We have been using a tool we call a “capability model” to display in a “one-pager” format, the key tasks and supporting knowledge, skills, and characteristics needed to perform the tasks…in other words, what the employee needs to be able to do a job or job.

Since it is on one page, it is distilled and some of the details are left out. However, it can provide a simple, useful view of the requirements of the job/role for either a manager or employee. Below is an annotated example of a Capability Model. Please note that the details are not really shown — inside each section are specific items relevant to that role.

It is important to realize that the Capability Model shows the total set of requirements…it does not recommend a sequence for development. Sometimes you can infer development though. Once we created a series of Capability Models for four progressive levels of supervision (from first-line supervisor to plant manager) showing where new tasks and supporting skills were added or increased in importance. You could infer the changes you would need to move from one level to the next which could enable you to infer areas to focus for development. But a better tool for planning development would be a Capability Development Path, which shows developmental activities and key milestones arranged in a logical sequence for development.

Shown below is an annotated graphic of a Capability Development Path. Note that this includes timeframes, though in some cases they are relative and in others more objective.

The development path may contain a combination of development activities, including informal mentor- or self-directed learning, development job assignments, performance-based qualification tests, external certifications, and more standard training events (such as courses).

The intent of the path is to provide a guideline for both employees and managers about what the employee should be doing when in order to progress at a reasonable pace through the role. In many cases, employees want to move up quickly or managers might underestimate all the things the employee needs to master.

Application on the Job

Our role as consultants is more in doing the analysis and design to create these development management tools. However, there are some implementation tips that can help organizations get more benefit from them.

For one thing, keep in mind that every job is unique and every individual is unique. People may come in with some advanced skills while missing some basic skills. It is important to understand the requirements of the individual’s role and then inventory their existing capabilities accordingly to focus their actual development. Maybe instead of a path, it is helpful to think of it as a recommended checklist or menu in some cases.

Align the development system around these tools. Make sure people who are recruiting for new hires are looking for people who will be able to fit into these models. Entry requirements can be deduced (or specified). Specific qualifications can be developed to serve as “gates” for promotions between key levels of the path. Make sure the roles make sense — don’t accumulate capabilities into a single role that are not likely to be found in a single individual. For example, a person with “creative, big picture planning skills” won’t often come with “detail-oriented, organization skills.”

We were conducting a job analysis meeting earlier this week to document work outputs, tasks, supporting knowledge/skills, etc. for two roles. (We will use the information to define the roles and map out an overall recommended career/development path.)

We do this work frequently but this time I was struck by the tension between streamlining and standardizing work and individual efforts to get each assignment done quickly…that is, following the standard process vs. coming up with your own steps and even tools to make yourself efficient.

Because the majority of the work performed by these particular roles is done individually on a computer, it is very easy for individual performers to develop their own forms, templates, spreadsheets, and so on. Depending on the assignment, they may need to deliver portions of their output early for review by other team members so they come up with lots of shortcuts…or even change the way they do downstream tasks based on the shortcuts they took at the beginning. Much of the shortcutting has to do with exporting data out of one program, manipulating it, and then importing it back into the original program. It leads to very convoluted work processes with lot’s of exceptions.

Not a big deal for our purposes…we will incorporate the “standard process” into any future training. But for the people in charge of standardizing the work, it presents a significant challenge. What is the best way? Or, should they just prescribe the sequence of outputs and let people do the steps however they want? What if the standard way results in more labor time but forcing everyone to adhere to it will allow the company to more effectively utilize their resources because they can break up the work and share it between more people…but only if they all do things the same way? Will forcing standardization reduce innovation? Should we believe that only the central organization is capable of innovation?

Trying to get home after the ASTD Conference in Orlando. (Apparently, the airline had planes in St Louis that got hailed on and needed to be inspected…the ripple effect for me was a very short extra night in Orlando.)

It is weird that all the peripheral stuff consumes so much time and energy that the whole substance and purpose of the trip almost gets lost. Instead of it being an exciting opportunity to check out the state of the industry, you spend a lot of the time checking on the state of your plans. What’s the weather? Is the flight delayed? What should I do? Try to get an earlier flight? And what about that Web meeting in an hour…can’t do it from the shuttle…or can I? And what about that in-person meeting tomorrow?

