Proactive Technologies Report – February, 2019

Is it Possible to Close the “Skills Gap” if Focused on the Symptom, Not The Cause?

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

There is nothing like the futility of trying to solve a specificproblem with a general solution…or treating the symptoms with methods that do not address the underlying problem. No one would use a screwdriver to tighten a nut or bolt. However, in an environment surrounded by a loud, unrelenting and self-interested screwdriver industry “expert” voices there may well be many who try – even those who should know better. Especially if given a “free” screwdriver.

According to the Center for Economic Research, “US Businesses lose approximately $160 billion total every year as the result of the skills gap.” According to a 2017 Training Magazine report, “Total 2017 U.S. training expenditures [employer] rose significantly, increasing 32.5 percent to $90.6 billion, according to this year’s report.” On top of this, in 2018 the US spent $50 million on STEM education (simply putting back what was taken out of education after reforms started in the 1980’s) to “address the skill gap of future employees.” 

click here to expand

Considering the U.S. has been warning about the “skills gap” for over 30 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 being 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.


“We, as a nation, have been in sort of a “skills gap limbo” for years because even though employers typically have no structured, measurable, improvable and documented method of training workers once hired, miraculously workers appear to master enough of a job for work to get done. Yet if asked, many employers have a difficult time explaining how it happened, which employees can do which tasks and, when the tasks change, which employees on which shifts mastered the new procedure – that is, until something bad happens. They admit frustration in trying to improve performance, but also admit that they do not know which employees are capable of improving or how they would know. This condition deserves swift action to resolve it, not repackaged and rebranded failures of the past.”


Employees and workforce developers, relying on this input, always see the institution’s products first as the solution. Classroom education is familiar to everyone, and the institutions have built themselves stronger with every prolonged fear of the incessant skills gap and the funding that flows from it. Still, graduates too often find themselves unemployable and burdened with debt. Employers continue to complain that they just cannot find skilled workers. Read More 


Internships of Value – For Employer AND Intern

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

In my college years, a number of my classmates participated in internships in an effort to gain real-world work skills and experiences, and to be able to add a line to their resumes. Over the years when we compared notes, it seems the results varied from company and by job area. But the common sentiment was that the experiences were not as helpful to building workplace skills and personally fulfilling as they could have been.

According to a NACE (“National Association of Colleges and Employers”) 2015 survey entitled “Internship & Co-op Survey,” “The primary focus of most employers’ internship and co-op programs is to convert students into full-time, entry-level employees (70.8 percent and 62.6 percent, respectively).”  So, it appears most employers view internships as a potential recruitment tool and a way of evaluating candidates for employment.

click here to expand

“Shadowing” without being able to touch and interact can be done with a DVD at home. Fetching coffee and making sure the break room is stocked with paper plates and napkins do not test the skills developed after 12 years of educational learning and 2 or 4 years of technical and academic study. Do not get me wrong, those who were paid while interns are appreciative for the opportunity and the resume line. However, they all seemed to wish they could have been able to learn and experience more.

Engineering and accounting areas seem to provide more meaningful task-based internship experiences because both have had a long time to standardize some tasks – even proceduralize them in cases – to make it easy for a new person to follow and observe. Other job areas seem to lack standardization of tasks and, to each observer, seem to be seen and understood very differently.

My experience in helping to build “structured on-the-job training” programs from a detailed job and task analysis caused me to reflect on those internship experiences. The structured On-The-Job Training Plan and On-The-Job Training Checklists binders of a Proactive Technologies program seem to help a new-hire and incumbent worker learn. Therefore it is not a stretch that they would help the intern learn, follow and perform a subset of tasks that can be learned during the internship period. It accelerates the process and provides a more deliberate, documented work experience. Read More


Workforce Development Partnerships That Last; My Experience

By Randy Toscano, Jr.,  MSHRM, CEO of Legacy Partners 2

Partnerships between employers and local educational institutions/training providers are a tricky thing. Not every employer knows clearly what they need nor can they articulate the need, and not every educational institution can understand the need, or has products or services available or relevant enough to make a difference. If either of these realities are present, or worse both of them, it can make worker development partnerships difficult to disappointing.

Employers are closest to the work that they need performed by the worker, which is usually very different from the employer down the road. Yet employers rarely bother to document what makes up that work to articulate it in an understandable way to an educational institution or training provider. If you doubt that, take any of your job classifications and try to explain it in enough detail to train from it.

click here to expand

“Our partnership, located in northern Ohio, was the first implementation of the US Metalworking Skill Standards in the country.”


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. Read More


Do U.S. Productivity Measures Measure Productivity?

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

A disturbing emerging trend, particularly in the last three decades, concerns the accuracy and quality of the economic statistics reported to the public. A lot of think tanks have sprung up in Washington issuing reports and policy statements, and some put a cloak of perceived “credibility” around statements they release meant to support a policy direction or change its course – both to the benefit of a segment of interests subsidizing the think tanks. Confusing us even more is the mainstream media’s propensity to report, as “news,” press releases emanating from these think tanks as if accurate, unbiased and inherently factual. Some may be, but when they are reported through the same careless filter, it throws them all into suspicion. The decrease in the number of accurate, readily available sources of news and facts can derail a life or business strategy.

Take for example the daily explanations by news and business show anchors of why the stock market gyrates up or down, as if the collective market can always be explained simply as, “the stock market reacted to the federal reserve’s decision to not act,” or “the stock market tumbled because of the results of the presidential election” – only to recover fully the next day. Could another simple explanation be that the market moved one way or another because groups with large holdings decided to move them?

click here to expand

“Unfortunately, however, figures on productivity in the United States do not help improve productivity in the United States.”

W. Edwards Deming


Another example is the preoccupation with what is referred to as “inflation,” which is based on the consumer price index (“CPI”). A “basket of consumer goods” was selected and periodic measurements of their retail prices are taken to see, primarily, if any inflationary forces exerted pressure on prices upward or downward during the period that might require an adjustment in central bank monetary policy. First, it is important to know which goods make up the basket. Read More


Read the full February, 2019 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Posted in News

Proactive Technologies Report – January, 2019

Yet Another Reason Structured On-The-Job Training Should Be Part of Any Company’s Business Model – New ISO 30414 Standards for Human Capital Metrics

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

A new reason has come to town to support why structured on the job training – at least the 
PROTECH system of managed human resource development approach – can be an important component of an organization’s business strategy and model: ISO 30414 – Human Capital Metrics and Reporting.

For far too long, critics have been vocal that decisions on how to reduce costs to protect “shareholder value” were heavily weighted against workers, undercounting the firm’s cumulative investment in each worker’s development and aggregate value of the firm’s worker expertise. It was easy to erase labor wages off the books without considering the loss of value to the company when that value was never measured and counted in the first place. While the benefits of such cuts can provide a short-term lift to earnings per share, the long-term impact on organizational capacity, quality and effectiveness is often not known to shareholders until problems arise.

click here to expand

There has been an extensive global effort to create standards for the voluntary gathering and reporting of human capital metrics, organized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which have been released. And there seems to be a case to be made why companies should not ignore their importance.

Many quality professionals were exposed to the new requirements for a systematic approach to human resources in ISO 9001:2015. These new requirements are based on the principles considered by ISO to be essential to quality management success. But some quality professionals may not be aware of new ways that they can bring added value to their organizations by implementing the spirit and intention of these new requirements.


“If the firm has not defined the job classifications of workers in clear, procedural terms, they have little to measure, report on and use to improve performance.”   


In a recent article in CFO.com entitled, “Human Capital Reporting Standards Finally Arrive,” David McCann writes, “Depending on the extent to which companies voluntarily adopt the new standards, stakeholders – investors, analysts, customers, and current and prospective employees – would have a new category of data with which to assess organizational value and the prospects for financial and non-financial returns from investments in human capital.” 

Conversations regarding ISO 30414 human capital reporting have changed in the last few years, perhaps related to the awareness that the public is asking more and more that corporations be good corporate “citizens” since given that standing in recent Supreme Court rulings such as Citizen’s United. 

The institutional investor community, including the Human Capital Management Coalition with aggregate assets of $3 trillion dollars and is lead by the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, has expressed strong support. They went as far as petitioning the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2017 to require public companies to disclose information on their human capital management. The Commission accepted the petition and is currently considering it.  Read More 


A “Pay-for-Value” Worker Development Program – Fair to Management and Workers, and Effective Too!

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

A conundrum for many employers – those who are allowed to consider the wage-value relationship in their business strategy – is “what is the right pay rate for work performed.” An often used strategy is to establish a competitive wage range for a job classification based on area surveys of similar job classification in the industry, adjusted for the uniqueness of work requirements for the employer’s job classification. Once hired, an employee progresses through the wage range measured by time in the job classification, in some cases with wage adjustments based on merit. While consistent, this approach may limit the employer to paying, in many cases, more for labor than the value derived. And here is why.

