Five Steps: Changing Paradigms from Training to Performance

It’s hard to imagine now, but there was a time that we thought theEarth was the center of the universe. The planets, the Sun, and all of thestars revolved around us. The movement of these celestial bodies influenced andaffected the things that happened on our planet from feast to famine, fortune topoverty, Mayweather vs. Pacquiao.

We now know of course that none of this is true. The Sun, not theEarth, is at the center of our solar system. Our Sun is just one of many in thegalaxy which is in turn one of many in the universe.

Humans lived under the paradigm that the universe revolved around usfor millennia. It was easy to understand, comforting, and even pragmatic. Wewere able to predict the best time of year to plant and harvest. We were ableto navigate around the world using stars in the sky as our guide.

For decades, we have lived under the belief that training can enableemployee performance. Whether it’s learning to use a new software system, howto repair a piece of equipment, selling product to a customer, or flying anairplane, training will take care of it. It’s easy for our stakeholders tounderstand, and it’s comfortable for us to execute.

But it’s wrong.

We now know that while training is useful and pragmatic, there are moreefficient and effective methods to enable employee performance. In particular,we know that combining training and performance support (PS) in a thoughtfulway allows employees to learn critical and frequent tasks before the job andthen learn the remainder on the job (Please see the References at the end ofthis article: Gal & Nachmias, 2011; Nguyen & Klein, 2008).

The challenge for many organizations today is how to change theparadigm from training to performance. This transition includes not just thetraditional training organization but also senior business leaders,stakeholders, and even the average employee.

Changing the paradigm

As Figure 1 shows, this article and the next explore five steps thatany organization can undertake to drive this paradigm shift. This one addressesthe first four steps, and tomorrow’s article will spotlight establishment of astandard performance-support methodology. In addition to what is involved ineach step, we’ll also illustrate how each step was implemented by a Fortune 100training organization that went through a similar transition over the lastseveral years. For the purposes of these two articles, we’ll refer to thistraining organization as The Group.

Figure 1: Five steps to transitioning a trainingorganization into a performance organization

Step 1: Transform your learning organization from a training functioninto a performance organization

Whether by design or by accident, most learning organizations tend to producea small variety of interventions. Though they may produce the occasional jobaid, most current learning organizations develop online learning that isdelivered through web-based training (WBT), scenario-based learning, or evenlearning games. They may also employ a blend of instructor-led training (ILT) deliveredin a physical or virtual classroom.

Regardless of the form of training produced, most content is typicallydelivered before a new employee even starts their job. In the case of a tenuredemployee, these individuals are usually taken out of the context of their workfor a period of time to complete the training and are then sent back in thehope that they will remember and apply what was delivered.

The first step to challenging this paradigm is to transition from a training focus to a performance focus acrossyour learning organization. In the case of TheGroup, this was done in several ways.

First, they assembled from existing resources a new dedicated team comprisedof learning technologists and technical writers. They tasked this team to be championsof performance support, to establish new processes and technologies to enable PS,and most importantly, to drive adoption of performance support across theenterprise.

Next, they expanded the products offered by The Group to its internal customers to include performance support(among others). Since The Groupoperated as an internal profit and loss center, standard rates were set foreach of the learning products.

In the case of performance support products, early projects werepriced below normal cost, or selectively at no cost, to help drive initial adoption,particularly in comparison to higher-priced ILT or WBT products. They used the performance-supportusage and business-impact data collected from these early PS projects to “sell”future performance support projects to prospective clients. They also asked stakeholdersfrom past PS successes to provide testimonials and assist in marketingperformance support.

Step 2: Reset business leaders’ expectations

Before your new performance support team even begins working on a project,it is critical that senior business leaders understand that this new learningproduct will not only look different than traditional training, but it willalso produce better business results. Ensuring that senior leaders are boughtinto this change first will eliminate future barriers for the PS team once theybegin working with stakeholders such as application owners, employee experiencedesigners, or subject matter experts.

In the case of The Group,the organization valued analytics and data-based decision making. Seniorlearning leaders used a combination of external and internal data to build thecase for why learning on the job was better than training before the job.

Though the research behind Ebbinghaus’ Forgetting Curve is somewhatdated (1885), the basic concept is intuitive and often easy for senior businessleaders to understand. The Group’ssenior leaders used this research to help illustrate the fact that about half ofwhat is delivered in training is forgotten within 20 minutes after a completinga class. Within a day, only one third of the information is retained, after amonth only 21%. Research has demonstrated however that you can mitigate thisloss of knowledge if employees are given the opportunity to immediately applywhat they learn to real life situations.