Even so, I would have to say that this year, both conferences were worth the time, cost, and effort. There was lots of interest in the topic of testing…and in particular, the larger strategy questions like why test? What test approach will be effective in this situation? Which capabilities warrant verification? And so on.

In particular, there was a lot of interest in on-the-job performance testing. There was some well-placed skepticism about an over-reliance on commercial web-based test tools. And it seems that the standard pencil-paper multiple choice test is often the default choice for managers and some professionals…old habits from all those years in school die hard.

So, the question becomes, whether to go next year. Many professionals I work with are unapologetic about not going…they believe they can get the same benefits using other means. Maybe they are right. I need to find out where the conferences are being held next year. And if we do attend next year, note to self: leave more time to enjoy the city beyond the conference hotel. That’ll happen.

Upon being asked for ideas on innovative learning strategies, I thought I would post them here as well. Of course, often what is innovative in one environment is old hat in another. And innovative doesn’t necessarily mean effective — effective should always be top priority. Still, it can be helpful to think about where things might go from here.

The future is what we decide to make it, so the right future strategies might not be simply an extension of the state-of-the-technology.  For example, Dr. Ruth Clark has been recently publishing on evidence-based training and it would be terrific if that mindset were to become a key driver, or at least a governor on decision-making around training design and delivery.

In terms of technology, it is safe to say that digital technologies and social media will continue to play an increasing role — though they are just new ways of delivering information and managing instructional processes, people are using (and talking about) them heavily.

Some other possible future growth areas:

• At least for technical jobs, it seems likely that learning will continue to migrate more to the workplace. For example, on-line procedures, web and mobile reference content, and small “how-to” modules available on-demand.

• For jobs where people are working “in the field” and not in close contact with co-workers, some social media, such as Twitter, may help tap other experts’ or peers’ know-how when needed. (There are tools that are similar to Twitter but are more secure, for example, you can limit the access to only employees.) This is less a learning strategy than a performance-support strategy but it will probably take the place of or supplement some formal learning.

• Simulations in virtual environments. For some applications, it may be worth the expense to build the environment (using something like Second Life) but for many, it won’t be.

• I’ve been seeing alot of articles lately on the importance of mentoring, though that really isn’t my area. It does seem to be growing (maybe as a reaction against all the recent technology emphasis). Again, social media could support this, especially if the mentor and worker are not co-located.

• More companies are using “workflow” programs to move work and decisions through the company. Managers will need to be able to use these tools effectively (e.g., derive metrics, monitor work quality, etc.)…I suppose this is more a training content issue than strategy issue though.

• I wouldn’t be surprised if standard “CBT or WBT” programs level off or even decline in use. At least, several of my contacts whose companies have used it heavily in the past are not entirely happy with the results. (Of course, I think they over-used it.)

• I would personally like to see more use of a bigger picture integrated development strategy, where career paths, capabilities, and learning plans are coordinated and driven to meet business and individual goals. This would focus more on the capabilities needed in the organization than specific learning events. It would require business leaders, HR, and training people to work cross-functionally and maybe on shared systems.

As a starting point for figuring out what makes sense for your situation, you might start with two areas of inquiry:

1. For the audiences you serve, what is likely to change in the way they perform? Are they going to do more with computers? Change roles frequently? Work in teams? Require knowledge about a wider range of domains (e.g., regulations, quality, technical, interpersonal)? Are your recruiting strategies likely to change? Any significant change in their work has a potential for causing performance gaps and may need to be supported by training and other performance support.
2. What learning strategies does your organization use currently? Where do these strategies fall short? Where are business leaders asking for things you can’t deliver? What do you not get asked to deliver but think you should? Gaps in your current methods may be practical starting points for improvement. Plus, when you are introducing innovation, you have to consider how much change the organization can absorb. And, technology always requires infrastructure so, again, you want to be strategic in deciding what to invest in.

On Sunday, 1/13, the New York Times published a DIY tool for figuring out how you would solve the budget crisis and eliminate the deficit. (I know…we should have published this sooner…the draft was on Pete’s phone and got overlooked.) The on-line version was even cooler because it did the math for you. (Here is the link http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html )

As a learning tool, I thought it was great! Specifically, there were three key lessons that were relevant and fun.

1. What options are in front of the legislature today? This tool gave the gist of each proposal, along with a sense of relief that the law makers are actually working on things besides their next campaign.

