Changing the Private and Institutional RTO Mindset!

I am constantly amazed by the poor offering provided to business enterprises by the majority of private and Institutional RTO's. Time and time again I see these RTOs offering training that is primarily classroom-based learning together with something they call “workplace training or workplace coaching” that is not workplace-based at all, but where the employee leaves the floor of the workplace to work one-on-one with the coach “assessor” usually on a written assessment of a unit of competency.

Perhaps these RTO’s don’t understand enterprise learning best practice?   Or they don’t want to align their training to enterprise learning practices?  Or maybe it’s that they don’t understand their customer’s needs for learning in an enterprise-based model?

But I think it may be a combination of all three, brought on by a loss of skill sets to interpret the learning needs of business enterprises.

However, this is good for my business as I have many enterprise business clients that contract my company to re-align their current and future training to enterprise learning best practice and then work with the RTO to ensure the enterprise’s needs are met. For an explanation of Enterprise-Based Learning please see my previous blog post “The Enterprise Learning Model”.

I was recently speaking with an energy retailer, who had signed off on a new training program for their call centre customer service agents based on the Certificate III in Customer Contact. This organisation wanted a workplace skills-based program but what they got was essentially an off-the-job training program and a rehash of their old program with a little bit of tinkering at the edges of sales and customer service training.

But I'm afraid that this organisation is going to be just as disappointed with this new program as it was with its old program, because nothing has changed as it’s a training program to complete a qualification rather than to enhance the functional job role of employees. A typical example within this “new” training program was a section on personal effectiveness that utilised Stephen Covey’s time management matrix and quadrant descriptors. The only problem was that in the process of writing it into their training materials, Covey's quadrant matrix was converted into a Cartesian coordinate system! That's right; someone had applied a low-high scale of importance and a low-high scale of urgency on an x-y axis, turning the whole quadrant matrix into nonsense.

But that wasn't the worst of it; for the previous two years this RTO's trainers had been facilitating this nonsense to the organisation's employees and not one trainer had noticed the error. And even if that wasn't substandard enough, when the error was brought to the attention of the RTO their stock answer was that their client had signed off on the program; apparently it was better to go with an error after training in it for two years than to admit a mistake and correct it!

Is it any wonder that business enterprises have become disillusioned with the ability of the majority of RTO's to offer enterprise-based learning practices that support the functional job roles of employees? That is, training that is provided as skills-based delivered within the workplace in a formative learning methodology. Where learning is a continuous process that happens on-the-job and assessment is actual workplace performance at the required level.

I think the main problem is that many RTO’s have lost the skills and ability to conduct an enterprise-based TNA (training needs analysis) and then translate this information into functional job role complex skill sets, map these skill sets to competencies, but then design learning materials and programs to the skill sets not the competencies. Thus providing training to the needs of the employer’s functional job roles rather than training just for a qualification.

The Stephen R Covey Time Management Matrix on YouTube: What Stephen R. Covey Taught Me About Time Management
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODyG5lKbH08

Developing a Learning Culture - A Learning Organisation

To be competitive in today's market place organisations have an ever increasing need to future-proof their competitive advantage through a rapidly evolving and dynamic learning culture. The pace of change quickens and the need for organisations to keep up with this change is an ongoing challenge, which must be met if continued success is to be achieved. Organisations have many challenges not the least being, changes in economic climates both in Australia and internationally, changing markets, changes in technology, changes in the structure of organisations and changes in the culture within organisations. The organisations best able to adapt to these changes are those that are open and willing to adapt by building an inclusive Learning Culture in which all its members are given the opportunity and the capability to excel.

Enterprise learning & development practitioners understand that an effective Learning and Development system must be aligned with organisational objectives, strategic goals and business outcomes. Many organisations make the mistake of cutting back their learning and development in times of economic downturn, however, the learning organisation will maintain and often increase learning during these times to ensure the organisation has the edge now and is prepared for future growth. Learning organisations understand that it is critical that learning and development is designed to fit the specific needs of the organisation with the flexibility to grow and develop as the business grows and develops.

So, how does an organisation embrace and develop a learning culture?

First, there has to be an understanding that learning happens all the time by everyone in the workplace and not just to gain a qualification whether vocational education and training (VET) or higher education (HE). In fact accredited qualifications often only form a small part in the learning culture of th the learning organisation.