If an employer purchases a new, technologically advanced, piece of machinery that is advertised to increase the output of a process from 100 units per hour to 300 units per hour, the employer would be disappointed if it only received 150 units per hour. That employer would, most likely, challenge the manufacturer and perhaps request a refund if not satisfied.

click here to expand

“How would one determine the proper wage rate for the value derived if there is no effort to hire workers accurately to today’s job needs, train workers to all of the required tasks and measure workers for the work they were hired and trained to perform?”


Why doesn’t that same sentiment apply to hiring workers? In a hypothetical, but typical, example an employer has an opening for a job classification that consists of 50 critical tasks that the employer expects the person filling that job classification to perform. Why shouldn’t the employer expect that person to master all 50 tasks? What might happen instead, after what is considered to be the “training period” is completed, the employer notices through anecdotal evidence and whispers that the output from that hired individual is below expectation. As time goes by and dissatisfaction grows, the decision to terminate the employee is made, often not measured against the investment in the employee thus far. If retained, the employee progresses through the wage range with no guarantee that the employee’s output increases. Where is the concern to correct this? Read More


Proactive Technologies Discount Program Ends, But…”Low-Risk” Pilot Approach Option Remains in Effect 

by Proactive Technologies, Inc. Staff 

The Proactive Technologies, Inc.’s Fall Discount Offer expired November 30th. However, discounts are still offered for “economies of scale” (the larger the project, the larger the savings due to coordinated travel, production costs and labor).  PLUS, Proactive Technologies has continued the “low-risk” project pilot approach offer for those employers who need to make the case to management before rolling out a larger project.

This accelerated transfer of expertise approach is a tremendous offer without the discount. This approach can help any employer quickly and completely train the skilled workers they need AND realize an increase in worker capacity, work quantity/quality and compliance (ISO9001:2015/ TS16949/AS9100D), engineering specifications and safety) while reducing the internal costs of training. New-hires and incumbent workers are driven to full job mastery and higher levels of return on worker investment (ROWI). The task-based, structured on-the-job training infrastructure is perfect for apprenticeships (registered or not); instead of marking the calendar for “time-in-job,” job-relevant tasks are mastered and documented. AND, unlike classroom or online training, the cost per trainee decreases with each added trainee once set up.

click here to expand

This approach makes a worker’s mastery of the job the focus, incorporating the company’s existing systems, documents and standards by building structure around the loosely arranged worker development activities already in place – structuring the unstructured worker training to make it work effectively and efficiently.

Proactive Technologies offers two ways to help prospective clients be absolutely certain that this strategic approach to worker development is right for them. First, Proactive Technologies is offering a free, no obligation, up-to-three-hours session offsite by videoconference, or onsite (by appointment), to develop a Job Hierarchy (detailed task listing) of the prospective client’s targeted job classification. This involves the prospective client’s designated incumbent “subject matter expert” and will illustrate for the prospective management the direction and detail of this approach’s methodology. It will, also,  reveal whether the subject matter expert’s coworkers have mastered all of the tasks required of the job for which they were hired. Read More


Grow Your Own Multi-Craft Maintenance Technicians – Using a “Systems Approach” to Training

by Dr. Dave Just, former Dean of Corporate and Continuing Education at Community Colleges in MA, OH, PA, SC. Currently President of K&D Consulting

Since partnering with Proactive Technologies, Inc. in 1994, together we have advocated the use of a “systems approach” to training that includes a combination of related technical instruction and structured on-the-job training to develop multi-craft maintenance technicians. This approach works equally as well with other job classifications within a organization. This is a viable option to paying tens of thousands of dollars per year to employment recruiters to locate these technicians on a nationwide basis…who still need to be trained once hired. Plus, once the investment is made to setup the infrastructure, you can train as many workers as you need – with a declining cost per trainee.

click here to expand

The systems approach to training, if built correctly for your company, forms the infrastructure of a highly effective, low cost apprenticeship (registered or not) model. This model can quickly and cost-effectively produce the multi-craft maintenance technicians you need, who will be qualified to perform the tasks required at your facility. Based on detailed job/task analysis data – collected by Proactive Technologies’ experts using your internal subject matter experts who have the final review – worker development materials are generated by Proactive Technologies’ PROTECH™ software system for immediate use. Most importantly, technical support to the project includes project implementation management, so you can focus on running your business.

This “systems approach to worker development” is effective. To establish the foundation: Read More 


Replicating Your Best Performers

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of  Proactive Technologies, Inc.

One project I was involved with sought to establish a structured on-the-job training program for a “CNC Operator” position and establish an apprenticeship. It consisted of around 40 different machines; manual and NC-operated of several brands, controller types and purposes. When I analyze a job – task by task – I first contact the resident “subject matter expert.” It is my experience that in lieu of accurate standard process documents that everyone can use when assigned a machine, each operator keeps their own setup and operation notes. They are usually reluctant to share them.

As analysts, we assume that if the subject matter expert is assigned to us, it is a reflection of management’s confidence in the operator’s consistently high level of performance. We also learn a lot about the sub-culture that has arisen at the organization, bordering on “work performance anarchy.” Despite the connotations, this is a useful revelation. This lack of vital information sharing that has been going on can be eliminated. The collective wealth of task-specific information can be screened, validated, standardized and revision-controlled to be shared with all who are asked to perform the tasks.

click here to expand

This highlights several other preexisting issues in addition to the obvious. First, if the company is ISO/AS/TS 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. Read More


Read the full January, 2019 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Posted in News

Proactive Technologies Report – December, 2018

Is It Possible To Improve Worker Performance Without Documented Task Mastery?

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

W. Edwards Deming said, “We are being ruined by the best efforts of people who are doing the wrong thing.”  The inefficiencies, discrepancies, affects on morale and potential for adverse incidents would seem to make preventing this a priority. To make improvements given this condition seems to be, at most times, futile.

Often we are lulled into believing this phenomena doesn’t exist when products get produced and shipped, and services are provided. That is where the metrics are pointed – output. But how much is known about the effort, sometime struggle, to get there? Was the effort efficient, accurate and consistent? If we do not have definitive answers to these questions, how to improve performance will likely be as illusive and resources used in the attempt a waste.

click here to expand

“To assume a new worker with no background in the tasks or skills a job requires can acquire them by osmosis is decision that will come back to haunt one day.”

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 that result 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

“Realistic Job Previews” Can Be a Useful Tool for Measuring a Prospective Employee’s Transferable Task-based Skills

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

The hiring process can be difficult for both the employer and the prospective employee. A wrong decision can cost each party a lot of time, money and opportunity. An unwanted outcome based on the employer not providing an accurate picture of the job, work environment and work expected to be performed can be avoided with a “Realistic Job Preview.” (“RJP”).

Wikipedia points out that “Empirical research suggests a fairly small effect size, even for properly designed RJPs (d = .12), with estimates that they can improve job survival rates ranging from 3-10%. For large organizations in retail or transportation that do mass hiring and experience new hire turnover above 200% in a large population, a 3-10% difference can translate to significant monetary savings. Some experts (e.g., Roth; Martin, 1996) estimate that RJPs screen out between 15% and 36% of applicants.
When RJPs are less effective, “According to researchers there are four issues that challenge RJP:

click here to expand
  1. Recruiters do not share RJPs during interviews. (Rynes, 1991)
  2. The nature of “realistic” information shared (in lab research or in the field) is unclear (Breaugh & Billings, 1988)
  3. Not asking the right questions.
  4. Applicants consistently report desiring more specific, job-relevant information than they commonly receive (Barber & Roehling, 1993; Maurer, Howe, & Lee,1992)

In addition to this there is a chance for realistic job preview to become more effective in order to eliminate turnovers. The presentation format and timing of the RJP can be improved whether the real information is provided early on or later in the recruitment factor. Consequently, more specific topic should be addressed and information sources used (e.g. job incumbent versus human resource staff person).”  Read More

Proactive Technologies Discount Program Ends, But…”Low-Risk” Pilot Approach Option Remains in Effect 

by Proactive Technologies, Inc. Staff 

The Proactive Technologies, Inc.’s Fall Discount Offer expired November 30th. However, discounts are still offered for “economies of scale” (the larger the project, the larger the savings due to coordinated travel, production costs and labor).  PLUS, Proactive Technologies has continued the “low-risk” project pilot approach offer for those employers who need to make the case to management before rolling out a larger project.

This accelerated transfer of expertise approach is a tremendous offer without the discount. This approach can help any employer quickly and completely train the skilled workers they need AND realize an increase in worker capacity, work quantity/quality and compliance (ISO9001:2015/ TS16949/AS9100D), engineering specifications and safety) while reducing the internal costs of training. New-hires and incumbent workersare driven to full job mastery and higher levels of return on worker investment (ROWI). The task-based, structured on-the-job training infrastructure is perfect for apprenticeships (registered or not); instead of marking the calendar for “time-in-job,” job-relevant tasks are mastered and documented. AND, unlike classroom or online training, the cost per trainee decreases with each added trainee once set up.

click here to expand

This approach makes a worker’s mastery of the job the focus, incorporating the company’s existing systems, documents and standards by building structure around the loosely arranged worker development activities already in place – structuring the unstructured worker training to make it work effectively and efficiently.

