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 perform a job/task analyze on 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.

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

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

It also appears that each trainee is on their own to learn the safe performance of each task. It is not enough to provide general safety knowledge learning. When a trainee is taught a task for the first time, that is when they should be shown how to apply the general safety knowledge to the safe performance of that task. Once a pattern is established, the trainee will be able to better apply the safety knowledge to the safe performance of all tasks. If ways to avoid a safety incident are known, shouldn’t that knowledge be shared with each trainee so that no one has to be hurt when the odds of an incident are known and avoidable?

My first step in a job and task analysis is to search for these notes. I incorporate the notes as the basis of best practice procedure for the task. These notes represent many months of performance, adjusting for deviation from specification. Ultimately, the subject matter expert settles on the written process, knowing it will replicate the desired level of output.

As a job/task analyst, my role doesn’t stop there. Usually each subject matter expert writes in his/her own language, style and level of detail. As an analyst, I observe the operator perform the process, as a new-hire learning the task for the first time, to ask the questions and fill the gaps. The analyst gathers enough detail to utilize not only in a training plan and checklist, but other worker development tools as well. Before those instruments are developed, management and engineering will have the final review of the data to ensure the informal best practices that have emerged are acceptable. Engineering often uses the job/task analysis data to “clean up” any company-generated process documents and ensure they are in-sync with the training. For many, this may be the first attempt at “readability and repeatability” studies that should be performed on any process document before release.

This may appear to be backwards – training should be developed once engineering’s process documents are released. However, if engineering best practice process documents do not exist, or exist but are questionable and not used as intended, analyzing the job and tracing the document flow back to the source is not only appropriate but will bring a long-awaited linkage to documents that support everything from hiring and training, to standardized worker performance and performance measurement. The job/task analysis also catches the many tasks required of the trainee that may not have been proceduralized or formally recognized, and includes them in the training process.

My experience is that most companies have no idea how often this goes on. Good performers will write down their best practice, but this usually stays hidden since they believe that giving it up may diminish their own importance to the company. Convincing them to share the valuable information isn’t easy but if management shows the proper recognition of their initiative and attention to detail, they usually will share the notes for the common good. After all, a good operator would not want to see new-hires and cross-training incumbents repeat the costly mistakes they encountered while teaching themselves how to perform to engineering and quality specifications.

Once the best practice is discovered, corroborated and documented in learning materials, the next hurdle is encountered. A subject matter expert is an expert because they no longer think about every step of the process. They have committed the nuances they needed when they learned the task to memory long ago. Now they are on automatic, performing repeated tasks precisely without dwelling on the detail. Demanding an operator like this to maintain production output while training a new person is the ultimate mismatch. I have learned first hand through observation during job/task analysis that most subject matter experts make terrible trainers without formal training on the “conscious transfer of expertise.” Potentially good workers may not receive the training they need at all or take more time than should be required, delaying a return on worker investment. Multiply this phenomenon by the number of subject matter experts training new people and the scope of the problem can be scary.

The solution is simple. Now that standardized, process-based training is formalized, those using these materials need a formal briefing on how to use them and facilitate the orderly and certain transfer of expertise.

The other side of the equation presents challenges, as well. Trainees come in different forms, some of which include:

• The slow learner, excellent and consistent performer: Theses individuals need more information to learn a task but once they learn exactly what is expected can repeat it;

• The self-starter/self-learner, comfortable with trial and error: Facing a challenge of limited information from the lack of a trainer or opportunity to witness correct performance, they will experiment with expensive equipment and product rather than be seen as standing around and not contributing;

• The insecure learner, waiting until someone shows them how and stays with them for every question that comes to mind: This, contrary to thinking, is not necessarily a bad trait. Thinking appropriately in favor of the company, this type of person who does not want to damage machine or product and is still waiting for the proper instruction, ironically may be seen as lazy and hard to train.

• The experienced, impatient learner: This may be exactly the person the company needed, but is experienced enough to know that if the company doesn’t think that a structured training program is important enough during a 90 day probationary period, they may be unfairly “washed out.” A person with the skills and experience to know this may leave for another employer simply because they can.

All of these learners can be easily accommodated and trained to the same high level of performance as the subject matter expert, in the least amount of time, with three important things. First, structured on-the-job training delivery materials, developed from data extracted from the star performers and validated by the other stakeholders. This leaves nothing to chance or to experimentation. It is important to remember that core skills and competencies (i.e. being able to learn) are not the same as learning how to apply them to master  the unique work for which hey were hired. Without structure, guidance and metrics it is unknown whether each trainee can make the transition.

The second is the a training session for the subject matter expert, who will still be the trainer but now briefed on how to use the written materials they helped develop. The trainer will also learn the fastest, most consistent way to transfer the expertise to the trainee and keep them engaged. The sooner the trainee moves to an expert level, the sooner the subject matter expert can get back to work.

The third is structured on-the-job training checklist materials, to allow the trainee to follow along with the subject matter expert. The trainee can watch step-by-step as the trainer demonstrates the task. If the trainee takes a shortcut familiar to them but reserved for experts, the trainee can see it in the written checklist and ask for clarification. Trainees learn better and faster when they can also follow a written procedure rather than being left to guess what steps they didn’t understand or were not properly shown. If written learning materials are not necessary, than why are written process documents? The purpose of written process documents are to standardize task performance, so why wouldn’t materials for learning the task be written as well?

And by the way, a process document in itself is no substitute for a training checklist. It is not meant for learning. It is called a “job performance aid” for a reason. They are meant to jog a trained operator’s memory when asked to perform the task after a period of time has elapsed. It is vital that a company makes sure its trainees have a memory to jog.

Learn more about the Proactive Technologies hybrid approach. Contact Proactive Technologies Inc. to either view a 13 minute online preview, attend a live online presentation or schedule a teleconference to start the discussion of how this approach can save your organization money, minimize the frustration and optimize the return on your worker investment. Or schedule an onsite presentation when our representative is in your area.