Not so long ago, we were giving some thought to the MSHA Part 48 Approved Instructor. And that led us to give some thought to the three-day, Instructor Training sessions that MSHA leads so that people can become Part 48 Approved Instructors and, in turn, deliver Part 48 training to mine site employees (and contractors, etc.). We were fortunate enough to get Jeff Duncan, the Director of Educational Policy and Development at MSHA, to give up some of his own time to tell us more about that program. We’re thankful to Jeff for being so generous with his time to do that. So below we’ve got the highlights of that discussion with Mr. Jeff Duncan of MSHA. We hope you find it interesting and that it sheds more light on the role for of the MSHA Approved Instructor for Part 48. Convergence Training is a training solutions provider with special offerings for companies in mining and mining safety. We offer a mining safety learning management system (LMS); mining safety e-learning courses; other e-learning courses on topics such as general EHS, operations, maintenance, HR, and more. Please contact us to learn more or set up a demo. Also, take a moment while you’re here to download our free guide to Online MSHA Part 46 Compliance. The MSHA Part 48 Approved Instructor Training Sessions In our discussion, we asked Mr. Duncan quite a bit about the Approved Instruction Training sessions. Here are some of the highlights. On Mr. Duncan’s Role in his Directorate Jeff Duncan: My directorate is made up of several components programs. The National Mine Academy is part of my directorate and that’s where we provide training to all of our entry-level journeymen inspectors…incidentally, the National Mine Academy is one of only seven thoroughly chartered academies in the nation, much like West Point in Annapolis or the FBI Academy. We also have a field component, the Educational Field and Small Mines Services. It’s a relatively small MSHA group by comparison, but we have folks spread out across the country. I believe there’s roughly sixty full-time employees in Educational Field and Small Mine Services when we’re fully staffed. They provide training more directly to mine operators and the miners. They assist them in developing training plans, and we do instructor evaluations through the Educational Field and Small Mine Services. We work with them for important things like helping them understand the importance and actually providing a little bit of training on things like workplace examination. We work very closely with mine operators and miners all across the country through that group. We also have a small policy group herein Arlington and they’re the folks that help me make decisions about any educational policy or regulation issues that come to our attention. And then, beyond that, we also maintain the qualifications and certifications branch in Denver, Colorado, and that’s where we maintain a database of all the instructors-all those folks with any sort of MSHA qualification or certification. On the Purpose of the Instructor Training Program Duncan: Well, the ultimate purpose…is what we’re looking for in this is we want to determine if candidates have the basic ability to provide effective training. Can they communicate effectively? Can they deliver training in a way that the learner is going to kind of get it? The program only touches on basic instructional techniques and provides an understanding of Part 48 Requirements and kind of teaches the instructor how to develop objectives and develop and use evaluation methods. On What In Particular MSHA Feels Make Up Effective Training Techniques Duncan: Well, you know, one of the requirements to get approved as an instructor is to have knowledge of a subject matter that you’re going to teach. We’re looking for that. And then it’s what I said. Can they communicate effectively? Can they deliver the message to the miners? Are the miners going to get it? Do they know how to evaluate the effectiveness of the training? Are they using those evaluations methods throughout the training, o are they just waiting until the end and giving someone a quiz and kind of trying to decide on the tail end whether miners were getting the message throughout the course? We really want to round them out. We’re not going to make teachers out of people in three days, but we want to make sure that they have that basic understanding that there’s a right way to do things and a wrong way…we’ve seen instructors that want to stand in front of a classroom and lecture the entire time. We’ve seen instructors who want to plug a video in and walk away and come back in twenty  minutes and plug another video in. That’ snot what we want. We want to make sure that, however, they’re delivering that training, it’s in a way that miners are going to understand and the training is going to be effective. When you think about how much training miners receive and kind of put that in perspective in relation to the hazards that they’re exposed to, every minute-every hour-of that training is very important. So we want to help these instructors and make sure that they understand how to maximize on that limited time they have with those students. On Evaluating the Effectiveness of Training Duncan: Well, I think from my perspective, the best way to evaluate training is to keep it interactive. Keep the learner involved in the training itself because that gives you a real good opportunity to see if they understand the message, if your delivery is on target. Oftentimes, those evaluations and that interaction actually leads to additional training. We’ve seen miners kind of teach themselves in some of those courses that become very interactive. On How To Apply to Be an Approved Instructor Duncan: The way you apply to become an instructor is your submit a resume to the district manager. The instructor approvals are actually outside of my authority. That’s done by the enforcement programs. The district managers have the authority to approved instructors. On How District Managers Approve People as an Instructor Duncan: Most district managers-when they receive the application, there’s a few things they’re looking for. One, naturally, is that resume that establish your subject matter level, subject matter expertise. But the other thing they’re looking for-most of the district managers look for nowadays is the instructor training course. That you’ve satisfactorily completed that course. Most people are coming to EFS or coming to the academy or to the state grantee or whomever to actually get that training course under their belt and then reply to a district manager for approval. On How Potential Approved Instructors Demonstrate Their Subject Matter Expertise Duncan: That person who wants to become an instructor…has to submit an application to the district manager and, in that application, they would include a resume and that resume would lay out their experiences. I think most of the folks are skilled enough that they’re going to know if-during the class, they’re going to figure out whether you actually have all that experience that you’ve put on your application. On What Happens if A Person Attends the Instructor Training But Doesn’t Pass Duncan: If they don’t successfully complete the course the fist time they take it, we’re hoping that whoever is teaching the course is going to explain to them why, what they need to work on. And hopefully those individuals go out and actually do work on under efficiencies and come back and take the course again. They can take it as many times as they want. We have no limit. They can take it until they pass. On the approval it’s a little bit different because number one, like I said, most of the district managers are looking for completion of the instructor course and the other part of that is the subject matter knowledge and if they don’t have that and if that’s the reason that they’re not approved, they’ll have to go get that experience before they reapply. On the Availability of Resources to Consult Before Attending the Instructor Training Session Duncan: Actually, we’ve got a workbook. It the same book that’s used in the instructor training workshop. It’s available through our National Mine Academy. It used to be called IG24A, which is instructor guide, but it’s the instructor training workshop of Part 48 workbook and folks can contact the Academy and order one of those books before the class. It will give them an opportunity to kind of see what they’re going to be doing in the class, but also give them an idea of what’s going to be expected of them. We do have a-and it’s a very basic course. It’s a web-based course on principles of adult learning. It’s on our trainers’ page. That’s always helpful and I know there’s a number of other sources out there for that type of training. We would encourage people to look to some of those sources and actually get some training in adult learning principles. That’s important. A lot of people think that it’s like teaching children, but it’s not, and I know that you know that Jeff. The way that we approach the training-whether it’s instructor-centered, learner-centered what works the best-that all plays a role in whether the training is effective or not. So we encourage people to do those kinds of things. If they have the subject matter experience in the mining industry we’ve got an awful lot of miners out there that have worked for three years, five years, twenty year in the industry. Probably done about every job at a mine site. So what they really need is to learn how to teach and learn how to communicate effectively.  