Customise Weapons for Winning the Competitive War

Introduction

Off the shelf training courses are useful for imparting competencies which are needed by all businesses- competitiveness comes from being able to do things differently by applying unique skills.

This article explores the magic needed to build those competitive weapons.

Crucial Elements for Competitive Competencies

How do we develop training tools for winning the competitive war?

Much of our organisation’s current intellectual capital exists in the heads of those who have been around for some time and have gained their expertise through time spent at the coalface.

On the other hand we are fully aware that today’s ways of doing things will not keep us competitive in the future- we need to be bringing new knowledge, skills and attitudes into our organisation. To do this we need to track the changes in our environment and to conduct research on how these changes should be addressed: there are extensive sources of information – networking and the Internet being the main ones.

Creating Magic

Finding the content required for a training course through these channels is only one element – what is key is the transformation of this information into something about which people are really excited to learn and, once taught, ensures that participants hit the ground running when it comes to motivation and application of this learning in the work environment.  

This requires the generation of creative synergies between two areas of expertise:

• The subject matter expert, the person who knows, or has access to, WHAT needs to be trained, and

• The instructional designer who knows HOW to train any subject in the way best suited to the content, level of complexity and target audience.

This combination very rarely exists in one individual: subject matter experts are those who, as a result of their experiences, can be expected to be older and more process oriented. By contrast, instructional designers are creatively driven – training technology is evolving at more rapidly than most others. World class training interventions are no longer simply a set of course notes and some PowerPoints- they may include audio, video, games, workbased assignments, games, collaborative exercises and many more. These need to be combined so that, by the end of each training intervention, measurable business objectives have been met.

Whilst we may fondly remember the good old days when we were allowed to leave our offices and attend a five- to 10-day course. Now we’re lucky if we have time for a lunch and learn. Yet we’re expected to learn more with less whilst achieving a greater effect on true performance. The objective is to fully engage participants as much learning is concentrated into as short a time as possible.

It is for these reasons that the welding together of subject matter experts with an instructional designer is so essential.

Putting the cart before the horse

What are the measurable business results that need to be achieved from the training intervention? The answer to this question must be agreed between subject matter experts and instructional designer before any course design can start.

In other words we start with the end in mind and work backwards: the end, the reason for investing resources in the learning program, is typically to solve a business need and to help an organization accomplish a goal.

These results are not just an afterthought, they  the whole point. We therefore must spend time upfront to reach agreement with business leaders about the role training can play in achieving the goal, the expected impact or other measure of success

A last word: Research has shown that if, in our efforts to change behaviours, 90% of the effort is in the delivery of training, then 70% of the people will try new skills and fail. However, if 50% of the effort is in the delivery, and 50% is in follow-up activities, then 85% of the people will consistently apply what they learnt. 

How does our company ensure that the skills and expertise built up by practitioners over the years is passed on to the next generation?

What tools do we use to track changes in the industry and ensure that we are meeting the changing needs of our clients?

What facilities do we have in place to design and deliver our own training courses so that we can remain competitive?

To what extent do we believe that training adds to our competitive edge?

Building Strategic Weaponry for Competitive Competence

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.