Planning for a Needs Assessment

Nokia is a Finnish company that was established in 1865 as a wood pulp mill in South Eastern Finland.  It’s “about us” history mentions that they’ve been active in many manufacturing pursuits, current to their day, from creating tires, to generating and distributing electricity and making  televisions.

They mention that they are sixth in the telecommunications device market, world wide, with the ability to connect “1.3 billion people.”  In their own words:  “At the last count, the Nokia Group employed approximately 139,000 people around the world." (not bad for a company that started life as a small riverside paper mill in Finland.)

"In 2010, the devices and services business alone employed approximately 60,000 people from around 115 different nationalities. And approximately 41% of them were women.
Such diversity is crucial to our success so far – and to our continued success in the future. We’re operating in more markets than ever before, and employees from diverse backgrounds can give us invaluable insights into our customer bases. Just as important, a mix of cultures, genders, age groups, beliefs, interests and opinions in the workplace helps foster debate, discussion, ideas and innovation. Not to mention making Nokia a more enjoyable, stimulating and rewarding place to spend your working day.”

Additionally, their business philosophy: “to establish a structure in which the rights and responsibilities are appropriately distributed among the Board members, management and shareholders; to ensure that the interests of both our management and shareholders are aligned to make management accountable for financial stewardship by continuously reviewing business results and strategic choices; to safeguard business integrity and responsible business practices; and to promote transparency for our shareholders and other stakeholders,” shows that participation and ethical regard for the company are paramount.

I am curious about how they encourage their diverse managers and shareholders to embrace this philosophy.

What stakeholders would you want to make sure to get buy-in from?  - Nokia employees over 130,000 people world-wide.  For the moment, ignoring development, manufacturing and distribution and focusing on creating a sustainable global corporate culture, I would want to make sure that I would get buy-in from those in charge of hiring employees how they select individuals who are not only technically competent but are able to work with employees from so many different backgrounds.  Specifically, the training I would seek to accomplish would be through the Corporate University Model (Noe, 2010, page 43) that would include trainees from not only the company but those in their surrounding areas.  Community involvement would solidify a potential employee base and the Corporate University Model would train employees in what was necessary in their own language/cultural style while maintaining a format (on-line, face-to-face, etc.) that would serve as a common training language.

What questions would you ask (and to whom would you address them) during the organizational, person, and task analysis phases? - First, by asking these questions that the Noe text suggested: Organizational Analysis “Is training important to achieve our business objectives? How does training support our business strategy? And, what are the threats to our talent base?”  I would further try to gain their support by asking them  Noe’s Task Analysis question:  Does the company have people with the knowledge, skills, and abilities or competencies needed to compete in the marketplace?”  (Noe, R. A., “Employee Training and Development”, 2010, page 105)  Under the circumstances I feel that “Person” Needs Assessment question is quite pertinent “What do employees need to accomplish our business objectives,”  (Noe, 2010, page 105)

What documents or records might you ask to see?  -  I would want to see information regarding current training – how it’s written, translated, and administered to those of the 130,000 employees who are chosen?  I’d want to see documents showing how the company recruited from the various countries and how Nokia marked their products around the world, as well.  Finally, I would want to investigate how the Nokia philosophy was inculcated into it’s employees – what would give them buy-in to invest their lives in a foreign enterprise.

What techniques would you employ (see Table 3.2 on page 108 of the Noe text), and why? – It would be tempting to use most of the Needs Analysis techniques listed in Table 3.2.  However, anticipating that I would be contacting upper-level managers throughout the company I would choose a strategy that would be simple, easy to use with people from different backgrounds and cultures,   I think I would reject questionnaires – I don’t know how each question would translate between cultures or what mistakes I might make, people I might offend by asking questions a certain way (something that would really apply to the whole situation).  Focus groups might work well in one culture and be a disaster in another culture, if it was the norm for everyone to be in agreement on all points or lose face.  The interview technique would be the best as the interviewer would be able to pick up signs from the interviewee of confusion or distress regarding the questioning.  Yes, it would be time-consuming and finding the right SME’s/translators might be a nightmare (especially, as Noe suggests, SMEs might be unreliable if they feel threatened,) but the advantages Noe mentioned, the ability to uncover details of training, and the ability to modify the questions and explore “rabbit trails,” would be very beneficial.

I would enjoy this task!

