1. Leveraging Requests for Training Fred Nickols, CPT
HPT: Guerrilla Style
Leveraging Requests for Training
Fred Nickols, CPT
Requests for training are commonly denigrated, often to the point of ridiculing those who make such requests. Why? Because training has come to be seen by many as no more than an occasionally useful – and partial – solution to problems of performance.
In this same vein, trainers are regularly bombarded by advice to the effect that they should move into performance improvement – that they should become human performance technologists.
YET…
Training is a management tool, not just an occasional, situational remedy for a performance problem
Trainers are in an excellent position to do some “guerrilla style” performance improvement
“HPT” Guerrilla Style” means simply this: “Don’t talk about HPT, do it!”
© Fred Nickols 2015

2. Session Overview A Little Context Some Cases Some Models
Some Strategies, Tips & Theories
A DIFFERENT Way of Looking at Things
We’ll begin by looking at training in context
Then we’ll run quickly through five cases to illustrate how performance improvement can be worked “guerrilla style”
Along the way, we’ll look briefly at some models useful in improving performance
Toward the end we’ll look at some strategies, tips and theories – but not in a theoretical way
By the time we wrap up, I hope to have presented a persuasive case for looking at this training vs performance dichotomy in a very different way.
serendipitous vs serious
situational vs doctrinal
“Pro” vs Professional
© Fred Nickols 2015

3. Training in Context
Let’s focus on the centerpiece: the job itself. Doing it – however well or poorly - is called “performing.”
Performance hinges on Individual (I) and Environmental (E) factors.
Training addresses some of the individual factors.
Managing addresses the environmental and some of the individual factors.
We’ll come back to this same diagram later – from a different angle. For now, suffice it to say that trainers are often in an enviable position to get those environmental factors addressed – as trainers.
Doing that is the essence of HPT Guerrilla Style.
© Fred Nickols 2015

4. A Little Wisdom
“War is much too important a matter to be left to the generals.”
Georges Clemenceau
Georges Clemenceau was prime minister of France during WWI. To many, he is best known for this statement…
Aside from some pointed humor, Clemenceau’s remark does drive home an important point:
Exercise caution in relinquishing control over important matters.
© Fred Nickols 2015

5. A Little Heresy
Extending Clemenceau’s counsel to HPT leads to a little heresy:
The point of this heresy – if it is heresy – is this:
Trainers have an obligation and a right to improve performance, whenever and wherever possible.
You can’t duck the obligation and you shouldn’t relinquish the right.
That’s enough preaching so let’s move on to the illustrative cases.
“Gee, all I said was that human performance is much too important a matter to leave to the human performance technologists.”
© Fred Nickols 2015

6. Case 1 – Examiners Citicorp Services Lost or Stolen Travelers Checks
A Request to Develop Training
This case comes from the travelers checks operation at Citicorp.
The operation had conducted a preliminary job study and had identified 12 fundamental tasks. The objectives were to (1) develop job aids for use at the examiners’ workstations and (2) develop and provide training in how to use those job aids. In short, the project started with a request to develop training.
What do you say to the client? (BOARD/FIELD responses)
What do you want to know? (BOARD/FIELD responses)
What do you set out to do? (BOARD/FIELD responses)
Well, I said “Sure” and after being on site for a short while, it soon became obvious that the work done by the examiners was done at their workstation, quite similar to the one shown in the illustration.
I wanted to know how much time they spent on station and how much time they spent off station.
© Fred Nickols 2015

7. Time On & Off Station Time on Station Time off Station
Over a period of a week or so, we sampled various examiners in terms of time on and time off station. We found that a whopping 40% of their time was spent away from their work station.
What do you want to know now? (BOARD/FIELD responses)
We further found that the 40% of time away from station was about evenly divided between standing in line at a big new high-speed copying machine and trotting back and forth from their workstation to their supervisors’ desks to obtain approval for a proposed resolution of a case that involved dollar amounts requiring supervisory approval.
RELATE (a) the per-copy cost-basis for selling in of the big machine and (b) the fact that no one could ever recall an instance of a supervisor rejecting an examiner’s proposed resolution.
RELATE the solutions: get the smaller copy machines out of the storeroom and increase the examiners’ approval level.
Time off Station
© Fred Nickols 2015

8. Case 2 – Financial Aid Financial Aid Forms (FAF) at ETS
Referral from Booz  Allen
“Improve Productivity via Training”
A Request to Develop Training
ETS used to process Financial Aid Forms on behalf of the College Board. Booz – Allen & Hamilton had been in ETS conducting a strategic operations study and one outcome was a finding that productivity in the FAF processing operation could be greatly improved through training. Further, Booz Allen recommended to ETS that they hire me to do that. There I was, once again faced with a request for training.
What do you say to the client? (BOARD/FIELD responses)
What do you want to know? (BOARD/FIELD responses)
How do you approach the project? (BOARD/FIELD responses)
PROTOTYPE, PROTOTYPE, PROTOTYPE
RELATE David Dean’s counsel: Look for work being done twice and work that shouldn’t be done at all
© Fred Nickols 2015

