0242620
This essay will evaluate contemporary criticism of the systematic training model; explore the scope and limitations for improving its application. This will be carried out by review current literature on the topic.
The Manpower Services Commission (1981) define systematic training as:
“Training undertaken on a planned basis as a result of applying a logical series of steps. In practice the number and description of step vary but in general terms they would cover such aspects as development of training policy, identification of training needs, development of training objectives and plans, implementation of planned training, validation, evaluation an review of training.”
The Industrial Training Boards originated the concept of systematic training in the 1960’s. (Armstrong 1999), Though the concept of a planned training cycle was first used during the war to train draftees (Gordon and Zemke 2001, Clark 2000). Prior to the 1960’s training was carried out ad hoc, with training only provided for a minority of skilled employees such as apprentices (Taylor 1991). Gibb (2002) states that it is from this period where the major problem perceived to be clearly identified were skill shortages, which required large-scale interventions to address them. These skill shortages meant that, by the end of the 1950’s Britain was lagging behind its European competitors (Taylor 1991). Training is defined as learning that is provided in order to improve performance on the present job (Clark 2000). According to Wills (1994) companies who take training seriously, tend to be more successful, though he does go on to explain that good training does not guarantee results.
Adopting a systematic approach to training helps ensure that supervisors are getting the most out of themselves and their employees. A systematic approach to training includes taking the time to analyse what results the organisation needs from its employees, if employees are accomplishing those results, and what training and development approaches are needed by employees to better accomplish those results. A systematic approach includes evaluating approaches before, during and after training to ensure employees truly benefited from the training in terms of enhanced results to the organization (McNamara 1999). Gordon and Zemke (2001) explain that the systematic training model is the fruit of a long and valiant effort to turn training from an art into a science. The ultimate goal was to devise a “technology” of instruction, a process that, used as directed, would produce predictable, reliable results in learning. The biggest assumption with all training models is that the organisation has a clear view of where it is heading (Wills 1994) that may have been the case in the 1960’s. The need for employee training has increased significantly over recent years, the fact being that when properly implemented training can have a desirable impact on the bottom line of an organisation (Hughey and Mussong 1997).
Taylor (1991) continues to explain that the 1960’s brought about a technological boom within British industry, and hence came the emergence of systems thinking, a rational, logical outlook. This is the conceptual context that brought about the systematic training model. Systematic training is training which is specifically designed to meet defined needs (Armstrong 1999). Before any significant training is expended to address a performance problem, it is important that an assessment is carried out to ensure that the training will solve the problem (United States Department of Energy 1995) Though the model provides a good basis for planning training programmes, it is over simplified, training is a more complex process than carrying out set tasks in a routine order (Armstrong 1999). By setting objectives, these objectives themselves can be limiting, as other valuable training may be missed if it doesn’t fit to those objectives (Taylor 1991). There is an urge to maintain the training process as a distinct stand-alone process, it then has the potential of becoming inflexible and insensitive to change (Wills 1994). The United States Department of Energy, since 1995 have been using a version of the systematic training model for all it’s safety training. The author feels that safety training is one area where the systematic training model is beneficial, not only because in safety there are clear objectives, but because of legal requirements associated to this area of training.
To attain the level of training desired in the 1960’s meant being more systematic, and that required professionals exploring needs and organising courses. But because this was not properly grounded in specific performance needs of actual businesses, teams and individuals, it more often meant spending on generic courses and initiatives. This created a detachment of training from the business, so that training was done, but not necessarily in the right direction (Gibb 2002). Perhaps the single most obvious, and important assumption is that under this model training is seen as an investment for the organisation (Taylor 1991). Wills (1994) estimated that only 10% of employee development, the other 90% are gained from elsewhere in the organizational functioning, So is this separation of training from the business wise? Wills goes on to say that there are several dangers in considering the training process in isolation, the most prevalent of which is that the training will have little relevance to either the needs of the employee or the needs of the organisation.
Systematic training is best characterised as being a strategy where the training process is managed by professionals, whose specific job is to handle training whether on or off the job training. But in either case the emphasis is on the professional trainers taking the leading role (Gibb 2002). Taylor (1991) states that the systematic training model is meant to be both a mirror of and a contributor to, the general strategic management process. While Wills (1994) argues that for training to become an essential and integral part of the business strategy the business’s needs need to be regularly assessed to identify key skills gaps. Gibb (2002) continues that that the emphasis on professionals designing and implementing training programmes means that the whole training process is owned and controlled by the professional, which he feels is a source of potential problems. This ownership by the professional trainers means that insufficient emphasis is placed on the responsibilities of managers and individuals for training (Armstrong 1999). During the first stage of analysis the trainer may not be able to get a clear view of the aims of the organisation (Taylor 1991). Part of the problem, as we’ve seen, is that inward focus that concentrates the designer’s attention on building the “right” kind of training program instead of addressing a real business issue (Gordon and Zemke 2001). Some say that systematic models take a "top-down" behaviourist and subject-matter-expert approach to learning instead of championing a constructivist approach. But, training has traditionally been task driven by discovering how experts perform their jobs and then mirroring this performance in the learning environment (Clark 2000). The whole systematic training model is based on the assumption of stupid learners and superior experts (Gordon and Zemke 2001). In a world brimming with doctors, lawyers and software engineers, the picture of the hapless learner and the brilliant instructional designer is not just arrogant, it’s silly. More than that, it flies in the face of what is actually known about adult learners’ ability and motivation to manage their own learning (Gordon and Zemke 2001). The model assumes that people all learn in the same manner, but people are motivated in different ways to learn (Taylor 1991). Adults learn more effectively when allowed to talk about their own experiences, for this there needs to be flexibility within the training programme (Hughey and Mussong 1997). Taylor (1991) states that model has been developed as a means to establish the role of trainer as a skilled profession. Another important factor is that though the model is meant to be a cycle, a one-off injection of training is not enough to improve business performance, training to be effective needs to be ongoing, by cutting the training process into stages it hinders this (Wills 1994)
Boydell (1970) was one of the first authors on the subject (Taylor 1991), he lists a ten-step model, though seemingly a linear model, he did write that it was meant to be iterative. Boydell wrote that this model was only suitable for lower level jobs that are easily analysed. One area where this model is used extensively is in the area of physical training, which a simple Internet search will highlight the emphasis that the models usefulness in clear straightforward tasks only. This limitation of job analysis techniques for high discretion managerial roles is now accepted (Taylor 1991). More recently authors have updated this models to include evaluation throughout the process rather than just at the end of the cycle (Taylor 1991). One important point must be made, the systematic model is a system to aid in the design and development of a training program. It is a valuable toolbox that provides a proven method of building a viable training program. But, the people in the organization must control the training system, the system should not control the people (Clark 2000). In practice, critics charge, systematic training encourages a blind preoccupation with means over ends. Too often, they say, the first thing lost in the systematic training process is the only thing that really matters to anyone in the organization except the trainers: the business problem that was supposed to launch this whole creaking apparatus in the first place. But since the classic systematic training process, from needs analysis through evaluation, starts and ends with a business problem you’re trying to solve, you would think that losing sight of that problem would be difficult (Gordon and Zemke 2001).