Proactive Technologies offers two ways to help prospective clients be absolutely certain that this strategic approach to worker development is right for them. First, Proactive Technologies is offering a free, no obligation, up-to-three-hours session offsite by videoconference, or onsite (by appointment), to develop a Job Hierarchy (detailed task listing) of the prospective client’s targeted job classification. This involves the prospective client’s designated incumbent “subject matter expert” and will illustrate for the prospective management the direction and detail of this approach’s methodology. It will, also,  reveal whether the subject matter expert’s coworkers have mastered all of the tasks required of the job for which they were hired. Read More

Confusion Over What Constitutes “Training” is Stumbling Block to Effective Worker Development Strategies

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

For the anyone searching for information to help them choose a worker development strategy, a web search of “on-the-job training methods”  might produce thirty or forty informative, but confusing, charts. The search result is a mixture of domains, methods, philosophies – one seemingly in conflict with the other. A non-practitioner of workforce development strategies can gather from this search result alone why there is a perpetual state of confusion between even “experts,” marked by decades of employer and trainee disappointmentin the lack of recognizable strategies and outcomes, which are often devoid of meaningful results.

 Over the years, approaches and methods have evolved out of their ineffectiveness, many diverging from the basic principals of workforce development. Markets for products to address these approaches grew and well-funded marketing began to find unaware customers. The notion of “training” morphed into branded versions of “learning,” selected not so much on their basis in logic, but more on the lack of “smart” choices and how well the marketing effort worked.

click here to expand

“A great first step is to clearly differentiate between “learning” and “training.” The strategies, methods of delivery and outcomes for each are very different. Without such clarity, one might mistakenly invest heavily in a strategy to accomplish worker development objectives that, instead, uses up vital resources and scare opportunity, and sours the organization’s attitude toward training for years to come.”


The acceleration started around 40 years ago. Prior to that, job classifications did not change much and were relatively simple in structure. Then panic set in over the approaching “skills gaps,” as computers were introduced into every aspect of our lives. Fear of baby boomers nearing retirement, taking their technical expertise with them, added to the challenge. Solutions started to appear out of academia, based on the world they knew and not as much on the world they were trying to improve, as they would have liked to think. Did these methods address the workforce development challenges of their time? In 2018, employers are still concerned with the “skills gap” phenomenon. Read More 

Read the full December, 2018 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Posted in News

Proactive Technologies Report – November, 2018

A Training Approach That Should Make the Bean Counters Happy

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc

Whether out of deference or lack of awareness, it is an unspoken truth that more and more employers have been neglecting their role in worker development lately. Investments in related technical instruction are being pushed to the back burner by ever growing emphasis on meeting quarterly numbers; the push for greater output and profits to meet shareholder expectations which seems to perpetually increase. Classes and online content have always been seen by accounting as costs that can be put-off for a later date that, now, never seems to come.

The more important structured on-the-job training (the transfer of task best practice and expertise) is squeezed in if and when time allows (which is in short supply) by whoever is available – this in an age of Lean and continuous improvement. If employers are waiting for someone else to train their workers to 100% mastery of their unique tasks, on their unique equipment for their unique processes, well that is just wishful thinking.

click here to expand

The contradictions are alarming, and many times middle managers and upper management of corporate-run or private equity managed enterprises are caught in the middle. They know the risks of neglecting training and they see the results first-hand, but have little say in the matter or are afraid of getting caught up in a “cost v. benefit” discussion with people that seem to live in a different world and have made up their mind before the discussion begins. When capacity deteriorates or the siren’s call of cheaper labor markets prevails, someone makes the decision to move the entire operation to a location where training is even more difficult but can be absorbed due to offsetting wage discounts – that is until wages rise and total cost of ownenership is understood.


“The decision to not invest in driving each employee to full job mastery – making sure all company employees have mastered the best practice of every task for which they were hired – is akin to deciding to buy a Corvette in your middle-years to impress your friends then skimping on the gas to drive it. The return on the investment is not realized, so it starts to look like pure cost. Magnify this by tens or hundreds of employees and there is no doubt of the folly.”


If employers do decide to host related technical instruction, they tend to gravitate toward classroom or online training solutions since they seem more familiar. They settle on local institutional instruction providers and private vendors by finding what they think is a close fit, yet they and the end-users are often underwhelmed by out-of-date or unrelated content that weakens their credibility and makes them reluctant to ask for permission to host another. It has always been difficult to show how related technical instruction and courses “du jour” translated into improvement in a worker’s performance – expressed by the attendees and those who sent them through the class.

Employers are buoyed by the belief that on-the-job, task-based training seems to be going on in one form or another all around them – even if they cannot explain it, measure it, document it and improve it. To a degree they are right; work gets done and products and services reach the customer. In an age of tight budgets and cynical accountants and shareholders, getting it wrong again is not an option. So the temptation is to accept this reality as the only choice, not ask for additional resources (from individuals who discourage the mere request) to maximize worker potential and, in doing so, the bottom line.

If designed and implemented right, structured on-the-job training, especially Proactive Technologies’ accelerated transfer of expertise™, is the easiest to justify by ease of implementation, by the potential increase in worker capacity, work quality and quantity, by the effortless increase in compliance with ISO/AS/TS and OSHA, by the measurable and documented return on worker investment and by the declining cost per trainee.

A structured on-the-job training infrastructure is easier to set up and implement than might by thought if done right. Many of the components are already there, so structuring the unstructured builds on what is familiar and useful. If ad hoc and informal on-the-job training was going on anyway, then structuring it to make it more accurate, efficient and purposeful has to be a return on investment from the “get-go.” Having structure to accelerate, document, measure and improve the transfer of worker expertise adds to the returns. Providing documentation to support compliance with ISO/AS./TS quality programs and OSHA mitigates the risk of noncompliance and litigation – even more return. And if you have similar job classifications across multiple locations, the returns due to “customized standardization” escalate.

If you want to have a better shot at pitching to management and accountants why training will have a better outcome this time, what deficiencies it will address and what returns on investment can be expected, then seriously consider the structured on-the-job training, systems approach. Discussing academic theory to hardened managers has become very difficult since many have turned out to be just that; academic theory. Drilling down on real-world examples of waste and under-utilization of workers with a solution that seems directly suited to affect this has a better chance for a successful decision and outcomes that reinforce the choice made.

Michael Collins wrote about it in an article in IndustryWeek entitled “How Financialization Is Starving Manufacturing” that short-termism has made manufacturing companies focus an inordinate amount of time, attention and resources on immediate gains at the expense of long-term, sustainable growth. This applies to worker development, too. Read More 


Increasing Worker Capacity – An Alternative to Cutting Workers for Short-term Cost Savings

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

In business, if you encounter market “softness” and believe that the business level that you were previously operating at is now unattainable for a limited period, you might first find cost cuts that do not erode the business capacity once held in case your, or the pundit’s, forecast was wrong or the recovery is swifter than anticipated. Sometimes investments are made in machinery and technology during the lulls to get ready for the economic up-turn, but too rarely is any effort made to determine the level of each worker’s current capacity (i.e. what percent of the tasks they were hired to “expertly” perform) relative to the job they are currently in and what could be done to increase it to handle not only existing technology and processes, but the new technology and processes as well. One might even think about cross-training workers to build “reserve capacity.”

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 new technology 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 pick up the pieces after this mistakes have been made.

click here to expand


“That is the one point missed in all of the cuts to wages, benefits and staff; the first wave affects those who have no choice, the second wave affects the company as those with choice exercise it.”

When the economy recovers and the company stumbles in regaining its capacity, heads roll, more cuts are made and finally the investors pull out – leaving the previously well-run company impaired or near collapse. No good has come from this, and why it is allowed to continue makes no sense – except that it takes little thought to order, gives Wall Street the appearance of something good happening and something to report. That is why stocks rise when layoffs are announced – even in the face of predictable long-term effects of what the cost cutting means. That and the media’s cheering section that naively extols a short-term bump that may turn into a long-term fumble.

Worker capacity will be needed once the economy resumes, and the prudent businessman would not want to miss the recovery while spending too much time rebuilding the organizational capacity, part of which is finding “talent” to the replace the ones encouraged to leave and part trying to encourage the ones currently employed to stay. Additionally overlooked, employee and management morale suffers during wholesale cuts and irrational cost-cutting acts. The workers needed to sustain a recovery and regain market share are affected by what they see happening around them, and those most talented keep one eye on the door because they have the skills other employers might appreciate and always have the option to leave. That is the one point missed in all of the cuts to wages, benefits and staff; the first wave affects those who have no choice, the second wave affects the company as those with choice exercise it.