Learn those adult learning principles and how to make their training effective. I encourage people to look to some of those courses as well. On How Long The Approval of an Approved Instructor Stays Valid Duncan: …It’s pretty much good forever. There’s a requirement that you teach at least one class every two years. We’ve actually been looking at ways that we could make some recertification requirements, continuing ed-type requirements, actually have these instructors report back to us periodically that they’ve not only conducted training classes, but they’ve actually completed some continuing education themselves. That’s a major undertaking and it would requirement rulemaking. I don’t want to mislead you. On Whether The Instructor Training is the Same All Over the Nation Duncan: The instructor training is essentially the same all across the nation. It’s like I’ve said, we administer that program through the academy, through EFSMS, and through the grantees. So that’s pretty much a standardized program. On Whether Approval Works the Same Way in all Districts Throughout the Nation Duncan: The approval criteria can vary district to district and that criteria is established by the district and the district manager has the authority to approve instructors. There are differences from district to district in experience requirements. I believe that almost all of the districts require the instructor training course though. On the "Portability" of Approved Instructor Status Duncan: Once you’re an approved instructor, you’re an approved instructor. So it is nationwide approved. You’re approved by a district manager, but that gives you a driver’s license for anywhere in the country. On the Different Requirements for Part 46 Trainers and Part 48 Trainers Duncan: There isn’t a requirement for an approved instructor in Part 46 and the reason is the rule doesn’t require it. There are several differences between Part 48 and Part 46. I recall—I just arrived here at MSHA in June of nineteen ninety-nine and the rule published—Part 46 rule published—in September of ninety-nine. We went out—we had a roll out plan that took us all across the country and so I got to talk to a number of instructors and safety professionals from across the country. Several of them stayed silent on it. A number of them—and these are more, some of them were from more progressive, larger companies that I think really understood the benefits of effective training—but I recall some of those folks as well, some of our grantees, were really upset about the fact that it didn’t require an approved instructor—that Part 46 didn’t require an approved instructor. Some of those folks from those larger companies said, you know, we’ve always used Part 48 instructors and we’re going to continue to do so. And I thought that said something about the importance they placed on providing effective training. I’ll say this: some mine operators—and I believe it’s probably a majority of them—do take training very seriously. They understand that there is a return on their investment, that effectively trained miners are safe miners, they’re productive miners. And so, they’re willing to make that investment. They’re willing to make sure that the competent person that they identify to provide training to their miners is able to communicate effectively, deliver the training effectively, and has that subject knowledge. Now, I believe on occasion, there may be some miner operators that oh gee, we got to do training? And you know, unfortunately, they look to see who is most available instead of who is best qualified to provide the training. Jeff Duncan’s Closing Thoughts About Part 48 Approved Instructors and the Instructor Training Sessions Duncan: You know, the bottom line is, Jeff, that we just want to make sure that the miners receive the best training possible and we’ve prepared them the best way we can to go to work and come home safe and healthy at the end of their shifts. That’s what it’s all about and that’s what we’re focused on. We’d like to thank Mr. Duncan for taking the time to participate in this interview and for explaining the MSHA Instructor Training sessions to use better. If you’d like even more information about MSHA training, download the free guide immediately below. The post The MSHA Instructor Training Session: An Interview with Jeff Duncan, Director of Educational Policy and Development (MSHA) appeared first on Convergence Training Blog.

In a recent article, we provided an overview of Training Within Industry (TWI). TWI is a training program that was created by the U.S. government during World War II. In the long-term analysis, however, TWI was more influential overseas than it was in the U.S. In particular, it really caught on in Japan, and it could be said that TWI was one of the things at the roots of the Japanese lean manufacturing revolution. In this post, we’re going to take a closer look at the Job Instruction (JI) method. Convergence Training makes learning management systems (LMSs), e-learning courses, and more. Contact us to learn more or set up a demo. You may also want to download our FREE Guide to Effective Manufacturing Training. The "J Programs" and "PD" TWI isn’t a single program. Instead, there are four TWI programs or components that are intended to be used together for a more comprehensive workforce development solution. These four are: Job Instruction Job Methods Job Relations Program Development Job Instruction, Job Methods, and Job Relations are frequently referred to as the "J Programs." In this article, we’re going to focus on the Job Instruction program, but we’ll give you a quick overview of all four before we zero in on Job Instruction. Job Instruction (JI) This is a method for teaching workers to perform necessary job skills, with an emphasis on performing job correctly and safely, ramping up to productivity on the new skill(s) as quickly as possible, and reducing waste and damage. Job Methods (JM) This is a method for training workers to improve the way their own jobs are performed, with an emphasis on increasing more quality products in less time using available manpower, materials, and machines. Job Relations (JR) This focuses on training workers to solve personal problems with other coworkers in an analytical way minus emotions, with an emphasis on treating people as individuals and understanding people on all levels. Program Development (PD) The focus here is training to solve production problems unique to specific organizations, with an emphasis on personal and training issues, while technical means are applied to other issues. The TWI Job Instruction (JI) Program: Teaching Workers Job Skills Quickly and Effectively In the Shingo-award winning book Training Within Industry: The Foundation of Lean by Donald A. Dinero,  Dinero explains that many companies train new hires (or current employees who need to learn new skills) by pairing the worker with a more experienced worker who already has the desired skill. This is still a commonly seen training method in American companies, and is often referred to as "shadowing," "following," or "go follow Joe." You’re no doubt familiar with these kind of programs. There are times when shadowing programs like this can work, either wholly or partially. However, these programs are often ineffective for several reasons. First, the experienced worker often has to take the training chore on in addition to his or her standard work responsibilities. This can create stress and frustration. Second, the experienced worker may be very skilled but may have no particular knowledge of how to effectively train someone. For example, not every baseball All-Star can teach novices how to bat or field. And third, these shadowing programs often lead to a lack of a standard method for performing the job skills, with each trainer teaching his or her own version. Dinero notes that "JI Training results in standardized instruction and standardized instruction results in standardized methods…the JI training is such that a person learns the job correctly and safely in the shortest amount of time possible. This reduces waste in time, material, and damage to tools and equipment. Proper training with the resulting standardization will help an organization change its culture." (See note 1.) Preparing to Teach Job Instruction to Trainers TWI and the Job Instruction program can be thought of as a "train the trainer" kind of program. So, as we continue to explain the basics of Job Instruction, we’ll be focusing on the training method a TWI trainer would teach to a supervisor/trainer who works at a specific company. Now, we’ll learn what those would-be trainers would learn to do in order to prepare for the time when they will teach their own employees specific job skills. This can be broken down into four steps: Create a training timetable - Determine the skills your workers need and determine which workers already possess each skill. Keep this information