2. What is the potential impact of each proposal? How often do you hear people getting all worked up about something that, in the big picture, isn’t going to make much difference?

3. The influence of self-interest on decision-making. It was next to impossible NOT to react strongly (that is, without even reading or considering a proposa)l that seems likely to affect you negatively.

4. In spite of #3, how much easier it is to be objective and make tough decisions when you don’t have to deal with the angry reactions of the people you represent (and who can vote you out of work). But, that’s enough sympathy for the politicians…

After completing this exercise, I wished I could have emailed my answers to my congressman. (Maybe I could have but just didn’t know how.)

It also made me wish that we had some decision support information like that for elections. How convenient would it be if you could look up the gist of a candidate’s positions at the ballot box so you could feel more sure of your vote? (Particularly for less visible roles.)

Even better, what if we just picked the positions we agree with and the computer recommends the candidate?

Bottom line: a simple, fun, and effective way to share news info, engage the audience, and educate people on a complex subject.

What are you going to do? People can’t drive with their smartphones so lawmakers make it illegal to drive while texting. And if you want to talk on the phone while driving, you have to have a “hands-free” device. People definitely shouldn’t drive while distracted…but plenty of other distractions are still legal. For one thing, eating while driving. In fact, in Chicago, where all these laws are in effect, I believe it is still legal to use your smartphone’s navigation program. If you’ve ever tried to use the iPhone Google Maps application while driving, you know that is easily as distracting as anything else that could be going on in that car. In fact, to use many “hands-free” phones, you sometimes have to resort to looking up and even punching in the number (e.g., if you can’t get the voice recognition to work) and that is no different than texting…except maybe that it takes place over a shorter period of time.

Of course some people have more ability to pay attention, and even to notice when something they are not focusing on is happening around them. I’m not talking about multitasking…I think some people might just pay more attention in general. This is the person that notices you are looking the other way and avoids running into you. Probably, we have to admit that some people are just smarter than others. But that doesn’t stop smartphone makers and programmers from trying to make up the gap with engineering.

I recently read an article about a new wave of smartphones and related applications being designed to make it easier and safer for pedestrians to use their smartphones while walking! Apparently, record numbers of people are walking into manholes, into intersections, into signs, and whatever else because they are texting and not looking where they are going. In the article, one person managed to find a silver lining — because so many people have cellphones they can get an ambulance to the injured person more quickly. But the bulk of the attention was on how smartphone makers can improve the use of their devices to make them safer. For example, a transparent screen so you can see the sidewalk (and the person you are about to run into) through your text message. Or, “text to speech” (and vice versa) to avoid having to look at a screen and push buttons.

Maybe we need “heads-up displays” for smartphones so you can see the message in transparent letters on special goggles. Or, maybe we should just make a helmet law for smartphone users. Or, maybe we should just make a helmet law for everyone all the time because you never know when a distracted texter is going to run into you.

That is actually the worst part of the whole thing. You can no longer feel that, by driving defensively, you are giving yourself the best likelihood of avoiding an accident because some knucklehead may still randomly just ram into you or walk out in front of your car because they aren’t paying attention. Accidents happen. Many, in retrospect could have been prevented. But accidents caused by not paying attention to what you are doing are completely preventable.

At some point, we just have to wake up and be more responsible. Pay attention. Remember that there are other people sharing the planet. Don’t do stupid stuff. At some point, I wonder if the more we try to protect people from themselves, the stupider we all get.

Writing is just a way to record things on an external flat surface…it allows multiple people to refer to to your thinking and it sort of extends memory because you can refer later to something you wrote down. In fact, it can even help clarify your thinking to see it down on paper.

I seem to recall learning that early writing consisted of impressions on clay tablets and then, after that, papyrus. Papyrus was an improvement because it was thinner, easier to store, didn’t shatter, etc. Scrolls were an early innovation which allowed more information to be captured. (Of course, I am not a historian but this all seems pretty reasonable…)

(As an aside, in grad school, I had a professor who used a old overhead projector that had a spindle on the left and right side of the screen with a scroll of clear plastic on the left. He would write the information or create the visual and then, instead of erasing it for the next one, he would just turn the crank and it would roll up the plastic on the right hand spool and fresh plastic would advance from the spool on the left side. No, it wasn’t that long ago…um…but it was just at the beginning of the PC era and lot’s of people didn’t have one then.)