An alternative to knee-jerk cuts to workers is to assess each worker’s capacity (i.e. what percentage of the tasks of the job they have had a chance to learn and master), then use business “lulls” to raise it to full job masteryRead More


10 Reasons Structured On-The-Job Training is a Vital and Necessary System for Any Organization

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

There are many reasons a deliberate, structured on-the-job training system should be a priority consideration for any employer. For decades employers have felt that having an employee take a few classes here and a few online modules there translates directly to improved worker output and performance. But for decades, as well, employers have continued to talk about a continually increasing “skills gap.” Connection? Obviously yes.

“Employers expend enormous resources – time, effort, dollars – on efforts to improve efficiencies…in some cases without making an appreciable difference or reaching the intended goals.”

click here to expand

A deliberate and documented system to develop workers and maximize the return on worker investment should be a “no-brainer.” Employers expend enormous resources – time, effort, dollars – on efforts to improve efficiencies…in some cases without making an appreciable difference or reaching the intended goals. But rather than a philosophical discussion comparing approaches to training, I thought it might be beneficial to just offer symptoms of failed approaches and reasons why any employer should think more seriously about the state of their internal training infrastructure. According to a Training Magazine article entitled, ” Bridging the Skills Gap” by Lorri Freifeld, these revealing points were extracted:

  • 49 percent of U.S. employers are experiencing difficulty filling mission-critical positions within their organizations. (ManpowerGroup’s seventh annual Talent Shortage Survey; 1,300 U.S. employers surveyed; positions most difficult to fill: skilled trades, engineers, and IT staff)

Read More


A Simple, Low-investment Solution to Closing Skill Gaps; New-Hires and Incumbents

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.
Proactive Technologies, Inc. has worked with many employers over the years, establishing and technically supporting cost-effective, task-based structured on-the-job training programs. For each employer, every effort is made to tailor the worker training system to accommodate the employer’s budget, job classifications (even unique training programs for each job classification in each department), business goals and manage the system through all types of change. Unlike some products or services that require the employer to change practices that work in order to utilize them, the PROTECH© system of managed human resource development  is built around what is working for the employer, incorporating established information such as work processes and specifications, safety standards, quality standards, etc. This approach minimizes the need for the employer’s culture to drastically change what works for them, focusing instead on improvements in an area of weakness.
The main steps used to build an employer-based structured workforce development system starts with understanding the desired outcome first:
click here to expand
______________________________________________________________
“There is no doubt this approach is effective. After all, what is better: unstructured and haphazard worker training that cannot be explained, measured, improved or understood, or structured on-the-job training for all workers that is easily measured, implemented, improved and explained to auditors?”
______________________________________________________________
  1. Determine the Employer’s Need and Agree on Strategy: How has the client been (or not been) training workers until now; what are the current and projected staffing levels for incumbents and new-hires along with attrition rate and reassignments; is the culture supportive of training workers and see it as vital to competitiveness; are any task-based documents available and are they in use (e.g. work processes, quality standards, safety standards); which jobs are targeted and why; is the company following any quality mandates, such as ISO/TS/AS and do they have any quality programs underway such as LEAN, Six Sigma; what is the budget for setting up the structured on-the-job training program and implementation. A strategy encompassing all of these points is prepared for the employer before an agreement and timetable is confirmed. Read More

Read the full November, 2018 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

 

 

Posted in News

Proactive Technologies Report – October, 2018

When Wages Rise for Skilled Labor, Can Your Firm Maximize Worker Value and Minimize Investment?

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

Ideally, wages rise for most job classifications when conditions are right to match the rising cost of living that an expanding economy brings. As skilled workers find their rightful full-time place, they leave openings behind them that employers need to fill. Competition for the most skilled of the remaining skilled leads employers to adjust wages and benefits accordingly to be competitive.

Rumblings point to the fact that wages for skilled workers have not kept up and a major adjustment is long overdue. When wages rise, will your firm feel the affects of added labor costs or will they adapt to increasing wages and realize offsetting higher returns on worker investment?

click here to expand

The economic reasons for competitive compensation usually include the scarcity of labor, scarcity of relevantly skilled labor, abundance of job choices yielding migration of the skilled workers with choices, increasing technical nature of jobs, and an expanding economy yielding internal promotions that create openings both above and below current job classifications. These all increase the level of competition for highly skilled workers that leave job openings in its wake.

This perpetual labor volatility is more unique to the United States than to other developed economies.  European government and business policies facilitate workforce development efforts based on more accurately predicted labor needs. Economic policies have a purposeful affect on the corporations that thrive, and toward workers and the available jobs today and those to come. Students are exposed to career opportunities starting in grade school which leads to focused interest by middle school school, leading to paid vocational training and apprenticeships before leaving high school. For those wanting to continue college in their chosen profession, apprenticeship training is coordinated with academic learning to promote growth in each and time in both to reinforce each effort.

It is much different here. The U.S. does not believe in long-term planning for the greater good. Many like to believe that this driven by a policy of laissez faire  or “let it be” or “let it go.” Other economists claim that this is not a policy as much as it is neglect. Still others see this version of laissez-faire as very selective and that the government does intervene to the betterment of some individuals, companies, and industries to the detriment of others.

In any event, this version of capitalism often yields wild gyrations dotted with cataclysmic events. Read More


Retiring Workers and the Tragic Loss of Intellectual Property and Value

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

The warnings went out over two decades ago. Baby Boomers were soon to retire, taking their accumulated expertise – locked in their brains – with them. But very little was done to address this problem. Call it complacency, lack of awareness of the emerging problem, preoccupation with quarterly performance, disinterest or disbelief, very few companies took action and the Crash of 2008 disrupted any meager efforts that were underway.

According to Steve Minter in an IndustryWeek Magazine article on April 10, 2012, “Only 17% of organizations said they had developed processes to capture institutional memory/organizational knowledge from employees close to retirement.” Who is going to train their replacements once they are gone? Would the learning curve of replacement workers be as long and costly, repeating the same learning mistakes, as the retiree’s learning curve? Would operations be disrupted and, if so, to what level?

click here to expand


“In our new “outsourcing nation,” a widely held belief is that employees are simply costs to be cut and not assets to be valued.” …. “Manufacturing faces a two-sided problem: it not only has thousands of people retiring, but it does not have the training programs to train skilled workers to replace them.”

A Strategy to Capture Tribal Knowledge
IndustryWeek- Michael Collins 5-23-16

In the last few years, it seems an alternative to the concentration of expertise in a few subject matter experts has become to use lower-wage temporary or contract workers who specialize in smaller quantities of processes, and who can be “traded-out” with a minimum amount of disruption. History will tell us just how costly that approach was and if anything was learned.

Many in corporate America have come to view all labor as expendable; easy to swap with a cheaper alternative – disregarding the cumulative asset value of the investment made in each. Read More


Apprenticeships: Be Careful Not To Minimize Integrity While  Spiking The Numbers

Dr. Dave Just, formally Dean of Corporate and Continuing Education at Community Colleges in MA, OH, PA, SC. Currently President of K&D Consulting

In a Community College Daily News article, “Drawing Lines on Apprenticeships,” business and industry representatives seemed to have expressed to their congressional leaders the changes they would like to see in apprenticeships before they would consider participating. The opening statements from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chair Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tennessee) and ranking minority member Sen. Patty Murray (Washington) set the debate, with “Alexander arguing that registered apprenticeships limit creativity and flexibility that employers seek because of cumbersome administrative red tape. More companies want less-formal, industry-recognized apprenticeships that allow them to work on specific skill sets, he said, adding they also are more appealing to industries such as health care and information technology that don’t traditionally offer apprenticeships.”

Ranking Member Pat Murray (Washington) rebutted this claim, “…registered apprenticeships ensure rigor and program quality. She said GOP efforts to encourage more nonregistered programs is designed to ‘weaken and water down’ programs and to open the training market to for-profit institutions.” Most people actively involved with apprenticeships know that much can be done to make apprenticeships more attractive, practical, fulfilling and feasible to employers and more attractive, achievable and valuable to apprentices. And that there is a role for for-profit training providers when the non-profit and institutional related technical instruction in the area is weak, has not been kept up-to-date or is non-existent.

click here to expand

There is no denying that the iconic apprenticeships of old were hard for employers to embrace. An 8-10 year apprenticeship program for, in many cases, 1 apprentice was a non-starter. And with developments in the last 30 years – massive relocation of jobs off-shore, instability of employment even before the Crash of 2008 but more so after (employees not able to continue in a job classification for 3 years let alone 10 year apprenticeship), the stagnation and decline of wages and continual introduction of newer technology that redesigns the nature of jobs – everyone involved including community colleges felt they were playing a seemingly never ending shell game. Add to that a period of uncertainty such as the current trade and tariff action exchanges and the only thing certain is an uncertain workforce development target.

In the past, the criteria apprentices had to meet to reach journeyman status was ambiguous. Read More 


When is Illustrating Technical Materials Useful to the Trainee?

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

Technical process documents standardize work processes in an attempt to maintain task performance at a consistent level of output. From organization to organization, process documents may vary in usefulness though required by ISO/AS/TS certification. Some may be too vague, too specific or too cluttered into lengthy paragraphs designed for human error. Nevertheless, the intended purpose is to offer guidance as to the “best practice” way of performing work. Whether illustrating technical documents is useful in achieving that goal is dependent on a few factors.