in some form of checklist or matrix. Identify which workers need to learn new skills and the date by which you want the workers to learn those skills. Break down the job into important steps and key points - The trainer will "break down" each job into the smaller steps that make it up. The reason for doing this is so that instruction can be developed for performing each step and therefore the job as a whole. Note that the job is broken down into steps and key points. This is an important part of the TWI method and will be explained in more detail later in this article. Prepare equipment, materials, and supplies for training - Get all training materials ready in advance. Arrange the workplace properly - Have workplace arranged the way worker should keep it (until a Job-Methods related improvement comes along). Breaking Down the Job Into Steps and Key Points for Job Instruction (JI) The process of breaking down a job into its smaller steps and identifying key points is at the heart of the Job Instruction method. The JI "Job Breakdown Sheet (JBS)" is used to break the job down (you can find an example on page 168 in Dinero’s book). It’s essentially a three-columned table, with the three columns including the information below: Important Steps (of the job) - What to do to perform the job, listed in step-by-step order Key Points - Key points for how to do each step. There are three criteria for including something as a key step. First, if the information in the key point "make or break" the job. Second, if the information addresses a safety issue that could harm the worker. And third, if the information makes the job easier. Reasons - Why the step is important (this is a more recent addition to the original two points above). Here’s an example of a JI Job Breakdown Sheet taken directly from Dinero’s book (see note 2). It’s an explanation of how to tie a fire underwriter’s knot. This is a TWI standard and was in fact the example used in TWI training sessions. (See note 3.) Dinero goes on to make a couple more points. First, because you should tailor your training to your individual learners, you may end up creating different a different Job Breakdown Sheet (JBS) for more-experienced workers than you would for less-experienced workers. That’s because the more-experienced worker may know how to do something like "start the machine" but a less-experienced or novice worker may need step-by-step instruction to start the machine in addition. (See note 4.) And second, trainers at one company should compare their JBSs and create one standard version, so all employees are being taught the same thing. And third, as Dinero mentions frequently throughout the book, the Job Methods program (in which employees constantly look for new and better ways to perform their jobs) creates the possibility that JBSs will need to be changed over time. Teaching Instructors to Instruct with the TWI Job Instruction Method Once the job has been broken down into steps, key points, and reasons, and the Job Breakdown Sheet has been created, it’s time for the trainer/supervisor to teach employees the job task. As mentioned above, during TWI training sessions (in which a training consultant teaches the TWI method to other trainers, who will then use that method to teach their own employees real job tasks), the first demonstration that’s used is how to tie a fire underwriter’s knot. But regardless of the job you’re trying to train a worker to perform, JI lists the following four "how to instruct" steps. These steps were printed on a small wallet-sized card and handed out to TWI trainees as well. Step 1, Prepare the Worker - Make the employee feel comfortable, talk about the job and see what the employee knows about it already, get the person interested in the job, and make sure the worker is in the correct position (sitting, standing, etc.) to learn the job. [Readers with a training or instructional design background may recognize some of Gagne’s first Events of Instruction here.] Step 2, Present the Job/Operation - Tell, show, and illustrate one important step at a time; stress each key point and reason; instruct clearly, completely, and patiently, but do not give more information than the person can master. [Readers with a training or instructional design background may recognize some aspects of "chunking" here.] Step 3, Try out Performance - Have the employee do the job, step-by-step; correct any errors as they come up; have employee do the job again, this time with worker also stating each important step, key point, and reason; make sure the worker understands the job and steps; continue until you’re sure he/she knows. [Readers with a training or instructional design background may recognize some aspects of active learning and adult learning principles here.] Step 4, Follow Up -  Release worker from training and back to work; make sure worker knows who to go to for help; check in with worker often, see how things are going, observe performance, encourage questions; eventually taper off the follow-up as you’re convinced worker has mastered the job skill. (See note 5.) The Job Instruction Method of Presenting the Job/Operation to the Worker You just learned the four basic steps of teaching a worker a job in the Job Instruction method: prepare the worker, present the operation; (let the worker) try out the performance; and follow up. But the Job Instruction method is pretty strict about how to present the operation-meaning, how to show the worker the steps of the job-so let’s look at that in more detail now. First, tell the worker how many steps there are in the job. This gives him or her a chance to prepare and begins to place the job into a mental "framework" for the worker. Next, demonstrate the job, step-by-step. As  you demonstrate each step, state the step. For example, in step 1 of the knot-tying exercise listed above, the trainer would untwist and straighten the wire and say "untwist and straighten the wire." Do this for each step in the job. Next, demonstrate the entire job again. This time, while performing each step, say what the step is but also state any key point for that step. Again, as an example, in step 1 of the knot-tying exercise, the trainer would untwist and straighten the wire and say "untwist and straighten the wire" and then say something like "the wire should be untwisted about 6 inches from the end." Do this for each step in the job. Demonstrate the entire job again. This time show every step and state each step, key point, and reason. Pay attention to the worker. For a simpler task, three demonstrations is probably enough. For a more complicated task, you may have to do it more. Once you believe the worker is ready, let the worker try to perform the task. (See note 6.) The Job Instruction Method of Letting the Worker Practice the Job/Task Just as Job Instruction has a specific method of having the instructor demonstrate the job to the worker, there’s also a specific method in which the worker should perform the job and demonstrate that he/she can perform it during the training. Those steps are: Have the worker complete the task on his/her own. Worker should be silent while doing the task the first time. The trainer should watch the worker closely and quickly stop the process if the worker is doing something wrong, providing helpful feedback to get the worker back on track if that happens (this is true every time the worker performs the task). Once the worker has done the task silently without error, have worker perform the task again, this time stating each step as he/she proceeds. Next, have the worker perform the task again, this time stating each step and each key point. And next, have the worker perform the task again, this time stating each step, key point, and reason. The instructor will observe the worker and, when instructor is satisfied that the worker has mastered the skill, end training for the worker and let the worker perform the task on the job (with appropriate follow-up in the field, of course). Conclusion: The TWI Job Instruction (JI) Method We’d like to know if you’re familiar with, and have used, TWI and/or the Job Instruction (JI) method before. If you have, please leave your comments below. You may be curious if there are any technological tools that could help to teach procedures to workers in the way that JI does. If so, you may find this article on teaching procedures/using checklists interesting, and you may be interested in learning more about the Convergence Training learning management systems (LMSs) and their "tasklists." Remember that this blog post was the second in a series, and that the series began with a general article about Training Within Industry that you may find interesting. And keep your eyes out for additional articles about Job Relations (JR), Job Methods (JM), and Program Development (PD). Finally, feel free to download our free guide to effective manufacturing training, below. Notes: 1. Dinero, Donald A., Training Within Industry, p. 55. 2. Dinero, p. 168. 3. Dinero, p. 168. 4. Dinero, pp. 176-177. 5. Dinero, p. 97. 6. Dinero, pp. 167-168. 7. Dinero, p. 9. 8. Dinero, p. 11. 9. Dinero, pp. 34-40.   The post The Training Within Industry (TWI) Job Instruction Program (JI) appeared first on Convergence Training Blog.

