fact-based management Contradiction Antiquated training ideals breed outdated employees. The Training By: Vince Elliott T There seems to be three popular and near-ly universal beliefs about training, which note that it is best when done in a class-room, done with a group and when all the available information is presented. If the real goal of training for effective building services is to maintain and improve the condition of the building, just how effec-tive is traditional training? We put this question to the test and con-ducted in-person and online surveys about the efficacy of training in the cleaning industry. What we found was somewhat of a con-tradiction with the popular training practices. We followed up to ask participants why they continue to do classroom training in view of their belief that field training was more effective. The answer was that for efficiency and cost effectiveness reasons, training in a classroom is a better approach. Get As Large A Group As Possible Our conversations with trainers noted a uni-versal commitment to gather as many attendees as possible for each training event. We asked: “Which training leads to the greatest skills improvement by the trainee, group training or individual training?” Seventy-six percent of those who partici-pated in the study said that individual train-ing was actually more effective for retention of the subject matter than training in a group because more time and support can be given to the individual attendee in deal-ing with the learning style and issues faced by that trainee. We followed up to ask participants why they continue to do group training in view of their statement that individual training was more effective. The answer, again, was that for efficiency and cost effectiveness reasons, training in a group setting was a more practical approach. Classroom Training Is Best There is a nearly ironclad belief in the value of classroom training. Talk to manufacturers, distributors, con-sultants and just about any kind of trainer and everyone agrees that getting attendees together at a centralized location is key to a successful training event. The training event is most often centered in a classroom, conference room, auditori-um or other group-attending space. So, just how effective is this training strategy? We interviewed and surveyed a cross-section of manufacturers, distributors, train-ers and contractor end-users about the effectiveness of classroom training versus on-site field training. We asked which location of training would result in the most retention of the material presented. Eighty-three percent of those who partic-ipated in the study said the training on-site, in the field, was actually more effective for retention of the subject matter than training in the classroom because instruction takes place in the real work environment of the trainee. Present All The Material Available Trainers tended to develop and make avail-able training materials specifically centered on the “how to” information regarding the use of a particular product or piece of equipment. The information available is all-inclusive and designed to impart all the procedures needed to use the product or equipment. We asked which type of information was the most retained and powerful for impacting the condition of the building, repeating all the information available or providing only the information needed to fix the problem. Eighty-five percent of those surveyed said the problem-focused information most greatly impacted the condition of the build-ing because it gives the individual a solu-tion in dealing with the pressure brought by a complaint or problems imposed on the trainee. We again followed up to ask participants why they continue to do full information training in view of their notion that problem-focused training was more effective. The answer, again, was that for efficiency and cost effectiveness reasons, compre-hensive information disclosure was a better approach. Again, this seems to be saying that sav-ing time, expense or convenience is the big reason training is comprehensive. Our study, which surveyed manufactur-ers, distributors, trainers, contractors and end-users suggests a different conclusion to the traditional training assumption. Given that the real goal of training is to maintain and improve the condition of the building, we might challenge the effective-ness of the traditional training system. We conclude that the most effective train-ing works with an individual using cus-tomized training that is problem-focused, best practice information that is cost and resource efficient within the framework of continuous process improvement. CM Vincent F. Elliott is the founder, president and CEO of Elliott Affiliates, Ltd. of Hunt Valley, MD, www.ealtd.com. He is widely recognized as the leading authority in the design and utiliza-tion of best practice performance-driven tech-niques for janitorial outsourcing and ongoing management. 48 CM/Cleaning & Maintenance Management ® • June 2010
CMM – Archives Jun 2010: 48