The organisation needs to systematically change the way that learning is structured and presented within the organisation, so let's have a look at the The Enterprise Learning and Organisational Development Capability Model, developed through research conducted by ERTOA (Enterprise Registered Training Organisation Association). This process re-defines learning within the organisation and redirects it into the workplace where all job role performance strengthens knowledge, skill and attitude acquisition that becomes a learning culture within a learnng organisation.



Explanatory Notes:
1.The corporate goals and objectives, underpinned by the corporate values and vision, determine the strategic needs of the enterprise and provide a strategic foundation for business operations.
2.The first phase of the Training Needs Analysis (TNA) commences with an understanding and mapping of corporate initiatives, business operations including business outcomes, any legislative and compliance requirements, policies and procedures, position descriptions and work level standards and instructions.•Work instructions detail the tasks and activities required to carry out particular work components. The work instruction is the source document for identifying the job skills (competencies), knowledge, and where appropriate the physical attributes required to carry-out the work.
•Many of the business operations within an enterprise will share common skills and knowledge requirements. The enterprise work instructions are the source documents for the development of position descriptions and sign-off processes that ensure that the needs of key position description stakeholders (including training and development) are reflected.
•Policies, procedure manuals and position descriptions are the source documents for the development of specific training and development programs. Each position will be associated with an appropriate training program and each employee assigned to a given position will have a training requirement that reflects the associated training program

3.The final phase of the TNA is the authenticating and mapping of actual workplace practices and workplace performance levels. Mapping to national competencies is also undertaken within this phase, along with individual and team training needs analysis (TNA) to determine recognition of current competency toward recognition of prior learning (RPL). •Actual workplace practices and performance levels should align to the first stage of the TNA. Most particularly business operations, work level standards and work instructions, Policies and procedures, and position description requirements.
•If non-alignment is determined, then interventions may need to be developed to re-align workplace practices, organisational documentation, strategic goals and business outcomes.
•Workplace skills, knowledge and attitudes identified within the TNA are mapped to training package units of competency to quantify and qualify workplace complex skills sets against national competencies.
•Also within this phase, the skills and knowledge of an employee assigned to a particular position are assessed against the defined requirements of the position using an agreed standard process and template (i.e. an individual training needs analysis).
•Current skills and knowledge relevant to the position are formally recognized (RPL) and the employee undertakes only those components of the training program designed to develop the skills and knowledge found to be lacking, i.e. individual and team training plan (6).

4.Design of learning content, training support and assessment materials can now be undertaken with an understanding of the organisation’s strategic gaol and business objectives and the results from the training needs analysis.•Enterprise instructional design utilises the Formative Learning and Assessment Methodology. That is, workplace-based learning where the employee is supported, encouraged, motivated, provided feedback and opportunities to consolidate learning and assessment of actual performance over a period of time and in various situations.
•Previously mapped units of Competency, performance criteria, are included in the design of learning content and assessment criteria included assessment materials.
•Within formative learning and assessment processes, workplace coaching is formalised and structured. However, workplace coaching is encouraged to become an informal structured process supporting the learning culture of the organisation. Hence informal coached learning becomes a standard workplace process.
•Off-the-job learning only takes place when no other viable workplace option is available. It is preferred that off-the-job learning be utilised only for critical knowledge acquisition, as facilitated group work rather than traditional classroom-based lecture type learning and undertaken within an onsite training facility.
•This instructional design model is utilised to produce holistic training programs that supports the development of a workplace learning culture and the Learning Organisation. Equally, the same instructional design model is utilised to produce organisational development interventions that supports change management.
•The final stage of instructional design is to build into the materials appropriate Training Evaluation measures and Return-on-Investment measurements.