You can train people all you want, but it’s nice to know if the training is working. More specifically, is it helping your company reach a business goal? Luckily, you can use training data from your learning management system (LMS), along with other KPI data (for example, KPIs about operations or safety), to create a compelling visual display of the positive effects of your training program. And as you know, a picture is worth a thousand words. We’re going to give you a couple of quick examples of how to do just that in the post below. Convergence Training makes learning management systems (LMSs), e-learning courses, and more. Contact us to learn more or set up a demo. You may also want to download our FREE Guide to Effective Manufacturing Training. Identify Your Training KPIs Your LMS will track, record, and store the required training data. Depending on the training, this may mean attendance, activity completion, average test score, training completion percentage, job qualification rate, and so on (see this separate article for more about training-related KPIs you can track in your LMS). For the sake of example, let’s say we’ve done two new things in our training program and we want to see if they’ve had a positive effect on training-related KPIs. Those KPIs would be: Training Completion Rate (which in our example rose as a result of implement a new LMS) Average Test Scores (which rose as a result of implementing a new blended learning solution) Correlate Training Data With Business Metrics: 3 Examples In the next step, you’d gather data about performance at your work place, perhaps on safety, production, or quality. You could get this data from any number of sources, such as your safety tracking software, ERP system, or data historian. To make a convincing case that the improvements in Safety, Production, and Quality all resulted from the training changes, we can create graphs that superimpose the training data and the data from Safety, Production, and Quality, respectively. For Safety, we’ll use the Incidence Rate. For Production, we’ll use OEE. For Quality, we’ll use First-Pass Yield. Of course, in real life, you might choose to use different KPIs from Training, Safety, Production, and Quality (or other departments/business units), but the method we’re describing would still be relevant. 1. Measuring the Effect of Training on Safety We’ll start by getting information on a safety metric. Let’s use the Incidence Rate. We can see from the graph above that the incidence rate took a downward plunge (which is good in this case) after March of 2015, but it’s not clear why. Below are two graphs each showing the positive effect that training had on safety. In the first graph, we see that improved training completion is closely correlated to better safety numbers. In the second graph, we see that improved test scores are also closely correlated to better safety numbers. The graph immediately below shows training completions (in orange) and the incidence rates (in blue). We can see that the orange line representing the percentage of training completions increased at the same time the safety incidence rates decreased. The next graph shows improved average test scores (in orange) and the incidence rates (in blue). We can see that the average test scores increased at the same time the safety incidence rates decreased. So now you’ve got two graphs, each giving some pretty compelling evidence that the changes in your training program had positive effects on a key safety KPI. This information is good for you to know, but it’s also stuff you can take to management to demonstrate the value of the training department and/or the training program. 2. Measuring the Effect of Training on Production In our next example, we’re going to use a Production/Operations metric. We’ll use OEE (you can read more about OEE here). As was true with the safety metric, the graph below shows that OEE increased (good in this case), but it’s not clear why. Next, we’ve got two graphs each showing the positive effect that training had on OEE. In the first graph, we see that improved training completion is closely correlated to the increase  in OEE. In the second graph, we see that improved test scores are also closely correlated to the improved OEE. The graph immediately below shows training completions (in orange) and OEE (in blue). We can see that the percentage of training completions increased at the same time OEE increased. And the next graph shows improved average test scores (in orange) and OEE (in blue). We can see that the average test scores increased at the same time OEE increased. Again, you’ve now got some strong, compelling evidence that the changes in your training program had a positive business effect, this time on Production (as measured by OEE). As was true in the safety example, this is information that’s useful to you but can also be presented to management to show the effectiveness of your training program. 3. Measuring the Effect of Training on Quality For our third example, we’ll use a quality metric-first pass yield. As we saw with our two earlier, examples, something good happened in March of 2015 (in this case, first pass yield went up), but it’s not clear why. Again, below we’ve got two graphs each showing the positive effect that training had on quality/first pass yield. In the first graph, we see that improved training completion is closely correlated to a higher first pass yield. In the second graph, we see that improved test scores are also closely correlated to better first pass yield. Here’s the first graph, showing training completions and first pass yield (in blue). We can see that the percentage of training completions increased at the same time first pass yield increased. And here’s the second graph, showing improved test scores and first pass yield (in blue). We can see that the average test scores increased at the same time first pass yield increased. As was true with the examples for safety and production, we’ve now got two graphs correlating positive changes in the training program with positive changes in a key Quality metric. Conclusion These examples are a bit simplified, but you get the idea how you can superimpose your production data on top of your learning/training data to make a compelling demonstration of the effectiveness of your training program. Take some training data from your LMS, collect some KPI data from other workplace sources, superimpose the two on one graph, and you’ve got a quick and easy way to visually demonstrate the positive effects of your training program. In reality, you’d also want to control the other variables that might have caused the change in your KPIs. We’ll write another post about that. And you might want to quantify all this to put together an ROI for your training program. Again, watch for that in a future post. And speaking of other posts on related topics, you may find this article about performing a so-called "level 4 training evaluation," based on the Kirkpatrick four-level training evaluation model, interesting. What about you? What do YOU do when you try to demonstrate the positive effects of your training program?   The post How to Measure the Impact of Training on Business Goals and KPIs appeared first on Convergence Training Blog.

EHS professionals are in the business of trying to reduce the number, reduce the severity, or completely eliminate incidents at work. There are a lot of ways to do that. Establishing and maintaining an effective safety and health management program is one way. Leading effective EHS training is another. Controlling hazards is yet another. And there are more. One important method that falls under the category of "more" is performing an incident investigation. An incident investigation is something you (and/or others in your company) should perform when an incident occurs at the workplace. This can include near-misses, accidents, property damage, illnesses, injuries, and fatalities. There are two primary purposes of an incident investigation. The first purpose is to identify the "root cause" or causes of the incident. That’s the short-term goal. And the second purpose is to use the information gathered in the incident investigation, and the determination of the root cause, to prevent a similar incident from happening again. That’s the long-term goal. But not everyone knows how to perform an incident investigation. What about you? Do you have a plan in place right now? Do you know what you’d do if you had an incident at work? If you have already planned your response and investigation, hats off to you. If not, you can begin planning now. But if you don’t begin planning your investigation until you’ve had an incident at work, you’re much too late and will be behind the proverbial eight-ball. So in this article, we’ll sketch out what you need to know about performing an incident investigation. And we’ll even give you a list you can use to begin making your incident investigation plan and another list you can use to begin stocking up your incident investigation kit. Hope you find it helpful. Convergence Training is a training solutions provider with a strong EHS offering. We make several different learning management systems (LMSs), e-learning courses on EHS and other topics, custom training solutions, and more. Contact us for more information or to set up a demo. And while you’re here, why not download our free Guide to Effective EHS Training? INTRODUCTION We’re going to break this article down into the following sections: Incidents Incident Investigations-An Overview Incident Investigations-A Closer Look at Each Step Incident Investigation Plans We recommend you read the entire article, and then use the "incident investigation plans" section at the end to guide you through what to do next. INCIDENTS Before we charge ahead and begin explaining how to perform an incident investigation, let’s start by making sure we know what