TheGroup emphasized the fact that deliveringany before-the-job training should be both critical in nature and succinct indelivery. From a retention, application, and individual performanceperspective, it is better for the organization to invest its limited financialresources to help employees learn during training what resources were available(performance support) to help them continuously learn and perform.

In the event that Ebbinghaus’ concepts were insufficient to convincesenior business leaders, The Groupused data from research (References: Bastiaens et al, 1997; Gal & Nachmias,2011; Mao & Brown, 2005; Nguyen, Klein & Sullivan, 2005; Nguyen &Klein, 2005) to demonstrate how other organizations have used this new form ofon-the-job learning. In particular, they used any data that demonstratedreduction in costs to project potential savings to the organization. Forexample, in the case of The Group’s callcenter operations, the organization proposed a 50% reduction in the new hiretraining time. By integrating performance support directly into the callcenter’s content management software, TheGroup reduced the onboarding program from six weeks to three.

One of the primary challenges with performance support is that fewsenior business leaders will understand PS nor remember the term when it is simplyexplained to them. However, most will want it as soon as they see an example ofit.

To take advantage of this phenomenon, The Group identified high-potential targets for performancesupport. These were typically internally developed systems or off-the-shelfsoftware being purchased and modified. High-potential targets may also includeprojects that are high-profile or high-impact to the company, or projects thatwould be easy to implement.

Once they identified the high potential PS projects, The Group developed mockups of thesystems that included performance support embedded into the tools. If possible,they developed these mockups in conjunction with employee experience designerswho were responsible for interface and navigation within the platforms.

Step 3: Upskill your performance support team and instructionaldesigners

With a clearpath from a training organization to a performance organization, and following seniorleader alignment to this transformation, the next step is to prepare the teamso that they comprehend the change in their roles, understand how the changebenefits the organization, and develop the skills that will be necessary intheir new roles.

Since The Group built its new performancesupport team using existing personnel, it did not design an organization arounda prescribed formula or recruit ideal candidates for these PS roles. Roles,processes, and technologies at the start evolved over time and new capabilitieswere added along the way.

As Figure 2shows, three core skillsets emerged that allowed The Group to successfully build performance support solutions.

Figure 2: Performancesupport team core capabilities

Technology: Systems Engineer. Though it should not be the exclusivefocus of a performance support strategy, technology can be a key enabler formany PS solutions. Since The Groupbuilt its new performance support team from the footprint of its learningtechnology team, this was the core strength of the new organization.

For example,one of The Group’s initial PS projectsrequired creating a simple authoring tool that would enable subject matterexperts (SMEs) to create and maintain PS content. The PS solution also requireda content management system for information produced by SME’s and integrationof this information directly into the employee interface of an internallydeveloped call-center management system. Leveraging its existing technologybackground, the team was able to quickly adapt an open-source blogging platform(WordPress) and its large collection of plug-ins to build the content authoringtool. It also developed custom functionality to meet specific employeerequirements.

Not only didthe team’s technical background enable them to create PS solutions, it alsoallowed them to establish relationships and communicate with applicationdevelopment teams. This relationship facilitated integration between PS contentand the interface that employees would use in the workplace tools.

While a softwareengineer can bring technical expertise to the team, they typically lackknowledge of employee experience, performance support requirements, and how toconnect the right information to the employee at the right time. This skillsetis the domain of the performance support designer.

Design: Performance SupportDesigner. Sinceperformance support focuses on learning on the job, whereas training focuses onlearning before the job, there is some skillset overlap between traditionalinstructional design and performance support design. However, performancesupport designers require greater depth in specific areas:

• Analyze the work interface andaudience. To determine what type ofperformance support you should use, it is necessary for a PS designer toanalyze how an employee interacts with the primary work interface in their joband how it impacts their behavior, determine where learning may be necessary inthe workflow, and identify placement of on-the-job learning at the appropriatetime and place.

• Analyze job tasks. Though instructional designersmay also conduct task analyses, a key difference with PS design is that theoutcome of such an activity directly affects the design and contentorganization of the performance support system. The PS designer must work withSME’s to break down processes into component tasks. They then translate thesetasks into a content hierarchy that should logically mirror the businessworkflow. By doing so, employees can then quickly see how tasks relate to eachother, which allows them to quickly locate the appropriate content if necessary.

• Identify learning bites for the momentof apply. Since employeesmust interrupt their workflow in order to use performance support, it isimportant that they can find the right information quickly, and that thecontent is succinct yet informative. As a result, the performance support designermust select the right “content bites” for the moment of need, either from existinginformation that can be reused or by working with the technical writer to createnew content for the specific process or task.

