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 expandThe 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 expandWhen 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 expandIt 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.
Proactive Technologies, Inc.®; PROTECH; Human Resource Management for Tomorrow...Today!® and logo;