an incident is and what incidents should be investigated. What’s an Incident? "Incident" is an umbrella term that includes the following: Fatalities Injuries Illnesses Property damage Near misses We’ll look at each a little more closely. Fatalities Just what it sounds like. When someone dies at work. Injuries A physical injury, such as a bump on the head or a broken arm. Illnesses A sickness, such as a respiratory illness suffered from inhaling chemical fumes. Property damage Damage to property, such as crashing a forklift into a shelving unit and damaging the forklift and shelving. Near misses Something that could have resulted in a fatality, injury, illness, and/or property damage, but didn’t. For example, a wrench falls from a shelving unit and falls to the ground, barely missing striking a worker on the head. Should You Investigate All Incidents? The best practice is to investigate all incidents, even near misses. The more incidents you investigate, the more information you’ll gather, and therefore the better chance you’ll have of avoiding incidents in the future. Obviously, some incidents will SCREAM for an investigation, such as a fatality (there will be legal requirements to consider as well), while a very minor injury or near miss may not call quite so dramatically for investigation. But again, the more incidents you investigate, the lower your risks will be in the future. Do All Incidents Merit the Same Type of Investigation? No. You’ll use a similar technique for all incident investigations, but you’ll apply more resources while investigating some incidents than you will when investigating others. For example, it’s logical that more people will play a role in investigating a fatality than in investigating a near miss that would have led to a minor injury. INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS-AN OVERVIEW An incident investigation is a multi-step process. Those steps include: Gather the necessary people to perform the investigation Get  your pre-prepared incident investigation kit Go to the location of the incident Help provide any first aid, medical care, or assistance necessary Secure the area where the incident occurred Preserve the work area as it is/as it was at the time of the incident Identify witnesses to the incident Separate witnesses Interview the worker(s) involved Interview the witnesses Document the scene Create an incident investigation report Distribute the incident investigation report Use the findings of the incident investigation report to better identify and control hazards Ensure that the corrective actions called for in the report are put into place Just by skimming the list above, you can understand that you’ll benefit from a lot of planning and consideration in advance. Knowing what the incident investigation will involve will help you in two ways: First, it will help you create a plan for incident investigations that will take place in the future Second, it will guide you through the steps of an incident investigation when you’re performing one. We’ll look at each of these steps in much more detail in the section below. INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS: A CLOSER LOOK AT EACH STEP Gather the Necessary People to Lead and Take Part in the Investigation Normally, an incident investigation is led by the supervisor of the worker(s) involved in the incident. In some cases, other people may also help the supervisor or may lead the investigation instead of the supervisor. This can include: The EHS/Safety manager A special Incident Investigation team The Safety Committee In addition, the incident investigation will include: Workers who were injured or made ill by the incident Workers who were present and/or participated but were not injured or made ill Other workers who witnessed the incident In some cases, the worker  involved may have the right to request that an employee representative be present during the investigation. If the incident is especially major, or if a fatality is involved, senior management, engineering, and/or legal personnel may also play a role. Get Your Pre-Prepared Incident Investigation Kit When going to the site where the incident took place, take with you an incident investigation kit. You should have prepared the incident investigation kit in advance so it’s ready when needed. The incident investigation kit should include: Incident investigation forms Interview forms Markers/tape to barricade the incident area High-visibility tape Scissors Scotch tape Warning tags and/or padlocks to secure the area A camera and/or video recorder A voice recorder (possibly integrated into video recorder) Measuring equipment (measuring tape/ruler) Flashlight Containers to hold samples Personal protective equipment appropriate to your work site First aid kit Gloves Large envelopes Graph paper Other paper to write/sketch on A checklist that lists the steps of the incident investigation and the order in which to complete them Remember, if you don’t have an incident investigation kit prepared now, you want to do it soon-before you forget. Do it now, or put a reminder on your email calendar to do it tomorrow, or get old-school and put a Post-In note somewhere. But don’t put this off for long. Go to the Site of the Incident Once you’ve got the correct people and your incident investigation kit, go to the site of the incident. As you approach the area, remember to pay close attention and be cautious. Don’t walk into a situation that will harm you, making a bad situation even worse. Also, make sure you’ve equipped yourself with any PPE that’s necessary to enter the area, either because it’s normally needed in that work area or because the incident has created a need for the PPE. Help Provide Any First Aid, Medical Care, or Other Assistance Necessary Remember, there’s been an incident. People may have been hurt, or a hazard may exist. Do what is necessary to help any sick or injured people, to get people out of harm’s way, and to control the hazard safely before you begin your investigation. Secure the Area Where the Incident Occurred Once people are safe, barricade the area where the incident occurred so that people can’t enter. Preserve the Area As It Was At the Time of the Incident With the area barricaded, make sure everything in the area stays as it was when the incident occurred. If things are not removed, moved, or changed, it will make the incident investigation more effective and meaningful. Identify All People Who Were Involved in the Incident and Who Witnessed the Incident When you get there, you’ll want to identify the people who were: Involved in the incident Witnesses to the incident Do this as soon as possible, before people go their separate ways and begin to forget key details. The reason you’re doing this is because you’re going to want to interview all of these people to find out what happened. But there are two important points to keep in mind at this point. First, don’t interfere with someone if they have suffered a significant injury or illness and need medical attention. That may be obvious, but it’s worth stating now and keeping in mind during a real incident investigation. And second, once you begin identifying and talking to the participants and witnesses, it’s important that they know why you want to talk to them and what the purpose of the incident investigation is. And it’s equally important that they know what the purpose is NOT. You want to make it clear that the purpose of holding the interviews and conducting the investigation is to gather information that can be used to help prevent similar incidents in the future. And likewise, you want to make it clear that the purpose is NOT to place blame, assign fault, or punish anyone. Here’s a hint: you’ll have better luck explaining that the purpose of conducting an incident investigation is simply to prevent future incidents and is NOT to place blame or punish if it’s something you’ve already explained to workers in advance. Consider explaining the purpose of incident investigations to your workers as part of the general safety training that they receive, and/or as part of the standard efforts associated with your safety and health management program. Employees are more likely to cooperate fully, and less likely to worry about participation, if you do this. Separate the Witnesses Separate the people that you’ll interview: sick/injured people, other participants, and witnesses. You want to hear each person’s wholly unique perspective and thoughts on what happened. If they’ve hung around and discussed events together, you’re less likely to get that raw, unfiltered information and more likely to get people or ideas that have been influenced by other people. Interview the Workers Affected and/or Involved Take the person to a place where you can interview him/her privately. While you’re interviewing the person, keep the conversation informal. Talk to the person as an equal-don’t talk down to the person. Avoiding creating an atmosphere that’s accusatory or confrontational. Begin the interview by reminding the person that you’re not trying to place blame or penalize, and that you’re just trying to learn what happened so similar incidents won’t happen again. Then, ask the person to explain what happened, from beginning to end. Don’t interrupt the person-let the person explain the incident in his or her own words. It’s a good idea to record this conversation as its happening, and you may also want to take notes with paper and pencil as the person talks. Once the person has completed his or her story, ask additional questions to fill in any "gaps" or clarify any confusion. Try to use open-ended questions that invite the person to give extended answers based on his or her own thoughts-try to avoid close-ended questions that the person will answer with "Yes" or "No." Once you believe you understand the person’s full story, tell it back to that person. Have them listen to