5.The work instructions, procedure manuals, skill and competency register and position description documentation can provide valuable source data for other HR processes including workforce planning, recruitment, performance management and succession planning. These Human Resource documents must be included in the TNA.
6.Team & Individual training plans; within the final phase of the TNA, a Gap Analysis is undertaken to determine team and individual current competencies and what further training needs to be completed. Individual employees have had their current competencies recognised (under RPL) and only undertake those sections of the training program that provide them with the competencies they need to complete to perform at the required level within their functional job role.
7.Planned training and development programs are delivered and the training outcomes assessed as appropriate. Assessment processes that are applied to training and job performance are robust and valid and satisfy AQTF 2010 quality standards and are mapped to relevant Training Package performance criteria. If needed, the assessment outcomes can be used to confirm the achievement of Training Package competencies and the issue of nationally recognised qualifications to employees.
8.Unlike private and institutional training providers (RTO); training package competencies and qualifications are not the raison d'etre for learning but rather a by-product of the training needs analysis of functional job roles. Mapped units of competency, assessment outcomes and the issue of qualifications is a side effect of enterprise learning and not the reason to undertake learning. In this process, the enterprise RTO or contracted private or institutional RTO only verify assessment outcomes and issue qualifications.
9.All training programs and organisational development interventions are evaluated to provide feedback for continuous improvement to materials design and the training needs analysis, and also measured to calculate the value of return-on-investment.•The enterprise strategy for the evaluation of training is implemented and provides feedback through the agreed and understood quality assurance and risk management processes to ensure continuous improvement.
•Training evaluation feeds directly into design and as a back loop into the Training Needs Analysis so that training programs, learning materials design and functional job role requirements maintain alignment and provide immediate response to continuous improvement.
•Return-on-Investment (ROI) measures are built into all training program; training is evaluated in one of five ROI levels culminating in calculation on business impact and dollar value supporting the organisational goals and business outcomes.
•As there must a positive value to the enterprise in providing enterprise based learning to its employees, the five evaluation levels of Return-on-Investment are provided to the Human Resources and Business Operations departments. Invariably these are used to justify training budgets and the value of various training programs supporting organisational goals. Many organisations utilise ROI evaluation to determine how a new program will be adopted and implemented.

Does the 70/20/10 rule developed in the 1980’s and 1990’s apply to enterprise learning and development in 2012?

This is Part Two: The 70/20/10 Rule.

In January 2012, a white paper was developed and published by Deakin Prime Corporate Education, Deakin University, titled ‘Demystifying 70:20:10’. Learning and performance consultant, Charles Jennings, has a much more in-depth background history, details other research and practical approaches in his August 2011 blog ‘Social & Workplace Learning through the 70:20:10 Lens’.

Needless to say that the 70:20:10 concept has been documented as:
• 70% of learning comes from on-the-job experiences, tasks, and problem solving;
• 20% from feedback and from working around good role models, coaches and mentors; and
• 10% from formal off-the-job training, learning and education courses.

However, this caveat must be applied to the 70:20:10 percentages as is not an exact prescription but rather, a working concept or framework.

I still have a problem with the concept, along with many of my colleagues, particularly the idea that “feedback and from working around good role models, coaches and mentors” is a lowly 20%. Workplace Learning doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it is developed and supported within a learning culture where learning takes place all the time by everyone. Therefore, coaching feedback from co-workers and good role models are a continuous process and the essence that binds on-the-job experiences, tasks, and problem solving into workplace learning.

Hence, the 20% concept of co-worker feedback and coaching is highly inaccurate and I believe that if it were limited in such a fashion it would decrease the effectiveness of a learning culture. It would be more accurate to say it’s a 90:10 concept rather than limiting co-worker coaching to a minor 20% role.

The Deakin Prime white paper appears to be a rigid rather than dynamic approach to the model as demonstrated in the “Interpretation of 70:20:10” where enterprises have apparently been asked to supply examples of where their learning programs fit into 70:20:10 model. Many enterprises have interpreted the 20% as strictly formal coaching or mentoring, while others have limited learning from co-worker and peers to a mere 20%.

The other problem I see in the Deakin Prime white paper is within their “Advice for effective practice” where they are more concerned with promoting a model that in reality sits behind learning materials design and learning practices. The advice that “educating both managers and their teams about the model …or setting targets such as a date by which managers complete 70:20:10 conversations with their staff”, indicates an educational institution getting bogged down in the model rather than understanding the dynamic enterprise learning concept that sits behind workplace learning practices.

While Heads of enterprise learning & development Departments may have conversations with the organisational senior management team relating to the concepts siting behind learning materials design and learning practices, business enterprises are more concerned with learning practices that directly support their competitive advantage.

