Per an earlier post (here), I have a bee in my bonnet about “supporting” deliverables and how to measure their success. The excellent comments from Glen and Stephen (here) pointed to the answer. From Glen:
We are looking for cost savings, efficiencies, and other process improvements. This is the typical work flow process improvement approach. Extend that to the human processes – monetized – and you can define MOP’s and MOE’s [measures of performance and effectiveness respectively].
In retrospect, it should be obvious that training deliverables — and their measures and incentives — should make such deliverables accountable for the relevant process/solution/project/program success measures. In other words, CRM call center training should be judged by the how well the call center solution delivers the intended capabilities.
This approach is not so obvious to many training professionals, largely because many have never been held to the same standard as process owners. My experience — from observing a particularly savvy SAP customer — is that a few pointed questions do concentrate the trainers’ minds:
- Are you worried that the training does not support the actual execution of the processes?
- What do we need to change in our training approach so that it delivers value to the project?
- Why am I spending money on training if it can’t be held accountable for project/process succeess?
- Do you still wonder why trainers aren’t better paid?
Filed under: Implementation Costs, Methodology, Organizational Change Management, Performance Management | Tagged: deliverables, ERP training, measures, metrics, soft stuff, Training | Leave a comment »