I chose to write about the “Better, Faster, Cheaper” trend
in the business sector of instructional design technology because I have
experienced it first hand. I spent 5 years training in the private sector, working
for an energy and technology company and for a local health food chain. I have
seen the steady growth and demand for employee training, as business and
industry recognizes a direct correlation between their profits and a knowledgeable
workforce. Improving on-the-job training improves customer experiences and
increases retention of valuable workers. Training and development departments
play a big role in solving organizational problems that could lead to losses in
human capital and customers (Tracey & Morrison p. 178).
In both of these training positions I was either the “sole
designer” or part of a two-person team that was responsible for the project
management, media production, and instructional design for all corporate
training initiatives (Tracey & Morrison p. 179). Budgets were generous for
training, despite the small size of the department, and training was highly
valued as part of the organization. Valued international train-the-trainer
organizations like Langevin (“The World’s Largest Train-the-Trainer Company), The
Ken Blanchard Companies (of the wildly successful One-Minute Manager book and
training), Franklin Covey (The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People
Signature Program), and Development Dimensions International (DDI), are just a
few of the biggest instructional design and training companies that make
millions off of pre-packaged training for business and industry. “Better, Faster, Cheaper” for many businesses
means sending their sole designer to become certified to facilitate programming
that develops their workforce’s skills and rewards employees with professional
development.
“Better, Faster, Cheaper” in terms of in-house creations tended
to mean less time for us to solve problems with training. We were forever being
asked to create and train the workforce on new initiatives and were usually
given about a month of time. This made following the traditional ADDIE model
difficult and we did utilize rapid prototyping to shorten the cycle time. Rapid
prototyping reduces “production time because (a) using working models of the
final product early in a project tends to eliminate time-consuming revisions
later on and (b) design tasks are completed concurrently, rather than sequentially,
throughout the project” (Tracey & Morrison p.183). While we used rapid prototyping we were not
exactly happy about the results – the analysis phase was extended and we discovered
opportunities for change later in the project than we would have liked (usually
after having run the training to a pilot group and sometimes not even until we
were on the second run of a training). As instructional professionals, this did
not make us feel that we were producing the best product we could. To the
organization however, we were giving them exactly what they wanted, better,
faster, and cheaper.
Another trend that was prevalent was the need for advanced
evaluation of training initiatives. Tracey & Morrison mentioned Brinkerhoff’s
Success Case Method of evaluation and indeed this is a practice embraced by
business and industry widely. Return on investment (ROI) must be shown for all
areas of a business or industry to justify the expense and training is no
different. My experience was that ROI is expected and training managers should
deliver. At the 2003 American Society for Training and Development International
Conference and Exhibition, Brinkerhoff and Dressler facilitated a symposium on Using the Success Case Impact Evaluation Method
to Enhance Training Value & Impact.
Brinkerhoff and Dressler
shared the following case-study of how the Success Case model can be used to evaluate
training and identify opportunities for improvement:
“In an evaluation of the
business value of emotional intelligence training at American Express, for
example, we told the story of how six different financial advisors, each in a
different situation, had used their training to increase sales, increase
customer revenues, and so forth. Comparing these stories with the stories of
unsuccessful participants allowed us to pinpoint the several key performance
system factors that enabled some to make very successful use of the program, while
others were not nearly so successful. As a result, American Express was able to
formulate new guidelines
for program participation and support that were aimed at increasing
the numbers of advisors who
could successfully leverage the training into financial results” (Brinkerhoff
& Dressler, p.14). Whether companies are using the Success Case model or
the more commonly known Kirkpatrick model of evaluation, the C-Suite is asking
for results and instructional designers in the private industry are taking
note. “Better, Faster, Cheaper” ID must be shown to be “Better” to balance the
books for its expense.
In closing – I would encourage
you to check out some of the links below to the websites of the companies I
mentioned in this blog post that are making big business out of
training-the-trainer and instructional designers for business and industry
today.
References
Brinkerhoff, R.D., &
Dressler, D. E. (2003, May). Using the Success Case Impact Evaluation Method to
Enhance Training Value & Impact. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the
American Society for Training and Development International Conference and
Exhibition 2003, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from http://www.kenblanchard.com/img/pub/newsletter_brinkerhoff.pdf
Tracey, M.W. & Morrison, G.R. (2012). Instructional
Design in Business and Industry. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Ed.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design
and Technology, Third Edition (pp. 178 – 186). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Additional Resources
Langevin Learning Services
The Ken Blanchard Companies
Franklin Covey
Developmental Dimensions International
Kirkpatrick Partners
