The Only Thing Missing from Dillon's Daytona Wreck

After a very long time, I've decided to post again; my principal motivation is that I haven't seen this discussion anywhere else and am compelled to bring it forward. My motivation is purely to spur discussion, out of respect for those many track services personnel that perform so well on behalf of NASCAR each week.

The final lap of the Coke Zero 400 had the early-morning television viewers holding their collective breath, and nearly broke the Internet through the early morning as video of Austin Dillon’s final lap crash went viral. Everyone is applauding NASCAR’s work on safety within the car and Daytona International Speedway’s improvements to the infrastructure that allowed Dillon to wave to the crowd.

Last night should be an eye-opener for NASCAR, because one of the recent changes may be backfiring.  Last night showed the risk of removing most of the officials from pit road.

Since Michael Waltrip landed on his roof in the 2004 Daytona 500, the roof-resting race vehicle procedure has been practiced every year.  Not just at Daytona, but at any track in which a Sprint Cup, Xfinity, or Camping World Truck race is held .  Daytona International Speedway has a highly experienced team of emergency services professionals led by Troy Willrick, Senior Director of Events and Emergency Services.   Many of these individuals have 20+ years of service. These units are under the control of the Emergency Services Coordinator (ESC) in NASCAR’s Race Control. These ESCs have years of experience in both emergency services and motorsports, are part of NASCAR’s Track Services group, and have a solid relationship with each track’s emergency services personnel built through both events and participation in training. 

First, let’s point out that NASCAR has an emphasis on positive control.  Nothing moves onto the race track until the caution has been communicated and the leader has demonstrably slowed from race speed and acknowledged the yellow. Once the leader “has it,” the safety vehicles are given a direct command by Race Control.  The fact is, while the crews from pit road ran to the 3, there were still vehicles with significant speed coming into an area littered with fuel, debris, coolant and oil.  There were no physical barriers between these crew members and race traffic. The danger to these members of the crew was extremely real; NASCAR’s policy about entering onto the racing surface is well known. There are no exceptions to that policy.  The history of people walking on the racing surface while performing track services functions is well known to the DIS crew. Roy Weaver, a Daytona track worker picking up debris in Turn 2, was fatally injured when struck by a race vehicle in a DASH series race in 2004. The argument will be “the race was over…”  In a 3,400 pound race vehicle, even hitting someone at 35 miles per hour will cause serious injury.  And despite the skill of drivers in NASCAR’s top series – they can’t control a car that suddenly loses a tire, or hits fluid on the track.

Second, focus on Austin Dillon.  His race vehicle was inverted.  Daytona has a “99” physician, skilled paramedics, and extrication crews ready to respond no matter where Dillon’s car came to rest on the track. The paramedics are trained in this specific situation, and NASCAR’s “Chase Vehicle” is close by as well. These resources were at Dillon's car within 40 seconds of it coming to rest.  Removing Dillon from the car was the role of a medical provider, not a well-intentioned crew member. Doing so could have significantly aggravated an injury.  Not only that, but history also tells us that the crew members are slow to relinquish space to track services personnel.  Ask anyone who has ever witnessed a medical cart moving through the fire lane behind pit road.  Everyone understands their emotion and their passion, but just like the family members at the wreck on the interstate – they need to let the professionals perform as they have been trained.  And in this case, they were in the way because simply put - there were no barriers to prevent them from doing so.

This didn’t have to unfold this way.  In years past NASCAR attempted to have an official in each pit stall.  NASCAR has been moving away from this for a couple years, quietly.  High definition cameras and timing loops certainly capture much of the information necessary for issuing penalties, and messages can be relayed to teams pretty effectively using NASCAR's radio system and technology.  What has been lost is the safety margin, and to a lesser extent – control of pit road.

The NASCAR official was in each pit for more than to issue lug nut penalties and relay messages.  The official saw when a fuel man had accidentally been covered in fuel, and made him change out his fire suit before the next pit cycle.  When there was a fire in a pit stall, the official was there to support the pit road firefighter, watching traffic on pit road. In more than one event, there is video of an official pulling a firefighter towards pit wall because of pit road traffic. In the Xfinity race Saturday night, a team member went over the wall without a helmet.  An official in the pit would likely have prevented that.  Sometimes a presence is necessary to maintain order and control, and since NASCAR’s early days the pit road official was that presence.