(As another aside, I recall reading somewhere that the earliest writing was actually for business purposes…to make trades, someone needed to invent the receipt and the record of the inventory…)

The innovation of the scroll probably allowed people to develop more complex thoughts both because it was easier to write on than a clay tablet and because they could continue on writing longer. Probably it promoted a more linear style of thinking…hyperlinks would have been a challenge.

After the scroll, we have the invention of paper which changed the game again. Paper is thinner and cheaper so more people could write more stuff. And, standard sizes made manufacturing easier but may have changed the way we think as well. Now, instead of a flow we had a series of pages. They could (and often were at first) viewed as simply a chopped-up scroll. Page breaks came when you ran out of paper and then the information just continued onto the next page.

But, today, the “page” is a metaphor used for all kinds of things, including web-based information which really doesn’t have to be either linear or chopped up. In our business, we often construct our deliverables using a page concept. We even use landscape layout whenever we can to make the pages portable across print, computer screen, and projected presentation platforms.

So what will be/is happening to the way we think? Where in the past scrolls gave us the opportunity to develop longer threads of linear thought, will all the hyperlinks and “mash-ups” help us improve at making connections between different ideas, different disciplines? Will the fact that the content is digital (and only one screen is visible at a time) possibly harm our ability to follow longer trains of logic?

What if we brought back the scroll, updated for the digital age? After all there is no limit to how far you can scroll down on a web page. (There probably is but I haven’t found it…I’m sure it can go a long way.) Scrolling horizontally creates a problem because it is harder for people to return back to the next line to continue reading, assuming it is text. So we probably shouldn’t scroll indefinitely horizontally.

But, one of the big assumed “no-no’s” of web design is having a page where the user has to scroll. Each screen should be sort of one idea, and then you click buttons to step through whatever the process or information is. If you hit a link and take a detour, you might never come back if you hit something more interesting that what you were doing previously. (So could this lead to even less focus and ability to concentrate?) For some research on the subject, check out some web design guidelines.

Of course, user understanding of how web pages work has evolved over time. Things that were unfamiliar to users five years ago have become natural for many users. People now get scrolling.

So, maybe the answer is to bring back the scroll. I dare you.

Put Up Your Hands and Move Away from the Smartphone…

There has been a lot of interest in multitasking lately. People argue that it is impossible…that it is really nothing more than rapidly switching between doing two individual tasks. Others argue that it may be impossible for “older people” but that today’s “wired” generation can handle it. In fact, they argue that some people perform better when multitasking. Still others claim that we are hurting our health with all the stress and ADD-behaviors.

We decided to check some research and then float some of our own pet theories.

First, The Research…

A recent study by Stanford professor Clifford Nass (for details, check out the original article) showed that multitaskers may actually become more distractable. His team started with the assumption that multitaskers have a gift or skill. He discovered it wasn’t superb control over what they paid attention to — they performed poorly in the experiment because they could NOT ignore irrelevant stimuli. They then checked to see if the multitaskers were better at storing and organizing information…that too failed to pan out. Finally they checked for better skills at switching from one task to another…but no, the multitaskers performed poorly here to. They concluded, multitasking is a bad habit, not a preference or working style…if you multitask, you should stop.

In a recent New York Times post, Matt Richtel reported on similar research that found slightly different conclusions.  He found a study from the University of Utah that determined about 2.5% of people actually can multitask effectively, though they caution that the odds of either you or me actually being part of that group are low and recommended strongly against multitasking, especially when driving.

But, there was an article Time magazine published online that cited a study that found you could improve your ability to multitask by playing video games more than 5 hours a day. If that is what it takes, I will never find out. But, that might explain the perceived generational difference. However, this study, conducted by Daphne Bavelier, a professor at the University of Rochester, was targeted at “supertaskers” and it too cautioned that we, as individuals, should assume we are, in fact, part of the 97.5% of the population who are not capable of multitasking effectively.

Finally, there was a study that seems to show we can actually pay attention to two things at once…just not three. There is a portion of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex that gets involved when the person is sufficiently motivated (i.e., when there is enough perceived reward in doing two tasks). This part of the brain has two hemispheres and, for two tasks, it seems to split the work by hemisphere (based on brain imaging). But the third task gets in the way…maybe because there is no easy way to create three segments of your brain.