There are many different versions of the systematic training model (Taylor 1991). Boydell’s 10-stage model has already been mentioned. Armstrong simply lists four stages, define training needs, decide what sort if training is required to satisfy these needs, use experience and trained trainers to plan and implement training and Follow up and evaluate training to ensure that it is effective. But Clark (2000) describes the following model: analyse the system in order to completely understand it, and then describe the goals you wish to achieve in order to correct any shortcomings or faults within the system. Design a method or model to achieve your goals. Develop the model into a product. Implement the training. Evaluate the training throughout the four phases and in the field to ensure it is heading in the right direction and achieving the desired results.
(Clark 2000)
The Unites States Department of Energy (1995) states that each step must be completed before the next begins, though Clark (2000) argues that the steps in each phase should not be thought of as concrete in nature. That is, one step does not have to be completed before the next one is started. For example, some training designers will have to complete part of the work in the design phase before they can complete the estimate step in the analysis phase. In the development phase, the first three steps, list learner activity, select delivery system, and review existing material, might be combined into one step by many developers. Also, in many instances, steps may be bypassed. For example, if a manager comes to approaches the professional trainer with a specific training problem, the task identification steps will be skipped since the training requirements are known. If the trainer has developed a similar course before, then many steps, such as reviewing existing material and selecting the instructional setting, will only be briefly visited as the process has been carried out before. In practice the first stage is design, due the lack of time for conceptual work and a need to do something (Taylor 1991). During the analysis stage by breaking down the job, the trainer may exclude such as aspects as inter relationships and culture (Taylor 1991). Training must have a purpose and that purpose can be defined only if the learning needs of the organisation and the groups and individuals within it have been systematically identified and analysed (Armstrong 1999). Training cannot be seen as something to be done to the trainee, training involves creating appropriate learning conditions (Taylor 1991). Gibb (2002) states that while the professionals are expert trainers in general, they are not the best placed to identify needs, deliver and evaluate. Revise training system to make it better. (Clark 2000). In reality practitioners make little or no effort to evaluate the training process and its impact on the organisation due to lack of resources (Taylor 1991). This evaluation the United States Department of Energy state should be carried out during and after each stage.
Kenney and Reid (1988) argue that the model is too inflexible, and that more flexibility is needed to take into account so such variables as organisation, culture and values, the goals and priorities of the organisation, the ability of the individuals and groups to accept change, and the perceptions and abilities of trainer and trainee. If there’s one phrase that does not describe systematic training programs, it’s “flexible and easy to change”(Gordon and Zemke 2001). The systematic training model assumes that a job is a known quantity. It assumes the presence of a master performer who knows how to do the job in the best possible way. It assumes we can derive a set of best-practice procedures from that master performer and then teach them to everybody else. But in the reinvention sweepstakes, jobs and procedures are up in the air. There often are no master performers and no best practices (Gordon and Zemke 2001). Gibb (2000) criticises the model for being associated with the bureaucratic use of a formal training program. A frequent criticism is that it is too time-consuming to be practical in the real world. Yet, not knowing the basic procedures for building a learning program leads many novices down the wrong path, which wastes more resources. Once trainers are comfortable then many of the steps can be skimmed over (Gordon and Zemke 2001). Some of the benefits of a system approach are characteristic of all systematic approaches. The systematic training model is a management tool that makes training more efficient. Effective training programs are more likely because the systematic training model increases the probability that the training will match the objectives and not veer off in a different direction. The approach is scientific as it is empirical and can be replicated. The training can be improved and strengthened through data collection and analysis (Gordon and Zemke 2001). Taylor (1995) concludes his thought that the model is at best incomplete and at worst misleading. Though he does agree that the model is basically sound in its concepts. It is only in its application to real situations where problems can arise and gradually by giving more attention to refining techniques at the various stages of the model, these problems can be overcome. Of course, it doesn’t take great foresight to predict that a learning model based on the idea that we’ll all just figure things out together may come up short in as many ways as systematic training does. The alternatives to the systems approach, at this point, are not as well fleshed out as the critique. Considering the kinds of training challenges likely to prevail in the years ahead, however, more work is needs to create a model which provides more flexibly about instructional design than there exists at present (Gordon and Zemke 2001).