Technical processes, illustrated or not, are most useful to a worker when learning a task for the first time. Unless in a checklist format where step-by-step initials are required to document that no steps are missed, most process documents are reduced to a “reference status” Even though management and auditors want to believe process documents are followed intently each time, that is usually a “staged” behavior. In reality, once committed to a worker’s memory many documents are not seen by the user until the audit is scheduled. Unfortunate but true.

click here to expand

Sometimes more diligent workers make up for document inadequacy or lack of process documents by keeping notes in their lunchbox or, more precariously yet, in their head. Heaven forbid this is discovered during an audit. These notes not only are uncontrolled and unofficial, but they represent a wealth of “tribal knowledge” that is not routinely shared with new-hires. Mistakes that are known to have happened, and can be avoided if shared, are repeated with each trainee to everyone’s detriment. The fact that each employee feels the need to keep their own notes is a sign of some problem with process documentation and should investigated.

Stepping back to get a better view of learning patterns of a typical worker may be helpful. It varies from organization to organization, job classification to job classification. If an organization has been trying to hire based predominantly on wage level, they often find the lower the wage level the lower the inventory of prerequisite skills for not only the tasks to be learned, but also the ability to learn. And most organizations that focus on lower wage levels do not have a budget for remediation of deficient core skills to improve the process of learning.

It is here that organizations sometimes try to make up for the deficit by expending time and money to illustrate the technical materials, thinking “pictures speak a thousand words.”  Read More


Read the full October, 2018 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Posted in News

Proactive Technologies Report – September, 2018

The US Workforce Competitive Advantage Has Declined For Decades – Not for Lack of Resources, Effort or Base Talent, But For Strategy

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

The United States has, by objective measures, not done a “world-class” job of developing the new workers it needs. True, it is difficult to develop accurate core skill courses meant to reflect the jobs of today and the future when by the time these programs are ready and students ready to graduate, entire industries have already moved these jobs elsewhere offshore. But institutions have not done a good job of preparing for the future that is most likely, not the one they want to create, either.

Educational policies of the 1980’s and 1990’s eliminated “vocational” training in high schools to focus on college preparation, assuming everyone was suited and planning for college. College-educated officials went with what they knew and understood. But they could not agree on strategy, complicating matters further, which lead to a perpetual debate on how best to prepare students for college. This yielded versions of standardized tests and a massive test preparation industry.

click here to expand

In the 1990’s an attempt was made to return, somewhat, to developing skills that industries said they needed, and the United States Departments or Labor and Education’s National Skill Standards programs were born. I participated in developing skill standards and finding ways to integrate standards into worker training, since education could only take these so far. But it became clear, to me, that standardizing skills for a rapidly evolving industry using old fashioned tools posed more challenges for the employer, showed little return and standards eroded rather quickly with no defined responsibility or budget to maintain and revalidate them.

Meanwhile, the average United States SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) test scores between 2000 and 2016 showed a slight decline, but certainly no improvement through this period. After adjustments to scoring algorithms didn’t improve scores, it was decided in 2016 that the SAT test again needed to be re-designed. As with so many instances in the U.S. when statistics do not show the results expected, some lean toward finding a way to show improvement without making improvements.

When these efforts did not appear to solve the college preparation issues or meet the needs of employers, an effort grew to address “skills employers say they need.” Today, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) learning in K-12 is education’s focus – things that everyone expected were taught in K-12 anyway. But both these efforts still leave the employer to develop the higher order skills and task mastery they need even if the employer does not, or wishes not to, recognize this requirement. Billions of dollars were spent in the last 4 decades and generations of workers completed these programs, yet workforce development still seems in its infancy.

How is the US doing compared to world’s developed and developing countries? The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD)  published the results of their 2015 PISA tests  and it shows the U.S. has a lot of work ahead of it. Read More 


The Skills Gap Solution; Employers Still Reluctant to Commit to Role Only They Can Fill

by Staff

Education cannot, and should not be asked to, close the “skills gap” on their own. Employers have been concerned about the “skills gap” since the 1980’s, and the nature and location of the job has continued to change…at an accelerating rate. Employers have convinced themselves to wait for education to close the gap. In the meantime, tremendous resources continue to be expended, but the gap continues to grow.

Educational institutions are not suited, staffed, funded and equipped to train workers for every job, for every employer, nor should they be. Educational institutions do their best work when they build the labor supply with strong, relevant basic and core skills (including STEM), and industry-general skills. Whether those efforts are worthwhile and the resources well-spent depend on two important things: 1) does an employer see value in hiring a graduate, and 2) is there a method in place to ensure those skills are integrated into mastery of the job-tasks the employer needs performed; the value that will influence the employer to retain them.

click here to expand

Only employers can train the worker on tasks they need performed and that affect their bottom line. They have the need, the facilities, the most current equipment for their operation and the personnel with current expertise. Yet, in reality most employer’s methods amount to hardly more than pairing two people and hoping for the best. This is where the gap is most profound and continues to grow. Read More


Assessing Employees With Past Drug Addictions for Work Tricky

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

A prevalent challenge faced by many employers is what to do with job applicants with a record of past drug use. Current drug use detected during screening is fairly cut and dry, but candidates that are going through, or went through, treatment and have maintained a clean life-style since need more care to avoid running afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Americans with Disabilities Act protects employees and job applicants from discrimination based on past drug addiction in most cases.  In a article for the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) website by Roy Maurer, “The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees and job applicants from discrimination based on past drug addiction. These individuals qualify as having a disability if they successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program or are currently participating in such a program and are no longer using prohibited drugs.”

click here to expand

One expert he interviewed, Rayford Irvin, the Houston district director for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), said “Opioid addiction is a disability that is affecting millions across the United States, yet many are regaining control over their lives by participating in supervised rehabilitation programs.” “When a worker has a record of such a disability and is performing his job proficiently, an employer cannot lawfully preclude the worker from employment because he is receiving treatment for his addiction.”

Lawyers interviewed for the article suggested that employers amend their policy manuals regarding drugs and specify exclusions in line with the ADA and reasonable accommodation provisions issued by the EEOC.

Aside from the practices used in the recruitment, interviewing and selection process which Mr. Maurer outlined fairly well, any defenses for not accommodating an individual with prior drug use, but who has completed or is currently participating in a treatment program, or decisions on what that reasonable accommodation would look like would have to be made based on data from a credible and thorough job/task analysis. Read More


Estimating the Costs Associated With Skipping Employer-Based Structured On-The-Job Training

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

It should go without saying that if the employer has no deliberate strategy to train workers for the tasks they were hired to perform, the employer will probably never realize the maximum output possible from a worker. Multiple workers operating under-capacity can create exorbitant, and unnecessary, costs to the employer – bleeding from profits and often leading to sweeping and irreparable reactions from management as they try to “fix” all but the obvious.

The effect of worker capacity on any business strategy is the least understood of factors, but one as important as innovation, process improvement and zero defect strategies. After all, fundamental to each of these strategies is the worker’s ability to competently carry the intended actions to maximize those efforts efficiently.

click here to expand

Employers need to seriously consider the human factors, not ignore them and focus on everything but this. After decades of neglect, supported by workforce development institutions that have no tools to address this stage of worker development and often unknowingly promulgate distractions in their efforts to claim they do, management has come to simplify the human factor into a cost that can be easily eliminated or replaced by a lower cost alternative in another location. Lacking in this reaction is the underlying fact that moving operations to lower-wage labor markets with even more need for training (e.g. new challenges such as language, culture) only appears to be adding to profits short-term; the same problems exist, but the lower cost of labor makes it more tolerable even if greater challenges to worker performance now exist. As wages rise, these challenges become more pronounced and management becomes more critical.

Total Cost of Ownership formulas, such as the one used by the Reshoring Iniative, try to capture the hidden and overlooked costs of off-shoring operations, with labor challenges being one factor considered. But even so, the factor’s significance is understated.

Here is a simple formula for estimating the cost/benefit of a worker’s contribution to the organization for consideration: Read More


Read the full August, 2018 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Posted in News

Proactive Technologies Report – August, 2018

Labor Costs Expected to Increase, So Will Challenges to Developing Workers

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

In an article by David McCann of CFO.comentitled, “Labor Costs Will Skyrocket Over the Next Decade”, the author cited new research from consulting firm Korn Ferry  projecting new challenges for employers in the coming years. “Organizations around the world could add more than $2.5 trillion to their annual labor costs within 12 years as a result of the global shortage of highly skilled workers. The report follows up on the recruiting and workforce management firm’s forecast in May that the talent shortage could cost companies $8.5 trillion in unrealized annual revenue by 2030. 