The dynamic interpretation of 70:20:10: may well encompass: workplace learning of anything between 50% -100% and co-worker coaching and mentoring is often not 20% but in unison with workplace learning at the same percentage of between 50-100%. Also, in my experience as an enterprise L&D manager and practitioner, many workplace learning programs have no formal off-the-job training, learning or education course requirements.

Hence, to promote a workplace learning concept, conceptualised and developed by academics working within educational institutions rather than enterprise-based workplace learning practitioners is a recipe for disaster. The Deakin Prime white paper is a typical example of an educational institution becoming hooked on the model rather than the substance or investigating obvious discrepancies within the model.

I would prefer an enterprise learning model designed by enterprise learning practitioners, which is sufficiently dynamic to be applied in all enterprise learning situations and practices.

I don’t believe that 70:20:10 is an acceptable model for the full gamut of practices within enterprise-based learning.

The Enterprise Learning Model

Does the 70/20/10 rule developed in 1996 still apply to enterprise learning and development in 2012?

I'm going to divide this question into two parts. Firstly I'm going to discuss the Enterprise Learning Model and substantiate that model from research I conducted of Enterprise RTO's and Enterprise Learning and Development Departments in 2009 with the assistance of the Enterprise RTO Association (ERTOA). In the second part of this question I will examine the 70/20/10 Model and discuss how it aligns or otherwise to the Enterprise Learning Model.

So let's begin with Part One: The Enterprise Learning Model

The industry model 'Enterprise Learning' is the learning concepts, processes and activities that fulfil all the learning and development needs of an organisation, primarily through workplace-based learning, training and coaching aligned to and supporting organisational strategic goals and business outcomes. Nationally recognised vocational education and training (VET) and higher education learning often only comprises a small percentage of overall Enterprise Learning activities.

Enterprise Learning is primarily workplace-based learning that is undertaken all of the time by everyone in the workplace and is coached and supported by all other team members, team leaders, supervisors and line managers. In Enterprise Learning there is high participation in informal and formal coaching and mentoring providing good role models. If assessment is required for learning competency, then assessment is undertaken in the workplace mostly as actual performance and usually includes the organisation's performance management processes.

Workplace-based learning is support through creative instructional design content contextualised to the workplace and often includes organisational procedures, policies, operations manuals and technical material, in fact anything and everything that supports the way business is conducted within the organisation. Everyone utilises this content, not just those undertaking a formal qualification, but everyone. Everyone can receive coaching and is able to give coaching, thus promoting a learning culture.

Whereas, off-the-job formal learning is only undertaken as an absolute last resort where no other appropriate delivery method can be provided, rather than the first option for learning.

I found that my research supported the Enterprise Learning Model. When enterprise learning and development departments were asked in the survey how often they would use on-the-job workplace training as their primary delivery methodology, 95% of enterprises stated that on-the-job workplace training is their primary training delivery methodology.

Enterprises were then questioned on their preferred learning and assessment process, whether formative or summative? All enterprises (100%) stated that they preferred a formative learning and assessment process. That is, activities that are directed at supporting, encouraging, motivating and enhancing learning with a purpose to inform employees (learners) on their progress and provide guidance and opportunity for improvement.

Where formal summative assessment is required, 89.6% of enterprises use actual performance in the workplace with an enterprise workplace assessor and a further 71% of enterprises utilise performance management measures within the assessment process.

Conversely, only 6% of enterprises stated that their primary assessment process was off-the-job assessment at an off-site external training facility utilising written examinations or tests. Very few enterprises (about 3%) utilise online or e-learning assessment even though a high proportion of enterprises (about 51%) also utilise online learning and/or e-learning. No enterprise uses distance assessment or learner self-assessment.

Enterprise Learning’s principle purpose is to ensure that employees have the skills, Knowledge and attitudes to excel in their function job role to enhance the organisation’s competitive advantage and actively support the organisation’s strategic goals and business outcomes.