Now, the Pet Theories…

Richard Feynman was one of the physicists who worked on developing the atomic bomb. He was a brilliant mathematician but also an original thinker. As a physicist, he was often invented simple experiments to figure things out. For fun, he apparently got interested in multitasking more than 40 years ago. (He also invented the concept of nano-technology in a speech in 1959!)

Feynman tried different types of tasks, such as counting socks while reading the newspaper or trying to guess when a minute was over while climbing stairs. One thing he found was that people counted time differently. Some visualized a clock while others counted seconds by talking to themselves. Feynman could read the paper and count the time because he was counting out loud in his head…using his “audio” brain processes for counting, leaving his visual processes free for reading. One of his colleagues was able to talk and count time because he was visualizing the numbers.

Our take on Feynman’s conclusions, as well as the research above, is that the multitasking you are able to do is a function of how the brain works. Richard Restak reports that when you imagine doing a physical task, the brain circuits that are activated are the same as when you actually do it…except for the specific circuits that move the body. Imagining you are throwing a ball activates the same parts of your brain as actually throwing it, except for the parts that move your arm.

Feynman’s multitasking, and the researchers’ as well, varied depending less on the individual and more on the type of task. If you are using different parts of the brain, you can more easily multitask but if you need to use the same areas, it becomes impossible. That’s why you can talk on the phone and fold laundry at the same time pretty easily. But you can’t read and talk on the phone at the same time very well — both tasks are fighting over the “verbal” part of your brain.

The other key factor is conscious attention. In this, our experience seems to agree with the researchers that people can really only focus on one thing at a time. So, if you are folding laundry and talking on the phone, you probably aren’t thinking about the laundry too much. If something were to happen though, for example, you discover a sock is missing, you might lose a little of the conversational thread.

The importance of understanding these issues is that we have to consider the impact of multitasking employees when we design processes, run meetings (especially on-line meetings), build tools, and any number of work-related design and management activities. We may have to build in guards against multitasking or we may have to design things that are robust against multitasking (that is, they work acceptably even if people are multitasking).

Do you have any experiences or insights related to multitasking and performance? Please let us know.

The BP oil spill in the gulf is a complex and serious situation. On top of the very immediate and long term consequences, there are tons of lessons to be learned about management, communication, and risk.

Lots of companies have risk management strategies and disaster recovery plans. On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart got a great deal of comedic mileage from first showing representatives of other oil companies stating that they would not have drilled the well the way BP did and how they had contingency plans for disasters, but then revealing that they all had the SAME plan (probably cloned from an association or reference…or maybe purchased from the same consultant).

And the plans were obsolete…clearly they had spent their days on a shelf somewhere.

Point: Catastrophic failures don’t happen very often so nobody really expects them. It takes awhile for the reality to sink in when they do.

Similar in character, though different in scale, from the performance requirements for quality inspectors. Quality inspectors look at a lot of good parts and only very rarely encounter defects…at least in a mature process. It is one thing to teach and qualify that an inspector has the capability to identify a defect but may be another to ensure that they always expect to see one. It seems like there is a delay in many cases of recognizing that a disaster is, in fact, occurring. In the BP example, there were reports of unusual pressure readings and equipment problems before the explosion that started the leak…but apparently, they weren’t recognized as symptoms of a serious problem and, probably, because serious problems hardly ever happen. Most likely, none of the managers had ever been through something like that. (Disclaimer: I’m speculating here.)

But a disaster is different from normal performance in another significant way…in most cases, the performance situation is novel, so, it has never been seen before. There may be a general procedure but it probably has to be adapted. Most likely, it will need to be invented. That means a delay in decision-making. Who is in charge? What options do we have? Which one should we pursue? Where can we get the resources (people, equipment, even funding)?

And, you can’t ignore the pressure. A disaster brings out everyone second-guessing, criticizing, offering “help,” and demanding a quick fix. Not only does that make leadership in these situations painful but more difficult. All that pressure can cause leaders to make decisions and statements they might not otherwise. For example, is it a good idea to worry about who is to blame and is it necessary to scathingly denounce those responsible right away? Or is it better to fix the problem first and worry about blame later?

Managing during a disaster is a huge challenge. But the risk is always there…will you be ready?