This is a rolling crisis that started several decades ago – the repercussions are just now being articulated in terms employers can relate. Employer’s awareness of the approaching crisis appeared for retiring baby-boomers and the anticipated loss of expertise and critically unique task-based skills mastered over decades of performance. Add to that the rise of millenials, the continual introduction and evolution of technology and the disruptive effects of the Crash of 2008. Now employers are finding themselves rebuilding their workforce, in many cases with tools and techniques that haven’t evolved all that much and still without really understanding the seriousness of the challenge, let alone the labor and opportunity costs to their operation.

click here to expand

The report continues, “The crisis is not something that’s far off in the future. Even in 2020, the U.S. wage premium is expected to reach $296 billion. By 2025, the gap will total $400 billion, according to the report.” What can companies do to mitigate the trend and minimize the effect? “Employers will need to concentrate on reskilling lower-level workers,” Thompson (author of the report) notes. “That involves identifying those who are adaptable and flexible enough to be successful in the new world of work and putting in place robust training and workforce plans.”

Since 1986, Proactive Technologies, Inc. has repeatedly sounded the alarm in presentations, conferences and employer visits. For some, the urgency and magnitude of the challenge seemed not to register even though they were confronted by symptoms daily. Worker development is not everyone’s forte, and many had several “other fish to fry.” Developing workers and maintaining high performance slipped to the back burner. Numerous pieces appeared in this newsletter, attempting to draw attention to the challenge and things that needed to be done, and could be (should be) done, such as: Read More


More Employers Finding Ways To Strategically Ensure Fair Pay

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

In an article appearing in IndustryWeek entitled “Trying to Ensure Fair Pay, Employers Are Changing Policies,” it noted that according to a recent employer survey “2018 Getting Compensation Right,” “60% of U.S. employers are planning to take some action this year to prevent bias in hiring and pay decisions.” Further, 53% “are planning on or considering adding a recognition program.”

The report went on, “37% percent are planning on or considering changing criteria for salary increases. Among employers not redesigning their programs, most are making changes to the importance of factors used to set base pay increases.”

click here to expand

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” Read More


Pre-Employment Physical Ability Tests Can be a Legal Liability If Not Done Right

by Jim Poole, President of Lifetime Learning, LLC

David Sparkman of EHS Today wrote in a July 20, 2018 article entitled “EEOC Cracks Down on Pre-Employment Physical Testing” that “If your company uses pre-employment physical stress tests for job applicants that result in the rejection of female applicants, you could be in a world of hurt if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finds out.” He described the story of Hirschbach Motor Lines, “which used a pre-employment back assessment to screen and reject applicants it believed would be unable to work as truck drivers. Applicants were tested for their ability to balance and stand on one leg, touch their toes while standing on one leg, and to crawl… The company eventually agreed to pay $3.2 million to a class of female applicants after the EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging the strength and fitness tests they took impacted women disparately. Earlier this year another case involving physical ability testing required by a police department resulted in a nearly $2.5 million settlement for female applicants.”

EEOC’s aggressive pursuit of cases demonstrates why it is important that employers understand the legal issues surrounding  physical ability tests (PATs). Extreme care should be exercised when selecting and validating such tests. Sparkman quotes experienced lawyers representing clients in these types of cases, “’If a PAT has a disparate impact-for example, if women fail the PAT at a statistically significantly higher rate than men-an employer has the burden of demonstrating that use of the PAT is job-related and consistent with business necessity,’ explain attorneys Mallory Stumpf and Sarah Smith Kuehnel of the Ogletree Deakins law firm.”

click here to expand

The EEOC announced last year in its Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) that for the next several years, it will continue to focus on class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate.

PATs can be useful in pre-employment assessments, but employers need to make sure they are constructed and utilized correctly. A credible approach is:

  1. Have an independent expert perform a thorough job/task analysis – Read More 


Keeping Employers Engaged in Regional Workforce Development Projects

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

Billions of dollars have been spent on workforce development projects funded by the state and federal governments in the last 20-30 years. However, from the tone of the discussions surrounding workforce development projects and participants today, it seems that the same things that were troubling employers in 1980 are still troubling them today.

Getting an employer to sign up for a grant-funded workforce development project should not be that difficult, if the brands and reputations of the institutions promoting the project are sound, and the project concept appears logical, achievable and will in all likelihood contribute to the employer’s business model. But once the pitch has been made to the employers and the bold outcomes projected, keeping the employers engaged for the duration of the project and beyond can be difficult.

click here to expand

One thing that I have found in setting up and maintaining long-term projects is making sure the person, or people, at the initial meeting are the right ones. “Worker development” seems to fall within the domain of the employer’s human resources department. But not all human resources managers are the same. Some are fresh from college and may not yet have experience with concepts such as meaningful on-the-job training, integration of worker training with ISO/TS/AS compliance, etc. Some tend to be generalists and may enthusiastically agree with a project concept but are out-of-sync with their production and quality manager’s view of the world. While you may be able to get the human resources manager on-board, the human resources manager may not reflect the interest or concerns of the more influential production or operations management and staff.

Unfortunately, this may not be discovered until months into a project. If the operation’s management and staff were briefed on the project (sometimes they are not), out of deference to the human resources manager the other key stakeholders may not voice concerns or ask pertinent questions that may influence the nature of the project. This may later start to percolate up and bring the organization’s participation in the project to a halt.

If there is a requirement for employer contributions (in-kind and/or cash) to the project, lack of support from the operational management and staff may allow concerned accountants to cause the organization to withdraw. Read More 


Read the full August, 2018 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Posted in News

Proactive Technologies Report – July, 2018

From Innovation to Implementation – Success Depends on Preparedness of Those Executing

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

How often does a product or service go straight from research and development to service implementation or product production? A skilled, experienced worker may be able to overcome the ambiguity of  this hand-off, but it seems there is, today, a shortage of skilled, experienced workers; baby boomers finally decided they can, or have to, retire, or some companies experience high turnover rates of replacements, or most employers say they lack of skilled candidates…or even someone skilled enough to train them.

There are many reasons that this loosely organized hand-off still exists:

click here to expand

  • Perhaps from a sense of futility, with engineers seeming to have given up on the notion of training workers first to ensure immediate output quantity, quality and consistency;
  • Perhaps it is from knowing that the organization lacks a “system” in place to facilitate the transfer;
  • Perhaps it is from the belief that, especially in the early stages, the product or service may go through many changes before a coherent, repeatable process settles in and when it does the next product or service has been introduced;
  • Perhaps from a sense of superiority, that “I know how to do this [because I designed it] so everyone else should know what to do.”

For those who recognize the need for worker training and try to incorporate it manually while trying to keep up with engineering and technological innovations, it is common to find a training program released well into the last days of the life cycle – just in time to train workers for the things they made and serviced years before. Manual methods just do not keep up anymore, and they haven’t for the last 30 years. This doesn’t mean we should “leap-frog” to Artificial Intelligence or online training. The cost alone would dissuade anyone from utilizing it for this type of task-specific training, never mind the inappropriateness.

The most efficient and effective path to expediting a process from development of the process (including all pertinent aspects) to implementation is displayed below.  Read More


A Management Theory Flashback – The Peter Principle

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

In 1979, a book written by Raymond Hull entitled “The Peter Principle”  was a topic of conversation around the water cooler (the precursor to today’s bottled water and a euphemism for a meeting place in the office for casual conversation and gossip…for those young enough to have missed the expression). It lasted throughout the 1980’s and early 90’s. College courses in organizational development and management theory mentioned it in passing, but for most of us its meaning and significance might have been misunderstood.

Although there is a basis of overlap, this is not to be confused with “The Dilbert Principle,” a 1990’s satirical theory by cartoonist Scott Adams based on a comic strip called “Dilbert.” The Dilbert principle roughly theorizes that companies tend to deliberately promote their least competent employees to management to limit the damage they can do. A more cynical view of contemporary management practices, The Dilbert Principle was a way for demoralized employees to express their perception of seemingly incapable supervisors and middle management with a theory that could be mistaken for one that could easily be produced in higher education after thoughtful research. The word “Principle” acts to give it legitimacy and, in a way, mock sincere studies and theories.

click here to expand

The Peter Principle, however, was the result of a lot of thoughtful research and deliberation. Its conclusion was that in an organization’s hierarchy, employees tend to be promoted based on success in their prior job or jobs; not necessarily on whether they have the prerequisite skills and relevant experience to succeed in the job to which they are promoted. Eventually, an employee “tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” Peter’s Corollary for an organization unchecked progression of The Peter Principle, is: “In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties.”

The citation of The Peter Principle might have been dismissed by management in its day as nothing more of a disgruntled employee’s attempt to criticize management after being passed over for promotion in favor of someone who isn’t known or respected for their work performance, relevant experience or social skills. But sometimes the choice might have seemed the most counter-intuitive choice for the position by many in the department –acting as further evidence that management was out of touch with what was actually going on in the daily work performed.