your explanation of their story and ask if you’ve captured what they experienced accurately. If the person explains that you’ve got something wrong, or adds more information, correct your version. Next, ask the person why the incident happened what they think could have been done to prevent the incident from occurring. Have them focus on the conditions and events that led up to the incident. Once the person’s finished their explanation, you may find it helpful to lead them through the "5 Whys?" exercise. You may already be familiar with this, but if not, it’s a simple exercise that helps to identify the root cause of an incident. All you do is ask the question "Why?" five times (give or take a few, based on circumstances) to get from superficial explanations to the true root cause(s) of the incident. Here’s an example: You: Why did the person get hurt? (Why number 1.) Worker: He put his hand on the moving blade. You: Why? (Why number 2.) Worker: He didn’t know there was a blade there. You: Why? (Why number 3.) Worker: He wasn’t properly trained about safety aspects of this machine. You: Why? (Why number 4.) Worker: He doesn’t normally work in this area and was called in as a replacement without receiving the safety training people who work in this area typically receive. You: Why? (Why number 5.) Worker: There’s no organized way to determine who’s received safety training for this area/that area. You get the idea. You can also see that the 5 Whys? method could have gone in a different direction above, and that the worker could have suggested that the moving blade should have had been guarded to prevent workers from touching the blade. Remember that your goal is to "dig deep," moving past superficial explanations of a direct cause (the person’s had was cut by a moving blade), through indirect causes (the person didn’t know there was a moving blade there), to root causes (the person hadn’t received proper safety training to work in the area, there’s no way to know who’s received what safety training, etc.). Remember, there’s nothing "magic" about the number 5. Ask "Why?" until you’ve identified root causes. Finally, check to see that you’ve got the following information, all of which may prove helpful during your investigation, while making your report, and while trying to put corrective measures into place: Characteristics of all workers involved with the incident, including: Age Gender Department Job role/title Experience Tenure Employment status (full time, part, time, seasonal, contractor, consultant) Type of injury/illness/incident, including: Description Body part(s) affected Severity Task being performed when incident occurred, including: General task Specific activity within that task Location of involved workers Body posture of involved workers Was person working alone or with others? Time factors associated with incident, including: Time of day Hour within worker’s shift (example: 3rd hour of 8-hour shift) Shift (example: day/night) Phase of worker’s day (example: entering work, normal work, 15-minute break, mealtime, overtime, leaving work) Supervision when incident occurred (example: worker directly supervised, indirectly supervised, or worker not supervised at time of incident) Expected supervisor when incident occurred (example: normal/not normal, expected/not expected, feasible/not feasible) Interview the Witnesses Use the same technique that you used to interview people involved in the incident (explained immediately above) to interview all other participants and witnesses. Document the Scene of the Incident Once everyone who was involved and/or witnessed the incident has been interviewed, turn your attention to the evidence at the site of the incident. Because you would have already barricaded the area, conditions should be the same as they were immediately after the incident (or as close to that as possible). The process of documenting the scene may involve: Taking photos and/or videos Making audio recordings document the scene (perhaps as part of the video) Writing notes Sketching/drawing the scene Making measurements Taking samples Noting information in equipment operation logs, charts, and records During this part of the incident, gather the following information: Position/status of machines, tools, equipment, supplies, or similar devices Information in equipment operation logs, charts, and records Characteristics of machines/equipment/tools/supplies associated with incident, including: Type Brand Identification numbers Size Distinguishing features Condition Specific part(s) involved Operating settings/status Entries in logs/charts/records Any other materials/subjects involved (example: chemicals) Atmospheric/environmental conditions, including: Temperature Light Noise Weather Ergonomics Preventive measures in place when incident occurred How well any preventive measures in place performed Create an Incident Investigation Report Once you’ve gathered all the information, it’s time to create a written report. Your report should: Summarize everything you learned during your investigation Identify root causes of the incident Recommend corrective measures List who’s responsible for ensuring each corrective measure is put into place State the date by which each corrective measure should be put into place Distribute the Incident Investigation Report Once you’ve created the report, it’s time to distribute the report. Once of the things you should do before an incident occurs is determine who should get a copy of incident investigation reports and how quickly these reports should be created and distributed. In addition, you should have determined what kind of information gets relayed to managers and general employees, and how that information is made public. You’ll want to follow through accordingly to plan and communicate the appropriate information accordingly. Communicate Report Findings to the General Work Force You may not distribute the full incident investigation report in its original form to all workers. However, you should communicate key findings of the report to the workers at the site. Use the Findings of the Report to Implement Corrective Measures Use the findings and recommendations of the report to put corrective measures into place. Make sure anyone who is responsible for putting a corrective measure into place knows: What he/she is responsible for doing When he/she should have the correct measures in place How he/she should communicate any problems experienced while putting the corrective measures in place or how to communicate if he/she could not put the corrective measures in place How he/she should communicate that the corrective measures have been put into place so that they can be tracked Ensure that the Corrective Actions Called For Are Put Into Place You should have some way to track if and when all corrective actions have been put into place. Be sure everyone involved in implementing corrective measures knows how to track completion of those measures, and make sure someone has the final responsibility of ensuring that all measures have been implemented by a certain date. If you don’t track the completion of these corrective measures, it’s easy for one (or several) to never get done. INCIDENT INVESTIGATION PLANS Now that we’ve discussed incidents and incident investigations, let’s turn our attention to the logical next step: the incident investigation plan. What’s an Incident Investigation Plan? It’s your plan for preparing to lead incident investigations and for how you’ll actually conduct one. When Should You Create an Incident Investigation Plan? Now. Or soon. The critical thing is, you want to create an incident investigation plan before you need to perform an incident investigation. And of course, since the future’s uncertain, you don’t know when the next incident is going to occur. So the sooner you create your plan, the better. Reading the information below will help you create your incident investigation plan. Why Should You Create an Incident Investigation Plan? An incident investigation is a multi-step process that requires you to have: Considered some things in advance Made some decisions in advance Inform some people in advance Provide training in advance Gather materials in advance Create forms in advance All this work that’s done in advance will make your incident investigation much more effective. And that should be reason enough to do it now. Now that you know quite a bit about incidents, and also know what to do during a real incident investigation, it’s time to start creating an incident investigation plan for your workplace. Do it now, or soon, instead of later. If you’re not going to do it now, go to your calendar, find the next open opportunity, and set an appointment with yourself. Get the time blocked out now, make it a personal action item, and get it done. What to Include in Your Incident Investigation Plan Here are some things to include in your incident investigation plan: Which incidents will be investigated? Some? All? Just injuries and illnesses? Property damage? What about near misses? How intensively will different types of incidents be investigated? It makes sense that some incidents, such as ones that result in a fatality or serious injury, may lead to more intensive incident investigations that other incidents, such as those that lead to a near miss that would have led to only a minor outcome. Give this idea some thought now and come up with a plan to respond/investigate appropriately. Who should be involved in incident investigations? Who will be involved in incident investigations? Will it always be the same person/people? Or might it include different people with the same job title (for example, the department manager who supervises the worker involved)? Will the EHS/Safety manager always be involved? When should management, engineering, and/or legal be included? Is an employee representative to be included? If so, in which cases, and