Structured OJT: A Comparison Between Traditional and Team-Driven

TeamOJT Tip of the Month for September, 2006

Traditional: Job task analysis is costly, complex, and time-consuming. It is often accomplished by someone with little or no connection to the jobs being analyzed. Subject matter experts are interviewed and observed, standard operating procedures studied, and technical documentation consulted. By the time all the information is collected six to 18 months later, and assembled into some coherent form, it may or may not resemble the "real" job tasks.
Team-Driven: Team job task analysis, on the other hand is inexpensive, simple, and quick to implement. It is conducted by a team of employees who actually perform the jobs, and who have a wide range of knowledge and expertise. By using a simple "Two-Question Technique" the team can develop a fairly complete task listing of required skills and knowledge within a few hours.
Traditional: Traditional structured OJT relies on subject matter experts to provide input for the training program. Subject matter experts, in general, tend to think of most tasks as easy to perform because they've completed the tasks so many times. When providing information for identifying tasks to be trained or when outlining steps involved in carrying out a task, they often leave out or even forget tasks or steps that are essential for a trainee to learn.
Team-Driven: Team-driven structured OJT depends on subject matter experts too, but in addition, actively involves less experienced employees and even trainees in the design of the training.
Traditional: The writer of training materials is normally someone who does not know the job first hand and depends on observations and interviews with subject matter experts. Again, this can be time-consuming, expensive and lead to inaccuracies. The material is frequently not written in the "language" of the employees. There is no consensus from the employees on the best way to perform the job, without which there can be no standardization or consistency in task accomplishment. The training materials may very well be irrelevant. Many traditional structured OJT materials are just topical outlines or checklists.
Team-Driven: Training materials are written by the employees who do the job, and in the "language" used by the employees themselves. All decisions regarding training materials, including the specific steps involved in performing tasks, and why the steps are necessary (something often forgotten by subject matter experts), are made by consensus among team members. Team members write whatever level of detail they deem necessary.
Traditional: Training materials are generally not updated because the writers of the materials are so far removed from the real world of training. Very seldom is anyone held accountable. In addition, there are occasions where someone else in the organization makes a change, such as new safety precautions, and none of the users are informed.
Team-Driven: Employee involvement and ownership of the program assures that training materials are continuously updated. As a training supervisor at a company that makes plastic moldings said, "The training modules are updated every time they're used - the system is self-renewing." Although anyone may suggest changes, team members are responsible for making sure updates are reviewed by all employees affected by the changes.
Traditional: The designated trainer is generally not involved in writing the training materials, may not be familiar with, or agree with, the written procedures or outlines, and therefore is less likely to follow them. This means that there is often little or no consistency in what and how trainees are trained.
Team-Driven: The designated trainer is normally a member of the team that writes the training materials. Trainers who assist in writing the procedures also train according to those procedures, ensuring that everyone is trained to the same standard.
Traditional: Generally little or no process or procedure re-design is involved in the development of the training. When re-design is done, it is usually accomplished by another team or committee within the company and is not always directly tied to the training material.
Team-Driven: A tremendous amount of process and procedure re-design occurs naturally as a result of the team discussions when writing training materials and procedures and deciding on the "best" way to perform the tasks.
Traditional: Different individuals control various parts of the development process, which often results in an uncoordinated effort with no one person accountable for the outcome.
Team-Driven: Teams of employees who regularly perform the job control the entire process, from analysis and design to implementation and program evaluation. If they don't buy into it, they won't do it.
Traditional: The performance standards are often set by someone external to the work area, probably the individual who conducted the job task analysis and wrote the materials.
Team-Driven: Employees who do the job write the performance objectives specifying the standards of performance for each task. They are in the best position to determine what constitutes competency in a given task.

Human Performance Applications
Phone: (206) 447-0860
FAX: (206) 447-3410
E-mail: diane@teamojt.com