1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

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