Last night, pit road officials would have stopped – or at least stemmed the tide - of crew members running onto the track and allowed DIS emergency personnel to manage Austin Dillon’s incident safely.

Most of NASCAR’s changes are well thought out and planned, even years in advance.  The general public typically doesn't get to see the animated discussions and due diligence that goes into even the simplest change. NASCAR's processes and diligence were on full display in the construction of Dillon's car - and the condition it left the track in.

Nobody can fault NASCAR for trying to improve efficiency and control costs, while being more consistent in calling penalties.  Controlling costs, improving competition, and improving safety are the core elements of NASCAR’s Research & Development Center in Concord, North Carolina.  In this case, the change has resulted in unintended consequences.  Reducing the number of officials to the current six to eight has virtually eliminated the safety margin on pit road, arguably the most dangerous section of any race track.  Perhaps this weekend’s event should create discussion about whether the pendulum has swung too far.

Academics & Realities

Academics: Knowledge, skills and ability taught in a controlled learning environment.

Reality: Applying knowledge, skills and ability in the uncontrolled environment of life. 

I'm proud of my 9 children. They've been with me in the classroom, been patients for EMS practical exams, and been on the sidelines as I've taught for nearly 20 years. Shelley, the oldest, is a rising senior at UNC-Asheville. I visited her recently; she was hug (and cash) deprived.  We had an extended discussion about academics and "real life". I felt harsh as I tried to explain how her excellent high school education and three years at UNC-A hadn't really prepared her for the reality of spending her first summer off-campus.

We rely on the schools to teach our children reading, writing, math, science; yet as a parent we have to expand on that. Managing  money, finding a place to live, networking to find a job, how to stretch the last $20 in your pocket until your next payday.  We (hopefully) are responsible enough to fill in the blanks left by academics. Therein lies my topic for this month - how well do YOU bridge the gap between a controlled learning environment and the uncontrolled environment of life?

Some basic questions about the training we do in the workplace:

1. Who is ultimately responsible for bringing students from the academic or training environment forward through real-world application?
2. Does the curriculum you're using take real-world application into consideration? Were the "end-users" a part of the development process?
3. Does the curriculum allow reasonable latitude for instructors to bridge the gaps?
4. How do you allow instructional freedom yet retain instructional consistency?
5. Is performance of the training program actually measured against the end result, not just with regard to the training but in regard to the whole person and their job responsibilties?

In many ways, we are talking about outcome-based education. I've been hammered over my hard-headedness in this area.  To me, an "objective" means simply that you have achieved something specific and measurable at a moment in time. Most instructional programs use that word liberally. My favorite example of this is from a Fire Instructor text:  "The instructor candidate can identify three characteristics of ethical behavior."  Duh. It ranks right up there with "the student will be able to identify an instructor credential."  Let me see, that would be the one that has INSTRUCTOR written on it, maybe?

"Outcome" means that they have ownership of the major concepts and can apply them going forward; they can be just as specific but are often more difficult to measure. Nobody said training people was easy!  In the example above, I have no doubt the goal - the outcome - was for the Fire Instructor to actually BE an ethical instructor. Whether you met that outcome for your program can certainly be measured initially during the educational process using scenario-based questions or evolutions; but even more importantly it must be measured over time, after completion of the program.

Someone told me that outcomes were too academic a concept.  The fact is, outcomes are simpler and when constructed correctly, they should more accurately mirror the real world than a simple objective.  In one class, a list of about 30 objectives was replaced with five outcomes. Objectives are the academic throwback; outcomes are reality-based.

In fact, if you really want to know my opinion:  it doesn't matter what you call the statements you use to guide your program, as long as they are TRULY geared toward ensuring someone attending your training is prepared to function in reality.