Upon reexamination, The Peter Principle does describe a phenomenon still around today. Read More


Workforce Development Partnerships With Substance: My Experience

By Randy Toscano, Jr.,  MSHRM, CEO of Legacy Partners 2

Partnerships between employers and local educational institutions/training providers are a tricky thing. Not every employer knows clearly what they need nor can they articulate the need, and not every educational institution can understand the need, or has products or services available or relevant enough to make a difference. If either of these realities are present, or worse both of them, it can make worker development partnerships difficult to disappointing.

Employers are closest to the work that they need performed by the worker, which is usually very different from the employer down the road. Yet employers rarely bother to document what makes up that work to articulate it in an understandable way to an educational institution or training provider. If you doubt that, take any of your job classifications and try to explain it in enough detail to train from it.

click here to expand

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. Read More


Economic Development Opportunities – An Important Incentive in Attracting Companies to Your Region

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

When organizations try to create new jobs in their area – working with companies that are considering moving to, expanding to or expanding within their areas – skilled labor availability for many regional economic development strategies may include an offering that consists of one part skills assessment, one part general skill classes and a sprinkling of worker tax credits or grants. That seems to be what most incentive packages include, but is that because: A) that is what the other offers look like; b) it has been like that for decades; C) it is assumed that is all that is available; or D) all of the above?

For over thirty years headlines sounded the alarm that those institutions that were training the workforce of tomorrow were not succeeding in their effort as discussed in, “An Anniversary That You Won’t Want to Celebrate: 30 Years Later and The Skill Gap Grows – Is it Finally Time to Rethink The Nation’s Approach?). Many skilled workers that are available to work do not have the skills that employers need today. Not completely satisfied with their answer to the inevitable question regarding the region’s skilled labor availability and how workers with specific skill needs will be found or developed, some economic development organizations are exploring other options and opportunities.

click here to expand

It is important to understand that the types of skills that employers are most concerned with – especially employer-specific task-based skills – most likely have not been in the local workforce, nor have any programs been available in local institutions to develop them, simply because these new jobs, with new skill requirements, have never been in the area. The types of skills needed for most modern manufacturing and advanced manufacturing have never been developed because the need was not present nor the data on these jobs available. Even if the need was present, by the time the skill is recognized, a program developed and a worker completed the learning, manufacturers either moved on or moved out.

Let’s face it, most organizations that successfully promote their region for economic development do so on the current low cost of labor, right-to-work status, low business and employment tax rates, economic incentives, availability of infrastructure and quality of life. They probably never needed a system in place to develop the skills necessary to attract modern and advanced manufacturing. Companies interested only in geographical, financial and aesthetic incentives have already moved. Other employers understand that if they want higher skilled workers, they need to expect to pay higher wages now or later when those skill levels are reached and competition for skilled labor kicks in. Read More


Read the full July, 2018 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Posted in News

Proactive Technologies Report – June, 2018

Every Work Task Is A Micro Unit; Everything About the Task Should Be Trained At Same Time For Maximum Efficiency and Effectiveness

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

In an article appearing in EHS Today entitled, “Microlearning’s Big Impact on Safety Training,” a case was made that providing safety training in “short bursts may help workers retain critical safety knowledge and procedures.” The assumption is that the content is relevant, well organized (“structured”) for delivery and delivered for comprehension.

Learning general safety concepts and techniques in an online or lecture format provides the basic knowledge and understanding of general safety. Unfortunately, in a lot of the cases with this type of microlearning, to which tasks of each worker’s job this information needs to be applied, and specifically how, is usually left up to the individual to sort out. This leaves an opportunity for the learner to recall some of the information incorrectly or decide the information does not apply to the task at hand. The greater the time-gap between learning this information and applying it to an applicable task, the greater the chance that the information will be forgotten or not remembered correctly.

click here to expand

This isn’t a criticism of micro-learning as applied to safety learning, it is about micro-learning of knowledge that is intended to improve performance but is not incorporated directly into all applicable tasks of a job that a worker is responsible to perform. Training on a task procedure, as opposed to transferring knowledge about an aspect of a task, requires all relevant task information, a demonstration of the best practice and repetitive practice that reinforces the knowledge while incorporating it into consistent task performance. This is what every employer likes to believe happens anyway, but rarely seeks confirmation to ensure it.

The worker is inundated with training all day, every day. It comes randomly (e.g. here is how to setup this machine, here is how to fill out this report, here is how you order tools, here is how to operate this machine for this part, etc.). Typically there is no structure to this, and every person asked to be an ad hoc or reluctant trainer has a different style, different level of competence and social skills. Every trainee is different; introverted, extroverted, quick learner, slow learner, self-starter, non-starter. Add to this the random, unstructured, disjointed training process and it can be a recipe for failure…everyone’s!

The task and everything about the task, including engineering specifications (or where to find them), quality specifications, safe performance requirements, proper tools and reference documents, are all necessary for quick mastery and accurate performance. De-emphasis or omission of any one of the critical criteria will undermine mastery achievement. Task training should be logically structured (for comprehension) and delivered in one, consistent on-the-job training transaction. If not, the chances of trainee underperformance, malperformance, noncompliance and/or a safety incident increase dramatically. Read More


Knowledge Gap v. Skills Gap, Core Skill Gap v. Task Skill Gap; Important to Know Which You Are Trying To Close

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

One common, ongoing theme that all of us in workforce development and related disciplines are familiar with is that our educational and workforce development institutions are not, despite the tremendous resources at their disposal. adequately addressing the issue of the “Skill Gap.” A lot has been written about the concern over the billions of dollars spent by employers and education to address the skill gap each year, but after 30 years we still are consumed with concern. Many employers have either learned to discount education as a viable partner in workforce development or have lost their confidence in these institutions all together and moved on. How hard would it to bring them back?

Some have suggested that educational institutions seem preoccupied with controlling the definition of the challenge so the solutions they prescribe can be pulled from their shelf. They have a powerful lobbying presence in Washington D.C. and state capitals to guide their proposals to steer grant money targeted for workforce development to their institutions. In some cases it is what sustains the schools…but for how long without significant outcomes?

click here to expand

As early as the 1980’s, surveys of employers showed a growing “schism of trust” in existing institutions helping meet the skills gap challenge. Today, educational institutions and workforce development groups seem more inclined to defend the institution and its programs. They are less interested in understanding the clear dichotomy between the core skills needed to master an employer’s tasks, and the employer’s de facto role in providing task-based training to ensure core skills are not lost, but are put to a good use that reinforces their utility.

Most “customized training coordinators” at community colleges and career centers would tell you their understanding of customized training can range anywhere from providing classes onsite or offsite to recommending a credit or non-credit course. That is what constitutes “customized training.” Their educational training did not prepare them to seek out such an invasive role in an employer’s internal training. As they try to justify their engagement to that degree, they often provide evidence that they have little to offer that is specific to an employer’s needs.

BUT THAT IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE! Read More


Tips for Workforce Developers – Partnerships That Matter…and Last

by Dr. Dave Just, formally Dean of Corporate & Continuing Education at Community Colleges in MA, OH, PA and SC. Currently President of K&D Consulting

Having partnered with Proactive Technologies, Inc. on workforce development projects for the past 20 years, it gave me a chance to innovate and learn what works, what efforts are most appreciated by the employer, trainee and employee, and which projects utilized resources most efficiently and effectively. There are numerous resources available from many sources that can impact a trainee with varying effectiveness, but the secret is selecting those that are appropriate for the project outcome the employer expects.

As Dean of Corporate and Continuing Education at community and technical colleges in Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, at the start of each assignment I had to first learn what resources our school had available for the sectors we were targeting, and how current and relevant the courses, materials and instructors were for the specific skills employers were seeking. To be honest, in some areas our products and services were weaker than expected, so the determination needed to be made whether we had the resources and will to upgrade what we had or develop what we needed. We also had to consider if it would be more economical to strategically partner with outside providers who always had the current technical expertise and already created solutions we could incorporate into our offerings.

click here to expand

Too often there was internal resistance and a lack of understanding of how important being relevant was to workforce development. Many institutions grew complacent to change or were discouraged by shrinking budgets or misaligned priorities from innovation. Always feeling a sense of urgency to overcome the ubiquitous “skills gap” that cast a shadow on all education and workforce development efforts, there are some important steps that I developed for myself to help me better assess each employer’s need and provide solutions client employers appreciated. This is the reason most employers we worked with kept us engaged year after year. We earned, and maintained, their respect and gave them confidence in our solutions, which ensured our continued role in their business model. This provided a continued revenue stream for the school to continue, improve and expand those efforts.

1) Listen carefully to the employer’s description of the need – not every employer has a clear grasp of their need, but if you listen to their frustration in the context of your experience gained from concerns of other employers facing similar symptoms, you can help the employer discover the root cause. Then a solution that makes sense can be developed; Read More 


“Unemployment is at an 18 Year Low.” So Where is the Party?

By Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

For the May, 2018 unemployment report, the U.S. government announced it had reached an “18 year low of 3.8 percent.” Yet, millions of Americans who are still looking for a job, or for one job that sustains them and their family, are holding off popping the champagne…or even buying it. Why hasn’t the mood of American workers been more celebratory?

