Introduction
The current speed of change requires
employees to be trained continuously to out-think and out-manoeuvre competitors.
Customisation is key - this article
explains how to tailor programmes to maximise synergies between company
strategic objectives, individual needs and lifelong learning.
Identify areas to be addressed
A previous article, “Targeting
Training for Strategic Success” identified tools for determining the skills
gaps of each individual within the organisation, both in terms of the company’s
current needs and future strategy.
Having applied these
tools, the company will have a strategic overview of what must be trained, at
what level and to how many people at each level.
Structure content and strategies for training
programmes
Diversity of approach and company structures
mean that there is no “one size fits
all”: every company must align training to its own bottom-line objectives.
To achieve this, the
company will need to create a matrix in which the identified skills gaps are
grouped into areas of similarity at different levels.
Such a matrix will
look something like this:
Technical
|
Company
Systems
|
Strategy
/ Management / Supervisory
|
Soft
Skills
|
|
General
Management
|
||||
Supervisory
|
||||
Operator
|
||||
General
Worker
|
Identify the specific objectives of each training unit
By populating this matrix we have a strategic overview of the competency requirements of our organisation. It also represents a lifelong learning path for each employee.
The skills
gaps which have been identified in each of the matrix cells need to be fleshed
out so that each defines what the person who has been trained in that area will
be able to do.
For example, if we have identified “manage inventory” as a
skills gap at operator level, we might, after consultation with those involved
in the function, decide that a person who has been trained in this function
will be able to:
- Explain the principles of freight logistics
- Receive, dispatch and return freight
- Control and locate stock
- Locate freight in a warehouse
- Pack, handle and secure freight
Million dollar question- insource or outsource?
Now the burning
question: which of these competencies should be trained on an in house basis
and which should we outsource to external providers?
According to the
supplychainforesight 2014 report “With the
education system of South Africa under increasing scrutiny, there is a clear
gap between relevant qualifications and skills that are marketable in the
workplace.” This is a clear indication that, at least in the field of
supply chain management, the bias should be towards insourcing. This, by the
way, is not a uniquely South African phenomenon.
Other considerations
are:
- What do we have the ability to execute in-house, and what can’t we perform internally with quality and consistency?
- Which of the competencies we have identified give us our competitive edge, which of them give us our unique character in the marketplace?
- Consider outsourcing those generic “soft skills” (communications, time management, leadership development, decision-making, and problem-solving), as well as environmental and health-safety issues. Keep in mind that if we were to keep training entirely in-house, the only resources we’d have are the skill sets that exist in our current staff.
- To what extent can we insource training without compromising the operational requirements of those Subject Matter Experts who will be required to do facilitate training? Put another way, how do we manage the risk of loss of focus on our core business, if we implement in house training programmes?
Moving target
Nothing
stays the same. Both the competency matrix of the company should be subject to
annual review as an absolute minimum.