I really wish somewhere in 15 years of schooling and 21 years of my parenting, I had helped bridge the understanding of the basic equation:
                  Income + Financial Aid = Expenses
Or maybe I'm the one being schooled in reality:
                  Income (Daughter) + Income (Dad) + Financial Aid  =  Expenses

Top-Down Training... Talladega Style

We often hear people talk about the importance of management not just providing, but being actively involved in training.  Like many training concepts, this can be difficult to illustrate and even harder to measure. This past weekend's NASCAR race at Talladega is an excellent example of how management's direct involvement pays off.

Here's a short clip showing a late-race incident involving Eric McClure (14).

Thanks to ESPN for the link to the video clip.  According to ESPN, an average of 3.5 million people were tuned in for the NASCAR Nationwide Series' Aaron's 312. That's a pretty large audience to have judging the effectiveness of your training. A couple of key points for anyone without an emergency services background:

1. The average "acceptable" response time to a 911 call - even a horrific motor vehicle collision - is under 8 minutes from the time of the call to units arriving on scene.
2. Medical personnel consider the first hour after a traumatic injury the "golden hour". Seriously injured patients delivered to a high-level trauma center within 60 minutes of injury have higher survival rates.
3. From the time of Eric McClure's impact until his arrival at the UAB Trauma Center was around 30 minutes. This includes the initial assessment, disincarceration/extrication, and aeromedical transport.

Talladega, in conjunction with NASCAR, provides training every year. A lot of people would call the emergency services and support staff there "volunteers" because they are not compensated as employees; in fact - the majority of the personnel are from career agencies across the southeast.  They are in every sense of the word, professionals. The individual providing medical care to a team member in the pits could have been answering 911 calls in Birmingham, Atlanta, or even Tallahassee the week before.

So why is this an example of top-down training?

First, look at Dr. Bobby Lewis, the track's medical director. Dr. Lewis is ultimately responsible for the medical care provided.  He participates in training each year, working with crews and conducting scenarios very similar to the one that played out during the race.  He knows virtually every person working both on the track and in the track's medical center, and responds to serious incidents.  He works with the staff to evaluate past incidents - looking for ways to improve. Dr. Lewis doesn't micro-manage; its about observation, support, intervention when necessary, and helping those around him improve.

To put that in perspective - it would be as if the Emergency Room physician personally trained the EMT and Paramedic on the ambulance that responds to your house for a medical call, responded to your house to assist in your care, then followed up with you a week later.

But it doesn't stop with Dr. Lewis. Jimmy McKee, the track's Emergency Services Coordinator and Andy McWilliams, the Director of Operations work directly with all of senior management. They train on everything from fence and asphalt repair to guest services and security.  The names are too many to list - everyone has a role with a specific job that they train for, and a role in supporting everyone else as they do other jobs.

Senior management doesn't just provide support in the form of a wink-and-nod.  When a place for training was needed due to a scheduling issue, they reached out to the Motorsports Hall of Fame and secured the building and grounds.

Their training isn't wasteful. They look for and take advantage of opportunities to turn a routine maintenance operation into a training evolution by asking "what if this was race day?"  They make excellent use of their institutional knowledge - the team that built the fence helps train everyone on how to fix the fence; Bob Harrington (NASCAR's Asphalt Guru and all-around super guy) trained the operations staff on care and repair of the asphalt after the track was resurfaced.

The fact that everyone in the media is focused on the fact Eric McClure was released from the hospital and this week's race in Darlington instead of on the performance of the Talladega crew is a testament to teamwork and top-down training. Great job, gang. Great job.

Virginia Tech & The Lunch Pail Defense: What's Your Symbol?

Many of you that know me realize that I have a passion for college sports. My dorm room at Virginia Tech overlooked Cassell Coliseum and Worsham Field (612 Lee Hall). I wrote for the Collegiate Times in 1988-89. Jeff Motley, the Public Relations guru for Las Vegas Motor Speedway and I had a lot of late nights and road trips. The Hokies were 3-8 overall that year under 2nd year coach Frank Beamer, with a young linebacker coach named Bud Foster. A lot of time has passed since then. A lot more people know where Blacksburg is, and there's a waiting list for season tickets. Traditions have evolved.

