the discrepancy may inject new uncontrolled variables. Many remedies become more disciplinary (e.g. reprimanding or firing the person(s) thought responsible, a complete audit involving all departments and staff, reassigning the process to another department, or delegating the process to one person who knows how to get around the systemic errors and barriers to produce the output expected…until that one person moves to another job or company and that “wisdom” is lost).

To determine to what degree this is an issue with your operation, you need only: Read More

If the worker is reassigned to another department, and no task-based training infrastructure is in place, that reassignment may lower the efficiency there which, again, reduces the gains made by the Lean effort. So part of the Lean effort must be the deliberate cross-training of workers in temporary assignments or longer-term reassignments to other departments that seem to have the need for increased staffing, perhaps as a result of the increased throughput achieved from the Lean effort in the upstream department in the chain.

Another outcome of a lean effort may not include moving personnel, but either equipment or processes out of the Leaned department into another department up or downstream, often without structured training to absorb the new activities and maintain efficiency. Here the loss of gains made are similar if no training on how to perform the processes or run the equipment is provided. Read More

When the resident expert masters a task and it becomes routine, there is a tendency for them to marginalize the task as so easy that the next trainee should learn it by osmosis. If not, maybe the new-hire “just doesn’t seem to want to learn.” Somehow, the organization may get by. In this case, like so many, it may sound like an insignificant example of training, but not to the person who needs the copy and who may be judged if a meeting is waiting for it.

Same, too, are the more critical and complex tasks of the job, requiring compliance with so many factors such as engineering specifications, quality control requirements, safety requirements and company policies. Without a deliberate task-based training infrastructure in place, training might be ad hoc, informal, unstructured and rarely documented. Add to this the periodic worker cross-training that allows workers to train in, and master, tasks in multiple job areas and the amount of critical, but undocumented, training can be tremendous.

In the event of an audit by an internal department, a certifying agency, a client or a prospective client, explaining how a worker is trained to master a task critical to a repeated high level of quality might be difficult to impossible. And answering how a worker, who is thought to have mastered a task, is updated when the process is improved, redesigned, affected by changes in technology, changeover of product line or part of an orchestrated improvement program might be even more difficult. Read More

Publicly traded companies, and even some privately held companies getting ready to go public, seem preoccupied with increasing quarterly earnings per share above all else. A consistently high level of earnings per share over the long-run no longer seems adequate for some. If the market is slack, an organization might carve costs out of the company from even a lean operation rather than disappoint investors. When labor is viewed as a “cost” rather than an asset, the temptation might be to cut benefits and wages. This may prop-up numbers for the short-term, but a demoralized workforce might not produce the same levels of output and quality yield as before. Sadly, a decision might be made in following quarters to cut benefits and wages even more, followed by workers if needed to make the magic number. All the while, worker and operational capacity, along with enthusiasm and loyalty, are eroding.

How does this erosion happen? When workers are cut, the work they used to perform gets transferred to the remaining workers. If there isn’t a mechanism to quickly “transfer expertise” to the worker expected to take on the new responsibilities, capacity drops until the trainee comes up to speed. For as long as the transfer takes, one well-paid subject matter expert trainer is being paid to train the paid trainee, yet productivity improvement may be negligible. And further complicating the process, perhaps no one thought about capturing the exiting workers expertise before they left the building, so some “reinventing the wheel has to occur.” Multiply this across all affected workers and the labor and opportunity costs may wipe out any anticipated gains by cutting worker payroll.

Proactive Technologies Report has presented many articles about the value of workers, how structured on-the-job training increases the worker’s capacity to perform more tasks to a level of mastery, the high cost of worker turnover, and more. It is a concept we feel strongly about. Yet we are continually surprised how this topic is avoided by company’s accounting departments and upper management when they feel inclined to trim costs here and there, avoiding cultivating the enormous wealth before them – waiting to be harvested. What would be the value of just a 10% increase in worker capacity, operational capacity, quality and quantity of work, and worker compliance (safety, ISO/IATF/AS, etc.) to any operation?

Not to diminish the important role of investors, but there has been a lot written about whether maximizing shareholder value is a destructive rule that needs to be changed. Critic Steve Denning wrote in an article in Forbes published in 2011 entitled “The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value,” “Imagine an NFL coach,” writes Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, in his important new book, Fixing the Game-What Capitalism Can Learn from the NFL, “holding a press conference on Wednesday to announce that he predicts a win by 9 points on Sunday, and that bettors should recognize that the current spread of 6 points is too low. Read More

___________________________________________________________________________

The profit from, and value of, most worker’s labor comes from task-based work, so all inputs that drive workers to high-performance, high-capacity output are investments.

___________________________________________________________________________

As discussed in many articles in past issues of the Proactive Technologies Report, although labor costs are considered direct costs from an accounting standpoint, they should be more importantly considered as an investment in the operation’s overall level of competitiveness. Operations may vary as to the level of return on investment from labor, but each worker’s cumulative expertise gained while employed becomes an asset to the operation akin to intellectual property and, therefore, wages and compensation paid to develop a worker are an investment. Read More

In the 1990’s, investors started to look at the National Security Agency’s and Central Intelligence Agency’s “key-word search” capabilities used to scan millions of documents from around the world for specific words and phrases to expand their intelligence gathering reach. They saw applications of this technology in the civilian world, including scanning the mounds of resumes and employment applications employers had to filter in order to find a few new-hires. On the surface, this seemed to be a godsend.