9. FAF Processing
This is how most people at ETS viewed the FAF processing operation at the time.
The FAFs came in via US Mail, were batched, sent to key entry, the data from them were entered and these data were then subjected to various edits as part of the computer-based processing.
If any FAFs failed any of the edit routines, they were rejected for manual resolution and, once resolved, reentered for continued processing. Manual resolution was after the computer edits and the computer edits were not re-run once the manual resolution was completed.
The dashed red circle focuses on the operation that was the focal point for my project: the manual resolution.
What do you want to know? (BOARD/FIELD responses)
© Fred Nickols 2015

10. Hidden Re-Work
I wanted to know more about the manual resolution operation. As this diagram illustrates, it wasn’t as simple as the conventional view held it to be.
As part of the kickoff of the prototype effort, I had arranged to spend the morning out on the floor, observing the Financial Aid Assistants, the people who resolved the FAF rejects.
RELATE FAA’s occasional reference to black three-ring binder
RELATE asking about the reason for that
RELATE the somewhat surprising finding; namely, institutionalized rework (i.e., manually re-running the edits that had produced the rejects)
RELATE the benefits and payoffs of eliminating that re-work (the fix paid for the project)
© Fred Nickols 2015

11. Case 3 – Medical Claims Health Insurance Company
Claims Processing Operation
New Automated System
A Request for Training
This was a large health insurance company, one of the Blue Cross-Blue Shield firms that now goes by the name Anthem.
They were installing a huge new automated claims processing system, courtesy of Booz Allen and because I had assisted with one of these in New York, I had been recommended by Booz Allen. Once again a request for training.
What do you say to the client? (BOARD/FIELD responses)
You can no doubt guess what I said: “Sure!”
© Fred Nickols 2015

12. Health Claims
I had the benefit of having been through a similar situation once before so I’ll quickly come to the point:
The focal point was the reject stream, claims that had failed one or more edits and had been kicked out for manual resolution. Two aspects of this project illustrate HPT Guerrilla Style:
RELATE “rat race” loops (claims rejected for reason A were resolved, reentered and then rejected for reason B, whereupon they were once again resolved, re-entered and then rejected again for reason A. These claims literally disappeared inside the system). Trainers found these rat-race loops in the course of developing the resolution training.
RELATE body systems language training of six weeks. Claimed to be necessary training so as to identify the body system in which the procedure occurred. The first three-digits of the procedure code on the claim did that. The training was significantly reduced.
© Fred Nickols 2015

13. Case 4 – Reject Rate Health Care Industry Nurse Aide Assistants
Certification Test (Registration)
Forms Batched, Scanned & Edited
The Reject Rate is “Too High”
Here’s another from ETS.
Nurse Aide assistants had to take and pass a certification test before they could be employed. The test was what some call “high stakes.” To take the test, they had to register and get a seat assignment for a scheduled admin. That meant filling out and submitting a registration form.
Division director’s lament:: the reject rate is too high.
Staff were convinced that the people submitting the forms were incapable of filling out the form properly. Maybe they needed training.
Let’s focus this time on some models useful in handling such situations.
© Fred Nickols 2015

14. Registration Processing
Here’s the basic processing operation in question..
REVIEW the process; FOCUS on the enclosed portion
QUESTION What do you want to know?
EMPHASIZE the client’s concern about returned forms
EMPHASIZE that it’s faulty input, not the processing operation that is producing the rejects
RELATE in effect the registrants were producing the input that ETS was processing, so let’s look at the registrants as a production work system
© Fred Nickols 2015

15. Production Work System
REVIEW the basic operation of a production work system
EMPHASIZE that the Applicants were both processor and controller; they and they alone were in a position to determine if the completed registration form was clean, complete and correct.
QUESTION: How could they tell?
QUESTION: What do you want to know?
EMPHASIZE what we’re dealing with here is a classic case of a human performance problem: some people aren’t doing what other people want and expect them to do.
EMPHASIZE so, let’s use yet another model, one more suitable for looking at human performance.
© Fred Nickols 2015

16. The Target Model © Fred Nickols 2015
REVIEW the basics of the Target Model
T = Target = some variable we wish to control, that is, we want to bring it to some specified state and keep it there (the registration form)
G = Goal state = the specified state we wish the target variable to be in (a clean and complete reg form, that is, it can be processed w/o problems the first time through)
P = Perceived state = what we currently view as the current state of T (reg form riddled with errors)
A = Actions = things we do to affect T (that was the issue – what can be done?)
C = Conditions = other actors and factors that affect T (that remained to be seen)
EMPHASIZE: We act because there is a gap between our goal state for a target variable and the current or perceived state of that variable
© Fred Nickols 2015