Content: Technical Writer. With performance support, it isnecessary for the on-the-job learning to be brief enough not to interfere withthe work yet descriptive enough to enable the employee. It is necessary fortechnical writers to use precise and concise language to support fastprocessing of information and accurate understanding. In addition, information-mappingprinciples can also be used to help organize and structure the presentation ofcontent so that an employee can quickly scan and locate useful information.

Step 4: Educate and manage subject matter experts

Even if an organization builds and develops anew performance support team, it will still not be successful without the rightpartnerships with key stakeholders in the organization. In particular, aperformance support team must work in tandem with the teams that own theemployee work interfaces. These other teams may include user experiencedesigners, software development teams, and subject matter experts. Figure 3 showsthe potential roles that a performance support team (circles) may take on incontrast to extended stakeholders (hexagons) who may be involved in the performancesupport project.

Figure 3. Theextended performance support team

The specific roles and responsibilities that theperformance support team owns versus those the extended stakeholders own mayvary on a project-by-project basis. For example, a performance support designermay take on limited user-experience designer responsibilities, whereas theperformance support systems engineer may take on some application developmentwork. In contrast, when trained and supported properly, the extendedstakeholders may also perform some of the corresponding roles of the performancesupport team. In particular, the responsibilities of the performance supportcontent writer may be shared or transferred to the subject matter expert. Thisis particularly true after deploying a performance support project thatrequires ongoing maintenance. Barring high content volatility or volume, it isgenerally better to enable subject matter experts to sustain performancesupport content.

In the case of The Group, the PS team worked closely with subject matter expertsto train and enable them on content creation and maintenance. During the pilotstages of a project, the systems engineer provides training and orientation tosubject matter experts on the PS content authoring tool, which also initiatesthe relationship between the PS team and SME.

Next, TheGroup focuses on aligning the PS team and business stakeholders to the samelanguage. For example, the simple term “process” can often mean differentthings to different application developers and business stakeholders. As aresult, the PS team conducts a rapid-task-analysis (Gottfredson & Mosher,2012) training session to help identify the business workflows and decomposethem into component tasks. The primary object of the rapid task analysis is togenerate a structured hierarchy for PS content. However, as a byproduct of thisprocess, user experience designers, software developers, and subject matterexperts become aligned to the same language.

In addition to content, the PS team works withthe software development team to capture PS usage. This data provides futureinsight to determine areas of high application usage, user experience designissues, or opportunities to optimize performance support content.

The final step

While these four steps are necessaryand vital, they are not sufficient to complete the paradigmchange from training to performance and toestablish the new paradigm as the norm. In tomorrow’s spotlight, we willaddress the work needed to drive consistency and rigor for projects, and toguide the extended team in succeeding projects.

From the Editor

To go further in your exploration of performance support inthe real-time workflow through structure, coaching, and documentation, join usat The eLearning Guild’s Performance Support Symposium, coming up June 10 – 12 in Austin, Texas! The PerformanceSupport Symposium is the only conference dedicated to the topic of performancesupport and the goal of delivering small amounts of information directly intoworkflows when and where it is needed to enhance on-the-job performance.

When you register for Performance Support Symposium 2015,you will also receive admission to all sessions at mLearnCon 2015, co-locatedwith the symposium. mLearnCon 2015 is North America’s leading mobile learning conference and expo, focusedon applying mobile technologies in the context of learning and support, thestrategies for integrating these technologies into the training mix, and thebest practices for designing, developing, and delivering mobile content. 

Registration for Performance Support Symposium 2015 includes accessto the mLearnCon 2015 Expo, an outstanding opportunity to explore a highlyfocused collection of key vendors offering leading learning technologies,tools, products, and services for mobile applications!

References

Bastiaens, T.J., William J. Nijhof, Jan N. Streumer, and Harmen J. Abma.Working And Learning with Electronic Performance Support Systems: AnEffectiveness Study. InternationalJournal of Training and Development, 1(1). 1997.

Ebbinghaus, H. Memory: AContribution to Experimental Psychology. New York: Columbia University.1885.

Gal, Eran, and Rafi Nachmias. Online Learning andPerformance Support in Organizational Environments Using Performance SupportPlatforms. Performance Improvement, 50(8). 2011.

Gottfredson,C. and Bob Mosher. Rapid Task Analysisfor Performance Support Design. 2012.

Mao, Ji-Ye. And Bradley R. Brown. The Effectiveness of Online TaskSupport vs. Instructor-Led Training. Journalof Organizational and End Employee Computing, 17(3). 2005.

Nguyen, Frank, James D. Klein, and Howard Sullivan. A ComparativeStudy of Electronic Performance Support Systems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(4). 2005.