Soon employers and employment candidates saw what the developers of this technology did not. The technology first had to count on employers having accurately designed job descriptions in consistent formats, using standardized terms, words and phrases to describe pre-hire knowledge, experience, skills and abilities of interest. The fact was reality couldn’t have been farther from this, with job descriptions written 50 years prior, written precisely for someone the employer wanted to hire (not so reflective of the actual job requirements), or cut & pasted from a handy library resource. Read More

In short, the report led one to believe that employers overall wanted to make pay fairer, but one got the impression that there was no clear path. It is difficult in this environment to talk about raising workers wages without shareholders mounting a revolt. But with the reported shorted of skilled labor, the difficulty in training workers with a lean staff and no structure, strategy or record keeping, etc. an area of compromise has to be reached. If not, skilled workers will not apply, or stay, and the shareholder profits will definitely be affected. It is the “bullet that needs to be bit” to get the economy working like it did so well post World War II when everyone felt they had a chance at doing well for themselves and their family.

One easy-to-set-up, easy-to-implement, low investment/high return strategy for paying workers for the documented value the employee has accumulated has been discussed in previous Proactive Technologies Report articles, most recently “A Pay-for-Value Worker Development Program – Fair to Management and Workers, and Effective Too!” and previously in “Pay-For-Value Employee Programs.”

Developing each worker should be a linear process in spite of inputs from all direction. A person is selected based on closeness of fit with established criterion. The person is then trained on the units of work for which they will be responsible. Once proficient, the person routinely performs these tasks – evaluated at some point based on set criterion for their level of performance and, in some cases, compensation is assigned accordingly. Feedback on how to improve performance is given and additional incentivized development goals can be assigned to drive work performance even higher. Read More

For decades employers have been laxed in their need to develop the most productivity and worker capacity from their workforce. It became more a hunt for “bodies“ than for developing more skilled workers. Most employers like to think that their in-house programs for training workers, once hired, meets their needs, but scratching the surface in most cases proves that there is very little structure, no plan, there is no documentation, and no sense of purpose. For most employers, people are hired, they are paired up with one of the existing workers and, hopefully, the existing subject matter expert will transfer expertise to the new worker to a level that, one day, might be recognizable.

Some companies that are struggling with high turnover, and/or a surge of growth, see many of these workers can get lost in the shuffle. Some continue to hire more “bodies” who then wait for someone to train them to do something. Workers that could have been star performers are let go because there is no structured way to measure the outcome of the training process to anyone’s satisfaction. Then again, many workers leave employers when they discover that there is no way to improve themselves in the job classification. Read More

Proactive Technologies will be working with SK Food Group associates to set-up and implement structured on-the-job training programs for new-hires and incumbent workers for positions such as Maintenance Systems Technicians, Packaging Technicians and Quality Control – many of which to be registered as apprenticeships.

We look forward to working with the associates of SK Food Group!

Over the years, I have noticed that many employers’ idea of a worker training strategy is a hodge-podge of classroom and online training. This seems to be based on the assumption that all of the right people have been hired, they all have mastered the tasks of the job and that a few classes will drive each worker’s performance to higher levels.

Where does this assumption come from? Why do employers collectively settle for this type of model even though decades of experience and day to day worker performance offer many clues that this model of worker training is not as effective as hoped? Too often the feedback from workers attending classes is, “I don’t know why the company had me attend that class.” “That was a waste of time.” In an informal way, this is a form of “content validation,” or in this case “invalidation.”

“Conceptually, a better overall approach is simple, accurate, efficient and effective. If an employer isn’t including these simple steps in their worker selection, development and performance evaluation strategy the might be wasting company time, money and resources.”

This legacy approach is a comfortable model to explain. Everyone has attended school; some higher education as well. It is what we grew up with and the sentiment has become acceptance from familiarity. Some accept this approach because they are unaware of better alternatives. Some find comfort in being among the “herd.” Most of the employers seemed locked into this model, so it must be the right way to train workers. If this were true and reinforced with evidence, why after 30 years of concentrated application (as technology entered nearly every aspect of worker performance) the “skills gap” we all talk about has not only survived, but has actually grown? Read More

Sounds familiar? It seems to run contrary to all the other business improvement initiatives, such as Six-Sigma, LEAN, Continuous Improvement, Total Quality Management, etc. Do companies have to settle for a “seat-of-the-pants” learning experience for their hourly and salary workers? And could this be a major contributing factor in reduced organizational competitiveness? Read More

When the project initially began, one of the main concerns of the CGS upper management was the challenging high level of turnover, exacerbated by the Covid – 19 events and aftermath. At times it seemed as if turnover reached the 20 to 25% level.

After the SOJT programs were underway, each incumbent worker’s inventory of tasks mastered was established to baseline each worker for the tasks they have previously been trained on and management and the employee believed they had mastered. Customized SOJT programs were developed for each based on where they were in their development (to avoid wasting time and money training workers on what they could already do) and what was necessary to close the “task mastery gap.”

New-hires were set-up on their own customized SOJT program, starting at a level of zero tasks mastered, and therefore given a complete SOJT checklist binder. Both groups were, and continue to be, driven towards “full job mastery” in what is called an “accelerated transfer of expertise.” Each employee receives certificates of task mastery for reaching the 50% of tasks mastered mark, and certificates of job mastery once they have mastered the entire job classification. Read More

Every job classification can be broken into its duties (groups of related tasks), tasks and subtasks. That is where performance is measured and it should be the outcome that is detected and improved. There are individuals who cannot conceptualize this relationship and say something like, “my job is too complicated, it cannot be defined because I am asked to do so many things.” Once they are walked through how they think their way through a series of steps to get to an outcome, they are usually converted. If the analyst cannot get a handle on a job classification, perhaps there really isn’t an underlying job.

Each task and subtask has beginning point and an ending point and a series of steps between called “elements,” process steps” or “procedural steps” that must be performed correctly, in the right order and meeting specifications to get the right, repeatable outcome. Read More