The Lunch Pail
Photo Credit: HokieSports.Com

One of the most visible traditions of Hokie Football is the lunch pail; a battered metal lunchbox carrying the VT logo along with the words Team and WIN. The lunch pail sits on the sideline for every game, watched over by the top defender from the previous game.  Inside is the mission statement for the week, along with grass or turf from past road wins. Bud Foster started the lunch pail tradition in 1995, a symbol of the blue-collar, hard working nature of his defense. "The lunch pail is about going out and earning success and deserving victory, whatever it is, whether it's on the field or off the field," explains Foster.

The lunch pail is a powerful symbol. To the members of the team, it represents a common goal and provides motivation.  To the thousands of Hokie fans, it forms a bond with the team rooted in common values of hard work. In 2007, the lunch pail transcended football when it carried the names of the 32 victims killed on campus by a lone gunman. The Pail has even been depicted on class rings awarded to VT graduates. Coach Foster and the lunch pail have extended into the community through the Lunch Pail Defense Foundation.

The key to the lunch pail's success is the emotion it generates. By definition, a symbol represents or stands for something else - especially when the "something else" is abstract.

What kind of emotion do you generate when you conduct training? I would argue that the best instructors face the same challenges Coach Foster did in 1995:

• Building common ground and shared values - the trainer has to believe that what is being taught is important, and get the students to believe as passionately has he or she does.
• Ensuring that the knowledge, skill, and ability conveyed in training is put to use at every opportunity to achieve a common, realistic goal.
• Recognizing individual achievement while simultaneously building team performance and synergy.
• Emphasizing preparation as a major component of success.
• Recognizing that any team (group of students) can be a positive influence and have a significant impact.

Every instructor teaches as part of a larger organization, just as Coach Foster and the defense is just one part of a team and an even smaller part of the University. That hasn't changed the impact of the lunch pail.  The next time you go out to teach, think about what you symbolize. 

Send me an e-mail and tell me what your symbol is, or how you'd build off this concept to support your training program. I will select the best one I receive by December 15th and send you an early Christmas present.

Buzzwords, Bad Ideas & Self-Promotion

Quite a few of my friends and acquaintances recently went to an "educators" conference. When they, almost universally, mentioned they probably wouldn't be returning it didn't surprise me all that much. Given the economy, and the fact that most of us work for a living and have to budget our travel and free time.

The surprising part was when they explained why they wouldn't be returning.  Not the economy.  Not the overpriced hotel. They won't be returning because, as one person said so eloquently "the presentations sucked."  In one case, the presenter was so offensive within the first five minutes that many simply tuned him out, or left.  Those of you that know me know I can be colorful at times myself - but offend an entire audience?

Needless to say - this got my attention.  I went and looked over the programs for a few upcoming conferences and was more than a little discouraged by what I found.  You can lump a huge volume of the planned presentations into three basic categories: Buzzwords, Bad Ideas, & Self-Promotion.

Buzzwords

Just because you read about something in Popular Mechanics doesn't mean it really is the "next best thing" and I don't think reading one article qualifies you as an expert.  PM does a "look back" every so often and the inventions and ideas seem pretty funny.  Just look at the articles about the year 2000, written even as late as the 1970's!  Unfortunately, too many people follow or promote "the next big thing" and use buzzwords (see below) rather than focus on their own organization or creating positive change.  Truthfully, the term buzzword isn't bad. It simply means a new idea or concept that has gathered some attention. When managers and directors try to keep up with trends (i.e., follow the buzz) there are occasional successes, but more often they simply distract us from our core job function.   They create "scope creep" - you have all experienced it. Positive change is great. Change without purpose, or without considering how it affects all the stakeholders, can be disastrous.

Personally, I love this definition of the word buzztard from the Urban Dictionary site:

Someone who uses a lot of buzzwords to make them self sound like a leader in a field when really they have little or nothing to actually do with anything they talk about. Consultants and marketers usually fall into this field but sometimes there are people who should know better who become this as well.

