REACTIVE TRAINING – THE CANCER WITHIN

Over the years, I’ve seen numerous organizations trying to evolve the culture of their operations and maintenance departments toward that ever elusive goal of “world class” (total quality, best of something, excellence something, etc.).  This typically involves changing a reactive culture to one that embodies a proactive approach where things like planning and scheduling, procedures, inventory control, preventive maintenance, root cause failure analysis, workforce development, et al prevail as key considerations.  There are of course many others and subsets to those cited but let’s focus on workforce development and training, specifically, an approach called reactive training. 

Many of you are probably scratching your head because this term or concept is unfamiliar to you.  I guarantee that you have been a victim, quite unaware, and likely are either perpetuating or participating in this type of training.  As the title suggests, reactive training can be categorized as a cancer.  Sounds kind of harsh and it most certainly can be.  Think of how a cancer affects a healthy individual – intrusive, quietly spreading, destroying vital organs, affecting the quality of life, destroying relationships/lives, and placing tremendous strains on the financial wherewithal of those affected to deal with this crisis. 

Let me leave that thought just a moment to define reactive training.   Simply stated, reactive training is a general lack of training or an intervention that tries to increase the skill and/or knowledge level of an individual/department only AFTER a negative event has occurred.  Notice the words “lack”, “tries” and “after a negative event”.

Having defined reactive training, let’s apply the cancer metaphor.  As you read this passage, keep in mind that each statement involves a significant training element.

q       The plant is running smoothly and the workforce appears to be reasonably competent.  Training gets the budget axe and the cancer starts (could be anytime and you could be at any point).

q       Turnover becomes an issue and you don’t have the resources to adequately training new hires.  Conditions begin to deteriorate.

q       Your supervisors are already strapped and are unable to provide adequate direction and oversight for both new hires and job incumbents.  The cancer is growing.

q       Process upsets and equipment issues are routine – you come to realize that maybe my people don’t know since they’re supposed to as they have never received any formal training.  The disease is advancing and becoming widespread. 

q       Supervisors are frustrated with workers who appear to be making things worse rather than better and workers are frustrated with supervisors for a lack of direction and technical support.  The disease is having a debilitating effect, much like the advanced stages.

With this scenario, one can easily see how the cancer can start, propagate and grow.  One can also see that recovery will not be easy and likely will be very painful.      

Let’s lighten things up a little bit.  Living in the southeastern US, I’ve become quite fond of Jeff Foxworthy’s brand of humor.  Most have probably heard some of his “You Might be a Red-neck if…” jokes and can relate to and laugh at a few.  Let me juxtapose his approach into the training world to give you an idea of what I’m talking about.

Your training might be reactive if…

…the front tines on your fork lift look like sleigh skids

…you invested in all new automated equipment and cut the training budget in half to justify the cost

…you’ve been fined by the EPA because of a spill and waited for them to mandate employee training

…your people still don’t know why you can’t use the computer CD drive as a cup holder.

…the only formal training you’re people ever received is from the school of hard knocks

…you average an OSHA recordable accident a month and that’s an improvement.

…you leave money in your training budget at the end of every fiscal year and think that’s a major accomplishment

…your favorite line is ‘git er done’

Seriously though, the reactive training approach is far too prevalent.  Just as we’ve heard the difference between reactive and proactive maintenance, training is by no means any different.  In fact, this kind of training, or a general lack of training can be far worse than reactive maintenance.  Let me explain why.  Although reactive maintenance is far from being a desirable approach to equipment maintenance, it does keep the equipment and plant operating, although not very effectively or efficiently.   The plant does, however, keep operating.  How well or long do you think an asset, even under these circumstances, is going to run under the direction of someone improperly or inadequately trained?  Not very long and I suggest to you that it happens far more frequently than most people think or want to admit.

There is a predisposition on the part of management and engineering departments to think/suggest that the latest computer-based wiz-bang or electronic gizmotron will be the next “be-all and end-all” to whatever ails your plant, including work performance and training problems.  I have news for you.  It’s only part of the answer, may be the wrong answer, and often ends up adding to the problem.  You not only haven’t trained your workforce well in the past but now you’re adding additional technical training demands that likely require a higher degree of sophistication, knowledge and skill.  How well do think that’s going to go?