Therefore, the Enterprise Learning Model can be prescribed as the following:

1. About 90% of enterprise learning comes from workplace on-the-job experiences, tasks, and problem solving within a structured workplace continuous improvement process, where all employees participate in continuous learning, not just those undertaking formal learning such as a VET qualification. Structural frameworks that support enterprise learning include:
• Contextualised materials that support the business functions of the workplace and may include performance management measures to indicate actual level of workplace performance. Those employees undertaking a formal VET qualification, for example, would have their qualification competencies contextualised within workplace learning, but may also have a larger proportion of formal training and assessment activities conducted within the context of workplace learning.
• Coaching and mentoring can be both an informal and formal process, coaching occurs at any time within the workplace to support, encourage, motivate and enhance learning with a purpose to inform employees on their progress and provide guidance and opportunity for improvement within their functional job roles.
2. About 10% of enterprise learning comes from formal off-the-job training, learning and/or education courses. Formal enterprise learning may include dedicated Enterprise Trainer/Assessors (TAE10 skill set) that also provide formal off-the-job and on-the-job training and assessment activities.

Is there going to be variation within this Model? - absolutely.  This model may have variations within the same organisation as it is a Model that is customised to the workplace and functional job role requirements. 

Some Philosophical Questions...

Over the next weeks, I'm going to ask and investigate some philosophical Enterprise Learning & Development questions, such as:

• Does the 70/20/10 rule developed in 1996 still apply to enterprise learning and development in 2012? I conducted research of Enterprise RTO's and Enterprise Learning and Development Departments in 2009 with the assistance of the Enterprise RTO Association and the findings of that research are extremely interesting and show a widening of the gap between enterprise learning practices and institutional/private RTO methodologies and practices.

• Why is it, that today's young enterprise learning and development practitioners seem to be missing the critical practical skills of organisational learning and organisational development that was such an important aspect of the L&D skill set? Why is it, that we are also seeing a lack of business acumen in new enterprise L&D practitioners? Where has the basic skills sets of enterprise-based L&D practitioners gone?

• The ultimate goal of an Organisational Development Practitioner is to work themselves out of a job, that is to equip an organisation's leadership team with OD renewable tools, practices and systems that supports the enterprise's organisational development renewal and has been embedded within the Enterprise's learning and development department. Then why is it, that the OD function seem to have become separated from the enterprise learning and development function where development has always meant organisational development? And further, why is the OD practitioner now a permanent functional position that is apparently working separately and disconnected from the learning and development department?

• And finally, what has happened to enterprise-based Instructional Design? More and more, I'm coming across design materials in enterprises that have been written by people who plainly do not understand business acumen and do not understand the concepts of enterprise learning. So where has great instructional design and creative writing gone?

An Introduction Perhaps...

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce Enterprise Learning and Development, (EL&D) is a newly formed Consultancy specialising in organisational development, enterprise-based learning & development, instructional design and creative writing, RTO compliance and RTO partnering.

Practitioners Kate Stewart-Moore and Rob Conwell have a lifetime of knowledge and practical experience in these key business enterprise functions and strategic development areas.

Kate Stewart-Moore has over 20 years’ experience in Human Resource Management; Learning and Development Management; Facilitation; and Instructional Design and Creative Writing. Kate has been at the forefront Workforce Planning, Organisational Development Innovation and best practice within the private and government business enterprise sectors in New South Wales and South Australia.

Rob Conwell has championed best practice in Enterprise Learning, Organisational Development and Enterprise-Based Instructional Design for more than 20 years. Most recently, Rob has successfully taken the retail pharmacy chain, National Pharmacies, through change management to embrace best practice enterprise learning and organisational development aligned to strategic goals and busines outcomes with a measured return on investment supporting increased revenue growth within the organisation.

As highly skilled enterprise learning and development practitioners we are able to provide a personalised and contextualised service to:

• Assist an enterprise through change management;
• Design and implement an organisation’s learning and development practices and systems aligned to strategic goals and business outcomes, that supports the development of a learning culture and is measured against revenue growth;
• Design, development and implementation of performance management, leadership, management development and talent management programs;
• Best practice Instructional Design and Creative Writing that supports the organisations’ competitive advantage by designing enterprise learning unique to the specific needs of the organisation;
• Design, develop and facilitate enterprise specific customer service programs guaranteed to increase sales and customer service excellence;
• RTO Partnering – assisting an enterprise to engage with an RTO as a business partner to provide services in enterprise learning best practice methodologies; and,
• Assisting Enterprise RTO’s through compliance issues and/or audit.