References:

Noe, R. A. (2010). Employee training and development (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

www.nokia.com

Stolovitch, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (2011). Telling ain’t training. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press

Laureate Universities Media Presentation: “The Truth About Training”, 2010

Blog Post: The Truth About Training

When I began teaching several years ago someone in our District’s “Welcome New Teachers Week” made the mistake of telling us that teachers are no longer respected, trusted, and that “government” thinks that all of the problems in education are the fault of the teachers, which is partially true.  The California Department of Education, in keeping with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Reading First sub-component has focused on training teachers – from newcomers to seasoned people who have been through numerous iterations of emphasis, whole word vs. phonics, “New Math” vs. manipulative-driven math, etc.  Teacher Development is very important when a new system is introduced and these new systems.  

In Chapter 2 of our course text, applying it broadly, to education, one strategy or “training and development” initiative is “Align Training and Development with the Company’s Strategic direction.  The Best Practices of the No Child Left Behind Act” are “forces” that influences teacher training to “ensure that training and development programs support the company’s (the government’s) strategic needs.  Researchers have developed these universal strategies to attempt to increase the uniform quality of education in America, This is a trend that I feel is permanent.  (Noe, R. A., Employee Training and Development, 2010, page 63)  Teacher Professional Development will continue as there is more feedback, more research, and more strategies developed by state and federal government indicate an ongoing need.  In my experience, however, I found that only through research associated with this Walden MS degree that Teacher Training was mandated through the NCLB.  I find it heartening to know that the government sought to teach the new tactics to everyone, new or old.  (www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind)

The second is a method of teacher training that is more specific and more threatening – Principals are asked to do more classroom visits.  However, in Chapter 1 of our text it mentions that employee engagement is an important factor in training and development.  (Noe, R. A., Employee Training and Development, 2010, pages 16 and 17) This trend, although deemed necessary, does not give the employee a sense of well-being, and that he or she is trusted by the employer.  It is good for the “system” because it gives the principals a clearer focus on what training the teachers need, but the emotional toll on the employees is very great.  This trend is also “here to stay.”

The third trend, that of training through the “faculty model,” is also the one that I feel will be more and more prevalent in the future.  (Noe, R. A., Employee Training and Development, 2010, page 80) Through courses such as this many schools have experts in technology (for instance – “Smart Boards”) that are used through Teacher Professional Development to train and provide updated reinforcement instruction.  My former school had teachers with Master’s in Instructional Design and Technology train their colleagues on a regular basis.  These Subject Matter Experts, using a phrase from our textbook, train according to their specific knowledge and availability.  Not all teachers are experts in all forms of new classroom technology and not all training is accomplished in a manner that is timely for everyone because of the constraints of conflicting prep-periods, different “tracks” or the occasional unavailability of the Teacher-instructors.  Therefore new teachers are frequently left to, as Dr. Stolovich mentioned in the video “The Truth About Training,” are most often introduced to technology through On the Job Training and someone else giving them guidance – which at times, as Dr. Stolovich reminded us, causes the trainee to “Also acquire the bad habits and misunderstandings of the informal trainer.”  (Laureate Universities Media Program, 2010 “The Truth About Training.”

References:

Noe, R. A. (2010). Employee training and development (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Lauareate Universities Media presentation, 2010, “The Truth About Training”

www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind

Managing Scope Creep in a Project I'd Like to Forget!

Scope Creep crept into one of my projects when I was in the Army.  I was assigned as a Platoon Leader in a Signal Corps battalion.   It was my first field exercise in a new platoon.  The platoon’s mission was to lay cable or telephone wire from one field site, in this case for an Armored division (i. e., tanks), to another.  The previous platoon sergeant had managed the platoon very well, but he had returned to “The States.”  The replacement platoon sergeant was excellent, a good administrator, very conscientious.  Unfortunately, he had spent his career as a company clerk.  This was his first time in “the field” since Basic Training.  I successfully read the map and led the platoon to the correct hill, safely negotiating the German Autobahn (we went 35 miles an hour, in convoy, and weren’t too popular with those people who drove without speed limits, but that’s another story).  Both of us understood the basics, deliver cable and wire to the units that needed it, set up communications, and then return to pick up the equipment when they’d gone somewhere else, find that unit again, and repeat the process.

Of course, the mission ballooned and we were told we also had to connect wires to junction boxes in telephone switchboard vans, as well as deliver cable to the vans.  I am sure our troops knew we were “newbies,” but no one said a word to us to let us know that this was Standard Operating Procedure. 

We were unaware that the platoon’s mission included connecting these cables and telephone wires.  This certainly expanded our jobs!  Not only did we have to have tents, our own trucks, vans, signal equipment, food, lights, etc., but we also had to figure out how to make these connections.  We were fortunate in that our own site was the first we had to “wire up.”  Wire up, we did!  We ran telephone wire all over the place connecting individual phones in tents, to everyone else’s tents and into the vans.