who is that person? What will be in your incident investigation kit? Come up with a  list (use the recommendations above as a starting point), go get what you need, and put it all together in a single bag or case. Remember, sooner is better than later for this. Are policies and procedures in place for contacting outside help in the event of an emergency? This is a little off-topic, but it’s worth double-checking at this point. Are there specific policies in place for employees, managers, and others at the company to summon emergency assistance when necessary after an incident has occurred? Have these methods been explained adequately to all workers? Do all workers understand the explanations, and can they do what’s necessary should the need arise? Do all methods and systems used to do this (example: emergency phone systems, alarms) work and are they tested regularly? This is stuff that’s worth checking on. Has everyone received proper training about incident investigations? Some people at your workplace may actively play a role in conducting an incident investigation. Before they do, they should know they may be called upon to do this, and they should be trained in the purpose and methods. In addition, all workers could potentially be included in an incident investigation-being interviewed because they were directly involved or because they were witnesses. As we mentioned earlier, it’s important that they understand the purpose of the incident investigation isn’t to assign blame or punish. Make sure all workers know in advance that incidents will be followed by incident investigations, and make sure they realize the purpose of an incident investigation is to determine root causes and implement preventive measures so similar incidents won’t happen again. And that the purpose isn’t to assign blame or punish. Create, print, and store interview forms Create an interview form that can lead interviewers through the process of conducting interviews with the people who were involved in the incident or witnessed the incident. Print out many copies of the form, put them on a clipboard or in a hard-covered binder, and put them into your incident investigation kit. Keep an electronic copy and save it in some logical place on your computer or the work network so you can access this later, print more copies, and/or modify it as necessary. Create, print, and store investigation forms Once you’ve finished with the forms to lead investigators through the interview process, create a similar form to lead investigators through the rest of the investigation. Use the section above, where we explain what to look for during the investigation, as a starting point for what to include in your investigation forms. Print out many copies of the form, put them on a clipboard or in a hard-covered binder, and put them into your incident investigation kit. Keep an electronic copy and save it in some logical place on your computer or the work network so you can access this later, print more copies, and/or modify it as necessary. Create a template form for your incident investigation reports You’ll also want to create a form that acts as a template for the person completing the incident investigation report. That form can be used to guide the person writing the report so that he/she is sure to include all the relevant information. It’s not necessary to print this out, but do save a copy on a computer or the work network so its’ ready when needed. Determine who will complete the incident investigation Who completes the incident investigation report? The same person every time? Or is it someone different each time? Determine how quickly the incident investigation report should be completed Will there be a specific deadline for completing incident investigations? No deadline? Or will it vary, depending on the type of incident? Figure out who will get a full copy of the completed incident investigation report When the incident report is complete, it should be distributed at the workplace. Determine who will get a full copy of the report and have that list available and ready when needed. Determine a method for implementing corrective measures How will people responsible for implementing the various corrective measures know they’re responsible? How is this communicated? How will they note when they’ve successfully implemented the corrective measure? What will they do if they try to implement a corrective measure and can’t? How will they communicate that information? Determine a method for checking to see if corrective measures have been implemented Finally, create a method to check back and confirm that all of the correct measures have been implemented. Make sure someone’s responsible for doing this and that it’s done by a specified date. If that person finds that one or more measure has not been implemented, have the person follow through to find out why and to get the measure implemented as soon as possible. CONCLUSION: INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS By performing an incident investigation as described above, you’ve got a better chance of eliminating or reducing the number of incidents at your workplace. If you explain the process to all the workers at your site, and explain its purpose is to prevent future incidents and not to blame or punish, you’ll have a much better chance of getting their buy-in and of getting full cooperation during an actual investigation. Remember that the people who will help lead investigations need training in advance about the purpose, methods, and tools used in the investigation, and be sure to get your incident investigation plan and incident investigation kit finished soon, using the tips above as a guide. One final point, which probably occurred to you already. You’ll collect a lot of information during an incident investigation. If you store that information in a manner that allows you to later analyze and cross-reference data from multiple incidents, you may start to find connections and relationships beyond what you’d notice from one incident or just from comparing root causes. For example, you may discover that a certain type of incident is more likely to occur after people eat, and that may lead you to re-ordering work flow around the eating schedule. There are software systems to help you create, store, manage, and analyze this kind of data, and they may well be worth the purchase price. The post How to Conduct an Incident Investigation appeared first on Convergence Training Blog.

Where phone and Skype remain the gold standard for one-to-one communication (and learning), many of us find value in conference calls, irrespective of the technology (phone, Skype, Webex, Hangouts…) used. Conference calls may seem as unimpressive or mundane as that other piece of paradigm-changing learning technology, the whiteboard - but that’s the point. They are learning technology that is already embedded into the fabric of work, and directly contribute to informal and incidental learning across time and geography. The pedagogical affordances of conference calls include structure, transparency, dialogue, and accountability. Structure "Structured agenda" "Used as a to-do list" "Ensures that I’m focusing on kind of priority one-two-three" "A very good way to stay organized when you have people traveling" Transparency "forces us to be transparent" "If there are cloudy areas, it exposes [them] and moves us forward." Dialogue "anyone can join " "a forum" "open discussion" "conversation is a much more efficient way to work than using email in a lot of cases" Accountability "So you say look: why don’t we get on the phone and talk this through. " "your peers and your colleagues are on the calls" "allows for people to say, by the way here is an issue that I am facing that I haven’t thought about." Photo: Doc Porter Museum of Telephone History,  Houston Texas, USA (Texas.713/flickr.com)

Webinars reproduce the structure and format of the formal training workshop in an online space. The sole positive distinction for participants is that they may now participate from anywhere. However, to ask questions or otherwise contribute requires one to be present at a specific time (synchronously). Recordings of webinars are usually made available, so in theory we may catch up after the event but lose the ability to connect to others… and seldom actually do. If there wasn’t time (or justification) when it happened, that is unlikely to change later. Like the face-to-face workshops they emulate, webinars require us to stop work in order to learn, which we can seldom afford or justify. They are mostly transmissive, as the available tools (Webex, for example) do not facilitate conversation. By default, most facilitators will mute everyone in a conference to avoid an unintelligible cacophony of multiple squawking voices. Despite the existence of a chat feature (a "back channel") that could be used for dialogue, most of us bring online the etiquette of face-to-face events, where chatting during a presentation is frowned upon. Yet, despite such limitations, two affordances of webinars represent a dramatic improvement over other learning technologies. First, they help to reduce the need for mission travel. Second, they allow us to display a slide deck, share a screen (making them a visual medium), or show participants (using their webcams). Where, initially, teams tend to use webinars for one-way knowledge transmission, as they gain experience they may begin to use the same technology for less formal communication, such as rapid feedback and evaluation from the field or between stakeholders who cannot gather in the same place. Photo: Empty (schnaars/flickr.com)

