The Learning “Cost“ Versus Training “Investment“ Paradox

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

This newsletter has written extensively about the inexplicable classification of the training a worker needs to succeed as a “cost“. It has never made much sense, yet it is so entrenched in our business operations that no one gives it a second glance.

Consider, for a moment, a firm’s excitement surrounding the $1 million investment made for new machinery that is meant to increase productivity and output by 50 to 100%. What an accomplishment that would be if that goal is reached.

Now consider that the equipment has arrived, has been installed, and a worker is randomly selected and gifted with a user’s manual loosely translated for another language and told to “figure it out.” This happens more often than we want to admit. A case can be made that the inefficient use of time, dollar resources, and the opportunity costs of underperformance and, possibly, equipment damage during self-training of its functions is truly costly.

But what if the worker, and each worker after that, meant to operate the machinery was quickly, deliberately, and completely trained to operate the equipment and could immediately apply those task-based skills to meet the production goals? Wouldn’t that now be considered an investment? Doesn’t it make far more sense than the “hunt and peck” or “osmosis learning” approach to task mastery? Which approach to worker development is likely to achieve the advertised productivity and output expectations of that new equipment investment? How much money would be lost or gained relative to each approach to worker training?

A lot of this discussion may seem rhetorical, but it isn’t. It is relevant and real. It is still unfathomable that business leaders have been unable to break away from that antiquated method of classifying worker training. I understand past disappointing experiences with, perhaps, the purchase of outdated or irrelevant “canned” learning programs with no “hands-on” opportunities. However, that is more a case that the skill enhancement targeted lacked definition and an adequate analysis to correctly select the right learning content and a most appropriate method of delivery.

“Learning” vs. “Training”- Important Distinction

Over the years, the concepts of “learning“ and “training“ have become muddled. Some of it due to provider’s over- marketing of learning tools, as if they were training tools. The subsequent employer disappointment and growth in cynicism was predictable. “Learning” is related to the transfer of knowledge, and its delivery is commonly performed in a classroom setting or online. If the content is non job-relevant, it does little to impact the competent use of that knowledge in improving the performance of tasks required to the job classification. Without facilitation on how to apply that knowledge in the performance of a task and practice, the knowledge may be lost as weeks roll by.

“Training,” on the other hand, refers to the one-on-one transfer of “expertise“. It stems from ancient methods of apprenticeship, where the journeyman works closely with the apprentice to ensure they have reached the same level of mastery required for higher apprentice ratings. An informal version of this is most prevalent form of training in a workplace, but usually lacking structure, relevance, deliberation, and documentation. Rarely are records kept documenting when each worker masters the many tasks of the job classification, and institutional memory of the event is lost whenever workers changed jobs within the company or supervisors take their memory to the next job with them. It is very inefficient by neglect but can easily be made into a driving force with the management understanding, will and the direction to do so.

The range between types of learning and training for task mastery is expansive, and there is a point where even learning (if job relevant and job validated) can be an investment like all training should be. But learning core and general knowledge/skills should always be considered prerequisite to task-based training to apply those core and general knowledge/skills in the performance of  a unit of work.

The Informal Versus Structured On-The-Job Training Comparison

How a firm chooses to deliver its on-the-job training is critical to whether it becomes a cost or investment.  Employers have, by default, accepted the use of informal  on-the-job training  (one person who knows how to perform a task training someone who doesn’t). This is often done without structure,  consistency, clear outcome expectations and documentation. It is assumed that it works because products go out the door or services are provided. However, the informal process of training cannot be explained, measured, improved or documented except in the memory of the person doing the training. It works…until it doesn’t. It falls way short when the one with the expertise leaves the job and others pass on their recollection of the process for a product or service is rejected. This informal approach, unavoidably, is riddled with unnecessary and unfortunate costs, inefficiencies and ineffectiveness. The longer it is relied upon and the more it is entrenched, the more symptomatic evidence of a problem materializes with the of loss of organizational capacity, diminished work performance standardization and consistency between shifts,  and laxed compliance with engineering, quality and safety standards. These all create “phantom” costs that lead management to dissatisfaction and cynicism that permeates the entire company culture. Management develops a cynicism toward training, when it is really their own misunderstanding, misapplication and/or ambivalence toward training that is the culprit.  

Structured on-the-job training, on the other hand, is designed, deliberate and documented. Its outcomes are definable, measurable, auditable and can be improved upon. It is accelerated and the returns on worker investment are immediately recognizable.  When fully implemented with credentials for a worker reaching Job Mastery to further incentivize workers toward self improvement and self-development, the cost savings can be substantial as are the across-the-board returns.

The cost/investment breakdown

A learning experience as described is a cost if it’s job-relevance isn’t proven prior to attendance and a follow up to ensure that knowledge is incorporated into the performance of tasks is demonstrated.

While employers depend on informal, unstructured, and an undocumented on-the-job training as the primary source of worker development, it is still considered an investment…albeit with costs and returns proportional to its informality. To make that investment more rewarding, informal on- the-job training needs to be structured into formal, structured, documented, measurable, auditable and compliable on-the-job training, which is called “structured on-the-job training“ or “SOJT” for short.

It’s as simple as that. It’s the most overlooked, but most powerful, way to harvest the full value of a company’s workforce – return on worker investment – and to eliminate the many costs and challenges in worker development.

If you recognize these challenges and have shed your fear of even looking for other solutions, check out Proactive Technologies’ structured on-the-job training system approach to see how it might work at your firm, your family of facilities or your region. Contact a Proactive Technologies representative today to schedule a GoToMeeting videoconference briefing to your computer. This can be followed up with an onsite presentation for you and your colleagues. As always, onsite presentations can be the first step, as well.