Professional Training Provision
November 23, 2011 12:15 PM Subscribe
Professional Training Provision. How cam my organisation identify and provide for training at two separate sites?
I work in an organisation where the main training providers are at our HQ, a facility 100 miles away. This is a much bigger facility than mine and my location has less staff and thus less overall demand for training. However, it is still essential that staff at my facility get proper training. Currently, specific courses are run on a passive/reactive basis: when enough people sign up for a course, the people responsible sort out a course, mainly these run at our main site. Courses come in 2 flavours: 2 hour quick sessions or all day sessions. The problem is that when workers at our satellite site see the website they are discouraged from signing up. The 2 hour sessions require 7-8 hours when travel is taken into account, the all day sessions are more like 12-14 hours with travel. My feeling is that workers at our site do not sign up as a result of the total time and our training staff then suggest there is no demand. Most of the training sessions are not currently offered at both locations due to the overall low demand. Demand is measured by the number of staff who sign up for courses. I feel there is a clear case to be made that the training needs to be less passive for staff at our site, but rather than just say 'This doesn't work' I would like to make a case for an effective alternative which would see our training people actively seek out demand and provide accordingly. Does anyone have any idea of how we can better ensure proper training provision or know any websites where this sort of thing is discussed or supported?
I work in an organisation where the main training providers are at our HQ, a facility 100 miles away. This is a much bigger facility than mine and my location has less staff and thus less overall demand for training. However, it is still essential that staff at my facility get proper training. Currently, specific courses are run on a passive/reactive basis: when enough people sign up for a course, the people responsible sort out a course, mainly these run at our main site. Courses come in 2 flavours: 2 hour quick sessions or all day sessions. The problem is that when workers at our satellite site see the website they are discouraged from signing up. The 2 hour sessions require 7-8 hours when travel is taken into account, the all day sessions are more like 12-14 hours with travel. My feeling is that workers at our site do not sign up as a result of the total time and our training staff then suggest there is no demand. Most of the training sessions are not currently offered at both locations due to the overall low demand. Demand is measured by the number of staff who sign up for courses. I feel there is a clear case to be made that the training needs to be less passive for staff at our site, but rather than just say 'This doesn't work' I would like to make a case for an effective alternative which would see our training people actively seek out demand and provide accordingly. Does anyone have any idea of how we can better ensure proper training provision or know any websites where this sort of thing is discussed or supported?
We've got a similar layout here, but more extreme. I recently moved over to training division, so I've seen both sides of this same issue. Main location in Washington state, another smaller location about 30 min. from here, a site in San Diego, a site in Japan, and various small groups scattered around the country at any given time on temporary jobs. Scheduling training - just the required training and requalification, much less voluntary training - is a challenge.
I agree with you that people may not be taking advantage of the courses because of the excessive amount of time going to HQ costs. I bet if you listened in on the interest for the course if people thought it was local, it would be much higher than the number that actually sign up for the one at HQ. Either they don't want to go that far, or their boss discourages being gone that long.
One thing that has made it easier is to have one or two people from the training division permanently based in San Diego. They act as training coordinators for San Diego-based people. Some of the courses they do themselves there as necessary. Sometimes we'll provide a team to go down there and do the training. Rarely, we make them come here for the training.
For Japan, we mostly train people here. They have to come back to our side periodically anyway for other things, so we try to figure out when that is and get as much done while they're here as possible. If that means they have to stay a couple of extra days, then that's still better than flying some instructors to Japan.
So, two ideas. One, if your people have to go to HQ from time to time for any reason, encourage them to plan in advance to take the whole day, or even two, and get a class in during the trip. Two, if training division can support it, put one of their people on your site as a site training liaison. Even if they don't give the class, they can advertise and schedule it, arrange the space for it, set up materials, and all that. The HQ instructor can just walk in and give the class. Eventually, the liaison person could qualify to teach the simpler classes themselves.
To convince training to do that, maybe do a survey. Take one of the classes they offer, then ask around how many people would be interested in that if it was done at your site. You might find that they're right, there's still not enough demand.
posted by ctmf at 2:28 PM on November 23, 2011
I agree with you that people may not be taking advantage of the courses because of the excessive amount of time going to HQ costs. I bet if you listened in on the interest for the course if people thought it was local, it would be much higher than the number that actually sign up for the one at HQ. Either they don't want to go that far, or their boss discourages being gone that long.
One thing that has made it easier is to have one or two people from the training division permanently based in San Diego. They act as training coordinators for San Diego-based people. Some of the courses they do themselves there as necessary. Sometimes we'll provide a team to go down there and do the training. Rarely, we make them come here for the training.
For Japan, we mostly train people here. They have to come back to our side periodically anyway for other things, so we try to figure out when that is and get as much done while they're here as possible. If that means they have to stay a couple of extra days, then that's still better than flying some instructors to Japan.
So, two ideas. One, if your people have to go to HQ from time to time for any reason, encourage them to plan in advance to take the whole day, or even two, and get a class in during the trip. Two, if training division can support it, put one of their people on your site as a site training liaison. Even if they don't give the class, they can advertise and schedule it, arrange the space for it, set up materials, and all that. The HQ instructor can just walk in and give the class. Eventually, the liaison person could qualify to teach the simpler classes themselves.
To convince training to do that, maybe do a survey. Take one of the classes they offer, then ask around how many people would be interested in that if it was done at your site. You might find that they're right, there's still not enough demand.
posted by ctmf at 2:28 PM on November 23, 2011
Does your company take advantage of technology, not everything has to be instructor lead. Look at virtual classes with Live Meeting, web conferences, online automated, pre-recorded. Also, it makes more sense for an instructor to travel than individual team members, that's where scheduling comes in - find out what classes people are interested in or that managers think employees need and set up an onsite session. Encourage managers to have staff sign up.
posted by shoesietart at 4:21 PM on November 23, 2011
posted by shoesietart at 4:21 PM on November 23, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by theora55 at 2:18 PM on November 23, 2011