We are both consumers and producers of publications, whether in print or online. Publications are static containers for knowledge from the pre-Internet era. Even if they are now mostly digital, the ways in which we think about them remains tied to the past. Nevertheless, at their best, they provide a useful reference point, baseline, or benchmark to establish a high-quality standard that is easy, cheap and effective to disseminate. In the worst, they take so much time to prepare that they are out of date even before they are ready for circulation, reflect consensus that is so watered-down as to be unusable, and are expensive - especially when printed copies are needed - to produce, disseminate, stock and revise. With respect to the knowledge we consume, some of us may heretically scorn formal guidelines and other publications. Reading as an activity "remains a challenge". Others manage to set aside time to pore over new guidelines and other reference content, journals, or online sources. Yet others cannot justify such time because they prioritize their own knowledge production rather than its consumption. The development of guidelines, training manuals, and other standards- and evidence-based approaches remains an accepted formal process of knowledge development that also embeds many of the benefits of informal learning, at least for its participants. When peers gather to think and work together, to figure out what should be put into the publication-as-container and why, this is often a dynamic learning process. Dialogue as real-time peer review mixes with more formal review, editing, and revision. Serendipity and creativity are not just possible, but more likely in those spaces, especially when there is one or more layer of social interaction. So the challenge for learning strategy is to figure out how to capture not just the knowledge artefact of such a process, but also the community, affective, and other social dimensions that help build trust and relationships, to then keep this knowledge current and put it to work - for both the immediate participants and those learners who, in the past, were mere recipients or readers. Photo: Read the news (Georgie Pauwels/flickr.com)

Even as computer-mediated communication is now embedded into nearly every aspect of life, the sentiment persists that written and therefore distance communication is intrinsically inferior. Here is the very interesting introduction from Andrew Feenberg’s classic article - written in the late 1980s - calling into question the presumption of superiority in the face-to-face encounter: In our culture the face-to-face encounter is the ideal paradigm of the meeting of minds. Communication seems most complete and successful where the person is physically present ‘in’ the message. This physical presence is supposed to be the guarantor of authenticity: you can look your interlocutor in the eye and search for tacit signs of truthfulness or falsehood, where context and tone permit a subtler interpretation of the spoken word. Plato initiated our traditional negative view of the written word. He argued that writing was no more than an imitation of speech, while speech itself was an imitation of thought. Thus writing would be an imitation of an imitation and low indeed in the Platonic hierarchy of being, based on the superiority of the original over the copy. For Plato, writing detaches the message from its author and transforms it into a dead thing, a text. Such a text, however, can cross time (written records) and space (mail), acquire objectivity and permanence, even while losing authenticity (Derrida, 1972a). That we still share Plato’s thinking about writing can be shown in how differently we respond to face-to-face, written, typed and printed forms of communication. These form a continuum, ranging from the most personal to the most public. Feenberg, A. The written world: On the theory and practice of computer conferencing. Mindweave: Communication, computers, and distance education 22-39 (1989). Photo: Marble statue of  the ancient greek philosopher Plato (Source: alienaxioms.com)

Experience is the best teacher, we say. This is a testament to our lack of applicable quality standards for training and its professionalization, our inability to act on what has consequently become the fairly empty mantra of 70-20-10, and the blinders that keep the economics (low-volume, high-cost face-to-face training with no measurable outcomes pays the bills of many humanitarian workers, and per diem feeds many trainees…) of humanitarian education out of the picture. We are still dropping people into the deep end of the pool (i.e., mission) and hoping that they somehow figure out how to swim. We are where the National Basketball Association in the United States was in 1976. However, if the Kermit Washingtons in our space were to call our Pete Newells (i.e., those of us who design, deliver, or manage humanitarian training), what do we have to offer? The corollary to this question is why no one seems to care? How else could an independent impact review of DFID’s five-year £1.2 billion investment in research, evaluation and personnel development conclude that the British agency for international development "does not clearly identify how its investment in learning links to its performance and delivering better impact"… with barely anybody noticing? Let us just use blended learning, we say. Yet the largest meta-analysis and review of online learning studies led by Barbara Means and her colleagues in 2010 found no positive effects associated with blended learning (other than the fact that learners typically do more work in such set-ups, once online and then again face-to-face). Rather, the call for blended learning is a symptom for two ills. First, there is our lingering skepticism about the effectiveness of online learning (of which we make demands in terms of outcomes, efficacy, and results that we almost never make for face-to-face training), magnified by fear of machines taking away our training livelihoods. Second, there is the failure of the prevailing transmissive model of e-learning which, paradoxically, is also responsible for its growing acceptance in the humanitarian sector. We have reproduced the worst kind of face-to-face training in the online space with our click-through PowerPoints that get a multiple-choice quiz tacked on at the end. This is unfair, if only because it only saves the trainer (saved from the drudgery of delivery by a machine) from boredom. So the litany about blended learning is ultimately a failure of imagination: are we really incapable of creating new ways of teaching and learning that model the ways we work in volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) humanitarian contexts? We actually dialogue, try, fail, learn and iterate all the time - outside of training. How can humanitarians who share a profoundly creative problem-solving learning culture, who operate on the outer cusp of complexity and chaos… do so poorly when it comes to organizing how we teach and learn? How can organizations and donors that preach accountability and results continue to unquestioningly pour money into training with nothing but a fresh but thin coat of capacity-building paint splashed on? Transmissive learning - whatever the medium - remains the dominant mode of formal learning in the humanitarian context, even though everyone knows patently that such an approach is both ineffective and irrelevant when it comes to teaching and learning the critical thinking skills that are needed to deliver results and, even more crucially, to see around the corner of the next challenge. Such approaches do not foster collaborative leadership and team work, do not provide experience, and do not confront the learner with complexity. In other words, they fail to do anything of relevance to improved preparedness and performance. If you find yourself appalled at the polemical nature of the blanket statements above - that’s great! I believe that the sector should be ripe for such a debate. So please do share the nature of your disagreement and take me to task for getting it all wrong (here is why I don’t have a comments section). If you at least reluctantly acknowledge that there is something worryingly accurate about my observations, let’s talk. Finally, if you find this to be darkly depressing, then check back tomorrow (or subscribe) on this blog when I publish my presentation at the First International Forum on Online Humanitarian training. It is all about new learning and assessment practice that models the complexity and creativity of the work that humanitarians do in order to survive, deliver, and thrive. Painting: Peter Paul Rubens. From 1577 to 1640. Antwerp. Medusa’s head. KHM Vienna.

This is my presentation at the First International Forum on Humanitarian Online Training (IFHOLT) organized by the University of Geneva on 12 June 2015. I describe some early findings from research and practice that aim to go beyond "click-through" e-learning that stops at knowledge transmission. Such transmissive approaches replicate traditional training methods prevalent in the humanitarian context, but are both ineffective and irrelevant when it comes to teaching and learning the critical thinking skills that are needed to operate in volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environments faced by humanitarian teams. Nor can such approaches foster collaborative leadership and team work. Most people recognize this, but then invoke blended learning as the solution. Is it that - or is it just a cop-out to avoid deeper questioning and enquiry of our models for teaching and learning in the humanitarian (and development) space? If not, what is the alternative? This is what I explore in just under twenty minutes. This presentation was first made as a Pecha Kucha at the University of Geneva’s First International Forum on Online Humanitarian Training (IFHOLT), on 12 June 2015. Its content is based in part on LSi’s first white paper written by Katia Muck with support from Bill Cope to document the learning process and outcomes of Scholar for the humanitarian contest.  Photo: All the way down (Amancay Maahs/flickr.com)