What a mess!  It looked like a spider’s web.  The battalion Executive Officer visited us the next day, took pictures, and we never heard the end of it.  I had to see those miserable pictures frequently during my three years in that unit.  I am sure that one of our troops would have stopped us if it had been a more important situation.  Scope Crept up and bit us on the ankles.

How could we have avoided the situation, first, as Dr. Budrovich mentioned in the Laureate Universities Video Program, “Practitioner Voices, You Can’t Win Them All,” (Laureate Universities Video Program, “Practitioner Voices, You Can’t Win Them All,” 2010) be wary when stakeholders are slippery.  It was pretty slippery of our troops to slip quietly into their tents and let us make fools of ourselves!  Second, as Dr. Stolovich would have suggested, we needed both a good planning meeting and we needed to get things in writing (Or in this case, read the manuals!), and third, referring to Dr. Stolovich, again, remembering that not only is a project’s measure of success refer to budget and time line, but if the Project Manager doesn’t lose his or her mind.  (Laureate Universities Video Program, “Managing Projects, 2010)  Well, we went over budget (used up all that wire when we cut and strung), completely blew the time line (we could have slowed down the progress of the whole division field exercise if the situation hadn’t occurred at the outset of the field exercise, and we lost our minds!  (I know that our seasoned troops, squad sergeants, etc., thought it was hilarious.  I hope I never treat new Instructional Designers this way!  I guess it’s normal, however, when my grandfather was in France in World War I, he’d send new soldiers looking for “left handed monkey wrenches.”)

References: 

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Laureate Universities Video Programs: “Monitoring Projects” and “Practitioner Voices: You Can’t Win Them All"

Communicating Effectively with Stakeholders - Blog Assignment

I felt that the e-mail was precise and succinct.  It was also non-threatening and I could add any inflection I wanted to.  It addressed the problem that the meeting went on and gave less time to contribute the data, but still led me to understand that my input was necessary.  For me it was the most formal means of communication.  I also appreciated being able to reread it and refer back to it if necessary.  Factors – I am a visual person and like to reread messages.  I also appreciate the fact that the message gave me an option to help the sender by giving her just the data she needed with the implication that I could write a more complete report, later.

The disembodied voice on the voice-mail was also formal and non-threatening.  There was a bit of sympathy for my plight, and there was generosity in the tone when the caller suggested just sending the data in an e-mail.  However, this form of communication was also the one that could be misinterpreted as complaining and whiny if the caller had not had a well-modulated voice.  This would be the means of communication most open to being misconstrued.  Factors – I like the fact that I heard a message that was respectful and concise.  I also like the fact that I can play the message over again if I need to.  I am also an auditory learner and sometimes a spoken message will help me visualize the process I need to do something better than a written message.

The face-to-face message, with the individual draped over “my” cubicle wall was certainly informal.  It made me uncomfortable, like she was “lying in wait” for me to get out of the meeting, and I felt trapped.  I know that she’s an excellent designer, friend and colleague but I was worried that she was going to stand there for the rest of the afternoon watching me collect the data and send it to her.  However, this means of communication also gave her a chance to show me respect and add body language and facial expression to her vocal quality, conveying respectful urgency.  Factors – I am aware of my own tendency to engage someone in conversation in a face-to-face situation.  The very informality of the communication dispelled a sense of urgency.  

I appreciated the anonymity of the e-mail.  It gave me the feeling that the sender expected me to do what I needed to do without feeling guilty.  In the verbal messages there was no way for her to hide the faintly accusatory “I know you were in that meeting, but…”  I could focus on doing what she needed.  Additionally, as record keeping is very important, we both could refer back to the date and time of her message.

The implication is that, as a sender, I need to be an expert in all three forms, for the sake of diplomacy and the process of the project.  By focusing on experiencing and evaluating my own reactions I can then put myself in the position of other members of the team and be more aware of the manner in which they best receive communication.  It is my responsibility to get the message across most efficiently.

However, with this caveat I would also say, as a PM, I would prefer to deliver a message in person and address any questions that might arise, at that time, and then get out of the way to let the project member get the work done!

Reference:

Ertmer, P., & Quinn, J. (Eds.) (2007). The ID Casebook: Case 29, Catherine Nelson: Managing Processes and People in an Instructional Design Project. Case Studies in Instructional Design (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson Education, Inc.