Scott L. Evrard Lean Architect and OD Consultant Value Lessons from Applying Lean Thinking to Corporate Learning and Development Scott L. Evrard Lean Architect and OD Consultant © Scott Evrard, March 2016

Lean: Systemic Approach to Value Creation, Delivery and Improvement Contribution Capacity Capability Collaboration Consistency Continuous Improvement Value Management System: Enabling Informed Reflection and Responsive Action to Improve the Flow of Value © Scott Evrard, March 2016

Value: Value of Learning and Development Teams: What Do We Produce? List the value added outputs that have impact What Do We Do? Define the practices that produce value added outputs Traditional View: Effort and Output What Value Do We Create? Describe the desired impact on customers or those who serve them Value View: Impact Value of Learning and Development Teams: Accelerating the time to full employee and team contribution by facilitating learning to close capability gaps Accelerating time to improvement/change by enabling learning experiences that build needed or new capability © Scott Evrard, March 2016

Informed by observation, data, feedback, measures Bias for action Are we adding value at the level of quality, cost and service expected of us? Time to performance against standards for each employee or team for new/needed behaviors and skills Elimination of waiting time for capability building and learning; any backlog of demand for learning support goes away Number of capable performers is the output that is measured; the program or curriculum is not Successful learning and development efforts are integrated with other performance countermeasures, not isolated from them Contribution Capacity Capability Collaboration Consistency Continuous Improvement Value Accelerating time to: full employee/team contribution Improvement/ change Reflection: Team based Frequent Informed by observation, data, feedback, measures Bias for action Do we know where the waste is in our work and are we acting to remove it? Improvement Initiatives to improve learning are aligned with with larger organizational strategic goals and priorities Implemented changes to learning and development approaches are closing contribution gaps when needed © Scott Evrard, March 2016

Reflection: Diagnosing causes of contribution gaps Demand is focused on performance-enabling efforts related to performer value “Trainers” spend more time as action learning facilitators and performance coaches than as classroom experts – bring learning to performance Professional delivery hours are minimized in lieu of performance problem solving and coaching Most learning is baked into line management duties, technology, problem-solving, team reflection, not a central function of experts Are we available in the right numbers and with the right skills to meet the demand for our value? Contribution Capacity Capability Collaboration Consistency Continuous Improvement Value Accelerating time to: full employee/team contribution Improvement/ change Reflection: Diagnosing causes of contribution gaps Configuration of team to meet demand Capabilities of team members to do the work Performance analysis (including skill gap analysis) - HPT Planned experimentation (PDCA) Real time facilitation of problem-solving with performers Performance support tools vs. instructional design Engagement management to ensure partnerships in operations Team-based development support Do we carry the skills within the team to meet current and future expectations for delivering value? © Scott Evrard, March 2016

Are we getting the support we need to add value with a common sense of priority and purpose? Learning is driven through partnerships with performance stakeholders People who consume the value of L & D are the needed partners for improving the outcomes (no internal customers) L&D priorities are the same as and aligned with the performance priorities of the operations they support Shared accountability for learning is critical to success and reduces the “what we could get” drag on improvement Contribution Capacity Capability Collaboration Consistency Continuous Improvement Value Accelerating time to: full employee/team contribution Improvement/ change Reflection: Diagnosing causes of contribution gaps Engaging others in collaborative work Producing work in the least waste, most effective way Are we working in the most effective way to deliver our greatest value? Standards for learning support are process based not facilitator based – no trainer “secret sauce” Reflection among L&D peers is critical for improving the function’s value and impact of work Fast improvement of approaches results from observation, experience and reflection vs. scheduled program reviews based on stakeholder input Planned experimentation is the source of improved standards, not adherence to stagnant standards that kill experimentation © Scott Evrard, March 2016

Implications for L&D Measurements of value and contribution shift to impact on performance from throughput and feedback Speed of impact is paramount to ensure best in class time to performance and contribution of learners “Batch and cue” delivery is replaced by “just-in-time” learning and development to address gaps in performance Decentralized delivery and consumption of common practices and learning tools Learning is a likely countermeasure in any systemic problem solving effort Learning is integrated into multi-dimensional improvement efforts L&D needs to be in the problem solving conversations from the outset Skills and knowledge shift to facilitation of performance improvement Facilitation of learning process and performance problem solving vs. facilitation of a program Knowledge of performance environment critical to value © Scott Evrard, March 2016

Scott L. Evrard scott.l.evrard@gmail.com 352-408-6798 Thanks! Scott L. Evrard scott.l.evrard@gmail.com 352-408-6798