17. An Idealized View
REVIEW idealized view of the registration reject problem
REVIEW implications of the Target Model
The performer must want to produce the desired result
The performer must be able to gauge progress and success
The performer must possess the necessary repertory
The performer must be able to vary behavior as necessary
The performer must not be overwhelmed by other conditions
EMPHASIZE – Implications guide investigation
RELATE findings: instructions incomplete, not keyed to items, no warning of consequences, and code list organized numerically
RELATE several actions: rewrite the instructions, key them to the reg form, include notice as to consequences, alphabetical code list
SEGUE to results realized
© Fred Nickols 2015

18. The Results As you can see, the results were significant
© Fred Nickols 2015

19. Case 5 – Load Rate Custom Operations Division at ETS
“Keep an eye on things for a while”
Internal clients concerned about rates
Objective: Lower the load rate
This case is a little different. It illustrates what happens to you once people get the idea you can tackle performance problems.
The division director had been promoted and I was asked if I would “keep an eye on things for a while.” I wound up as the new division director and I was immediately under a lot of pressure to reduce the load rate.
QUESTION: If you were in my shoes, what would you want to know?
© Fred Nickols 2015

20. Load Rate Here is the structure of the Load Rate problem.
REVIEW the problem(s).
First time around: I got more work.
Second time around: I collapsed space.
Let’s look now more generally at what we’ve been discussing.
© Fred Nickols 2015

21. $$ Performance Domains Operational Financial Human
REVIEW three domains = Performance Architecture
EMPHASIZE all three are linked
EMPHASIZE all three have very different structures:
Financial = arithmetic
Operational = stocks and flows = systems
Human = psychological = GAP-ACT (Target Model)
EMPHASIZE you, as trainers, benefit from having models for all three domains
Let’s wrap up with some tips and a wee bit of theory…
© Fred Nickols 2015

22. PI Tips for Trainers Seek and ye shall find
Keep your eyes and ears open
Ask lots of questions, especially “why” questions
Listen past the answers
Tweaking trumps reengineering
Movement is the enemy
Do it once; better yet, don’t do it at all
Situate control in the performer
Look for disruptions to time on task
Keep it simple
Draw pictures !!!
REVIEW the tips, elaborate as necessary
SEGUE Remember the individual and environmental diagram at the beginning of this session? Well, we’re going there again – by way of Tom Gilbert and Douglas McGregor.
First, Tom Gilbert.
© Fred Nickols 2015

23. Tom Gilbert Gilbert’s Third Leisurely Theorem:
“For any given accomplishment, a deficiency in performance always has as its immediate cause a deficiency in a behavior repertory (P), or in the environment that supports the repertory (E) or in both. But its ultimate cause will be found in a deficiency of the management system (M).”
Gilbert’s distinction between individual and environmental factors affecting performance usually stays at just that: a simple distinction between the two.
But what Tom also pointed to is “Ultimate Cause”: a deficiency of the management system.
Tom wasn’t alone. Roughly ten years earlier, Douglas McGregor was pointing to the same distinction and implied responsibility.
Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (1978), p.76.
© Fred Nickols 2015

24. Douglas McGregor
“…the performance P of an individual at work in an industrial organization is a function of certain characteristics of the individual I, including his knowledge, skills, motivation, attitudes and certain aspects of the environmental situation E, including the nature of his job, the rewards associated with his performance, and the leadership provided him.
P = f (I a,b,c…E m,n,o)
Note that McGregor used “leadership” instead of “management” but it’s essentially the same thing.
McGregor also gave us this wonderful notational form for expressing this important distinction:
Together, Gilbert and McGregor give us the performance pie.
The Professional Manager (1967), p.5
© Fred Nickols 2015

25. The Performance PIE
This is nothing more than a convenient device for keeping in mind the two major classes of factors that determine job performance.
In more detail, the performance PIE allows us to put and see training in its proper context.
© Fred Nickols 2015

26. Training in Context
The context for training is as part of a system for enabling and ensuring acceptable job performance.
As part of that system, training isn’t limited to simply doing as asked but is also responsible for taking the initiative to study and understand the entire system of which it is a part and for working with others to ensure that the total system is functioning properly.
Trainers have every right to study the situation, ask questions and make recommendations – and they don’t have to position themselves as human performance technologists to do so.
That said, I will tell you a story about an event that transpired at the end of the FAF project we covered earlier.
RELATE Bob Solomon’s questioning of me and his question to me: “Why do you go around pretending to be a trainer?”
© Fred Nickols 2015

27. Recommended Reading Roadmaps to Results
Serendipitous Performance Consulting
Finding the Bottom-Line Payoff for Training
Training: A Strategic View
Why those Darn “Training” Problems Won’t Go Away
Everything we’ve touched on today is covered in more detail in articles on my web site. They’re free for individual use.
This PowerPoint presentation is also out there if you have need or use for anything from it.
© Fred Nickols 2015

28. Q & A
Questions, anyone?
© Fred Nickols 2015

29. Contact Information
Fred Nickols, CPT
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
812 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303
Mount Vernon, OH 43050
(740)
© Fred Nickols 2015