Here’s an interesting question – Golf is an absolute passion for many.  So what’s more important, the skill of the player or the equipment the player uses?  Some would argue the equipment.  It’s all in the equipment.  Others will argue that a good golfer will make lousy equipment look great.  Golf actually serves as a good metaphor to discuss some of these issues.  With each scenario listed below, ask yourself if a difference can be made by adjusting equipment or doing something about the competency of this individual.  Notice that I’ve included a comparable business equivalent.  

If you look at these scenarios objectively, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine a player with a handicap approaching 30 (not good for those unfamiliar with the game).   No amount of expensive, cutting edge, equipment technology is going to rescue this individual under any circumstances.  In golf, handicaps provide mediocre and poor players with a means of competing with individuals who are much more competent.  Unfortunately, business can’t “level” work or performance expectation in invoking a handicap to make up the for a deficiency and neither will automation or a significant capital project that replaces some antiquated equipment.  So getting back to the original premise, you be the judge.

I’ve come to be convinced that people want to do the right thing and to do a proper job.  Certainly there’s a sense of pride in achieving this and an added sense of job security if one knows that (s)he is accomplishing assigned tasks as expected or keep their skills updated to match the requirements of the equipment they’re running or maintaining.  How can one reasonably expect this to be so if the time is NOT taken to properly train your employees?  Basic human nature and psychology suggests that there’s nothing more frustrating for an individual than to try to accomplish a task when:

q       you’re not sure how to do something but feel you’ll be considered inept is you ask

q       you haven’t received even so much as a briefing on what is expected to be done but your performance is supposed to be top-notch

q       you don’t know if what you’re doing is meaningful

q       you don’t have the right tools, skills, or knowledge

Failure to provide even the most basic training can be a morale buster and as numerous studies have shown, low morale leads to poor work quality and results in a loss of productivity.

Here’s the message you give the troops with proactive training.  We care about you and we want to help you do your job better by providing you with training that enables you to …problem solve, order the right parts, predict issues, increase service/product quality, do the job right the FIRST time, and do the job safely. Nothing you do at your plant will send a stronger, louder message and have a more profound impact than to recognize the need for effective, timely, and appropriate training.  The results are easily demonstrable.  Here are a few things you should be able to realize:

q       employee buy in, feedback, and money saving ideas

q       more uptime

q       fewer replacements and repairs

q       increased efficiency

q       better morale

q       better productivity

q       fewer safety incidents or infractions

Experts suggest that reactive maintenance costs 3 to 5 times what proactive maintenance could have prevented.  So what does reactive training cost?  The numbers vary greatly and are influenced by a variety of factors including type of industry, plant age, product type, regulatory oversight, and area demographics just to name a few.  I suggest to you that the numbers are comparable when comparing a proactive and reactive training approach.   Now if you don’t have a significant annual training budget, this ratio might be significantly higher.  There are a few areas that tend to be fairly common across a broad range of industries regardless of what you make.  So let’s restate the question – how much does training cost you?

Be honest when you look at these.  There’s a tendency to think that these items are what some call “the cost of doing business”.  There is a cost of doing business but not for any one of the listed items.  As I mentioned earlier, type of industry, public risk and the severity of the parameter has a significant bearing on cost (operations and maintenance budgets, among other).  Each of these parameters can easily be addressed and rectified with an appropriate and targeted training intervention.  When you think about the costs associated with any one of these parameters, it should become apparent that an appropriate budget expenditure should be easily justifiable and will likely be significantly less than what your reactive world is currently looking like.  The improvement in efficiency, quality, reliability, and safety will easily justify the investment and exorcise the training cancer once and for all. 

Manfred R. Smith is a Senior Consultant for Smith and Associates, Inc. of North Augusta, SC who develops training programs and changes workforce cultures of industrial clients.  Questions or comments on this article can be submitted to Manfred@smithaa.net.