Politicians thinking about running, again, on the “strong economy” this Fall may be in for a surprise . In a recent Monmouth University poll, “only 12 percent of Americans said they benefited a great deal from recent economic growth, while 53 percent said that they’ve been helped ‘not much’ or ‘not at all.'”

click here to expand

Despite the low unemployment numbers, the percentage of working-age Americans who are employed today is actually lower than in 2008, with 1.3 percent fewer jobs waiting for college graduates compared to last year.

Any economist, not paid to tell you otherwise, would admit that one of the more puzzling aspects of the reported low unemployment is that it is missing the accompanying higher wages. If the demand for skilled labor increases, the supply of skilled labor declines. A shrinking supply brings higher prices…at least that is how it has worked.

Wages grew at a 2.6 percent rate – hardly able to erase the years of wage stagnation. The reported inflation rate for 2017 was 2.1 percent. Gas prices have risen on average $ .50 since last year, and many economists estimate the additional cost of fuel will wipe out any gains from the tax cut earlier this year.

The cost of necessities has continued to go up. Housing, healthcare costs – insurance, out-of-pocket costs, prescription drugs – still eroding consumer discretionary spending. At the same time government considers cutting support for Medicaid, food support and housing subsidies for the poorest among us. In many states, citizens have to pay a toll to travel on taxpayer-built highways to/from work. When they arrive at the job, they then have to pay $20 a day to park!

It is no wonder that, in the poll, only 32 percent of the country say this country is headed in the right direction; 52 percent say its on the wrong track.

The United States is a consumer-driven economy, and business leaders are rightfully concerned when more and more of the demand for their supply is on life support. So even if the reported unemployment rate was believable, many still wonder “why the hoopla?” Yes, things are better now than following 2008, but for many it doesn’t feel like pre-2008 levels, nor has it made up for what was lost in the years after 2008. Are the nearly 330 million Americans expected to accept this as the “new normal?” Who benefits when the media repeats the reported low unemployment rate, as if everyone’s worries are over, to an increasingly cynical audience? What good is the monthly University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey if inaccurate or overly optimistic news stories sway the results?

Many are wondering who calculates unemployment and how is unemployment determined? According to the United States Department of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics websiteRead More


Read the full June, 2018 Proactive Technologies Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Posted in News

Proactive Technologies Report – May, 2018

The Accelerated the Transfer of Expertise™

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines expertise as, “specialized knowledge or skill; see expert.” Expert is defined as, “Having or demonstrating great skill, dexterity or knowledge as a result of experience or training.” Transferring “expertise” to a new worker is a much different process and experience than simply conveying knowledge. One measure of gaining expertise is the utilization of the knowledge in the skilled performance of a task.

When it comes to task-based expertise, this definition can be applied with a little elaboration. Some examples of technical task performance are: setting up a multi-axis NC lathe to material, machine and engineering specification; welding exotic metals; sterilizing surgical instruments; or troubleshooting an electronic circuit board. These all represent higher order skills developed over time and with practice. Knowledge of “how to” never is enough when it comes to high-order skill requirements of technical tasks.

click here to expand

relevant core knowledge + relevant abilities + relevant core skill competencies = capability to learn new tasks

capability to learn new tasks + (new task instruction + repeated successful practice) leads to expertise in a practice or process.

This is the basis of apprenticeships from the birth of crafts and trades. While knowing about a process is important, and being physically (e.g. vision clarity, finger dexterity, hearing acuity) and psychologically (e.g. ability to tolerate low lighting, able to withstand heights, tolerance of interpersonal relationships) capable of learning a process is necessary, being skilled implies the synthesis of these components plus requisite core-skills for the task (e.g. trigonometry, reading to appropriate level, basic manual lathe operation). Add new task knowledge with practice to achieve a higher order skill of benefit to an employer or customer.

It is for this reason that apprenticeships in the middle ages lasted a lifetime for some trades. It was felt that some higher order skills were so technically difficult that only a lifetime of practice could allow someone to become an expert. In modern time, until 2008 apprenticeships lasted more in the neighborhood of 6-8 years. Given the fact that it is widely recognized today that most employees transition from one job to another several times in 3-4 years, it became more difficult to complete an apprenticeship if part of an employment opportunity. Finding employers to host apprenticeships was even more difficult for this reason, citing the high cost and low return of doing so. Read More


Challenges Presented by the Widening Skill Gap

by Stacey Lett, Director of Operations – Eastern U.S. – Proactive Technologies, Inc.

There are at least five growing, major challenges to maintaining a skilled national labor force. These forces are causing those organizations who could help to, instead, spend tremendous sums of money on “whack-a-mole” type efforts. Sure, this approach sustains all of the profit and non-profit organizations that sprung up to take advantage of the chaos, but if we are serious about solving this issue that has undermined economic recoveries and stifled economic growth for over 30 years, we need to get serious.

It starts by critically evaluating the challenges that have plagued the U.S. labor force and have been barriers to an employer’s commitment to American labor. Like nearly all challenges, one can choose to target the underlying cause, treat the symptoms, mask the symptoms, define an alternative – but not necessarily relevant – cause and focus on that, or ignore symptoms and cause and hope for divine intervention.

click here to expand

Choice of action matters. Take, for example, the choice to take a prescribed “cholesterol lowering” statin that inhibits the body’s production of lipids – fats and fatty substances, producing a cholesterol number within an acceptable range but at a cost of blocking or impairing other vital body functions and often producing “side-effects.” Your doctor may have good news about your cholesterol level during this visit but soon he might be discussing other, more serious issues with you such as, according to the Mayo Clinic, your muscle pain and damage, liver damage, increased blood sugar and type 2 diabetes, neurological side effects… Choosing to treat a symptom without determining why your body is producing excess lipids in the first place may leave the underlying cause unaffected.

Focusing resources on symptoms and ignoring the underlying cause of a non-systems approach to worker development may lead (and one could say may have already lead) to depleted resources and lost opportunity. Continuing to turn out graduates, some with outdated or non-essential skills which are bolstered by marginally relevant credentials, may lead to a feeling of action but yet the skill gap widens. Unless each of the following five major challenges are addressed, it is unlikely that the skill gap will move towards closing, and any effort to bring back the generations of lost workers into meaningful employment prohibitively difficult.

Jobs have become a moving target. Accuracy of on-the-job training has to be sharper. It should be supplied by the employer (on equipment equipment and to employer processes), and is more urgent and accuracy-dependent than existing employers have prepared themselves. Educational institutions can have any meaningful impact if focused and relevant. Workforce development efforts and resources need to be applied in a way to facilitate these adjustments, not distract from them. Read More  


“Full Job Mastery” means “Maximum Worker Capacity” – A Verifiable Model for Measuring and Improving Worker Value While Transferring Valuable Expertise

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

It is no secret that with the traditional model of “vocational” education, the burden of the job/task-specific skill development falls on the employer. It is not economically feasible nor practical for educational institutions to focus content on every job area for every employer. So they, instead, focus rightly on core skills and competencies – relying on the employer to deliver the rest. This is where the best efforts of local educational institutions and training providers begin to break down even if highly relevant to the industry sector.

Employers rarely have an internal structure for task-based training of their workers. Even the most aggressive related technical instruction efforts erode against technological advances as every month passes. If core skills and competencies mastered prior to work are not transformed quickly into tasks the worker is expected to perform, the foundation for learning task performance may crumble through loss of memory, loss of relevance or loss of opportunity to apply them.

click here to expand

New workers routinely encounter a non-structured, rarely focused, on-the-job training experience. Typically, the employer’s subject-matter-expert (SME) is asked to “show the new employee around.” While highly regarded by management, the SME (not trained as a task trainer and having no prepared materials) has difficulty remembering the nuances of the tasks when explaining the process to the new employee, since that level of detail was buried in memory long ago. Each SME, on each shift, might have a different version of the “best practice” for processes, confusing the trainee even more – rendering the notion of “standardization” to “buzzword” status.

New employees have difficulty assembling, understanding and translating the disjointed bits of recollection into a coherent process to be replicated. Each comes with their own set and levels of core skills and competencies, and learning styles vary from the self-learner/starter to the slow-learner worker who, with structure to make sure they learn the right best practice, may become loyal, high-quality workers.

The more time the SME spends with the new employee in this unstructured, uncontrolled and undocumented experience, which is the prevailing method of on-the-job training, the more the employer is paying two people to be non or minimally-productive. Adding employees can actually lower short-term productivity and add little to long-term productivity for an organization, but the costs will attract notice internally and may lead management falsely believe the problem is cost related.

Unfortunately, this only describes the costs of inadequate new-hire training. What about the incumbents who made it through the process and are part of the staff? Does anyone know which tasks have been mastered or not? No structured on-the-job training system in place implies no records of task mastery or metrics of worker capacity, therefore no methods for improving worker performance. Read More 


Read the full May, 2018 PT Report newsletter, including linked industry articles and online presentation schedules.

Posted in News