We all know people who love to drop the latest idea or term in a meeting. The next time you get a "buzz" I want you to think back to this blog. Gang, let's try a new and relatively untested concept out.  GO BACK TO BASICS.  Think about what the "buzz" you are experiencing will affect your job, task, or program. Be sure you have a total, firm grip on one simple thing:  does this "buzz" make the job, task, or program simpler? more profitable? reduce the chance of injury? save time? Generally - be sure it's going to be a positive change before you go trying to re-invent the wheel. Only after you take an honest look at your own situation can you determine if change is appropriate.  Don't forget, you can always pull the plug on the idea too.  Don't let your pride cause you to keep chasing a bad decision. 4th and 20? Don't be afraid to punt.

So, with this knowledge in hand, I encourage all you conference presenters and selection committees to immediately eliminate buzzwords from your presentations.  Give us concrete, proven ideas that improve or job, task or program.  Then I will be among the first to sign up for your sessions.

Bad Ideas

Going even beyond Buzzwords, some ideas are just bad. I'm in favor of challenging the normal, of positive change, of questioning authority, and all the usual cliches.  Have you ever left a presentation feeling that a presenter was just completely wrong?   Having been in their shoes, sometimes it's not entirely the presenter's fault.  Maybe they were given a specific topic; maybe they were given bad information about the audience.Maybe they are just a smart person, maybe even a good person, who is stuck defending a bad idea. See Scott Berkun's article on that whole topic here. Scott also has a good piece on Bullsh** detection here.

So what makes something a bad idea? Not entirely what you think.  A bad idea is:

• Something that may be appropriate for one audience, but does not apply or requires changes to be applied effectively, for the audience to which it is delivered.
• A presentation recommending a specific course of action that should be easily supported by research, that isn't. Encouraging a course of action should ONLY be  done when the Presenter gives up the relevant facts that lead you to that action.
•  Blindness to past failures OR successes.  Presenting an idea or concept that has been unsuccessful i the past, without presenting solid data on why it should be expected to succeed now.  Overemphasizing successes can lead you down the wrong road as well.
• A lack of preparation.  Out of place?  When you don't prepare for your presentation appropriately, you fail to communicate your ideas effectively.  Even the best idea comes across as a bad idea if you don't communicate it clearly.

I honestly believe it when I say not a single presenter starts out with a bad idea. Diligent preparation and research on a topic goes a long way towards keeping a good presenter from showing up with a bad idea.  Conference organizers should look at submitted presentations carefully, and have an ongoing dialogue with your presenters to ensure the death of bad ideas.

Self-Promotion

Although I can overlook some of the things that happen with the first two ideals, this one gets me twisted up right quick.  I want a presenter to disclose any real or perceived conflict of interest right up front as I'm registering for the conference.  I want it announced at the beginning of the presentation.. It should be the audience's decision whether to listen to an extended sales pitch.

Now hang on a second.  Some manufacturer's representatives are EXCEPTIONALLY knowledgeable and gifted speakers.  They have a depth of knowledge that is great to tap into, especially during question and answer sessions. When you task a manufacturer's representative for a presentation, it can realistically be one of your better presentations. Two basic rules apply. First, disclose the person's background and relationship to the topic up front. Second, present other options in addition to your own solution. Give me pros and cons of each. Let me make up my own mind.

What you do have to worry about are the presenters who show up promoting their own personal agenda or not disclosing a conflict. Remember that a conflict of interest doesn't have to be a formal relationship with a vendor. A conflict of interest exists, at the most basic level, when the speaker stands to gain something of value by advancing a specific belief of position.  For example, a speaker can present on the topic of massage therapy for orthopedic injuries should disclose their certification as a massage professional even if they are not recruiting business from the audience or exhibiting in the vendor hall.

Every conference organizer should be asking for signed conflict of interest statements from presenters.  Managing conflicts can be simple, as long as they are known.

1. Seek an alternative presenter unless the benefits of the speaker outweigh the conflict.
2. Ask the person to refrain from any discussion or decision-making involving the conflict.
3. Present multiple options and allow audience members to select the most appropriate for their application.
4. Involve a 3rd party to lead discussions or present an objective assessment after the speaker's presentation.
5. Defer to any applicable Code of Ethics.  Remember that some individuals (politicians, lawyers, and health care professionals among others) may be legally required to make disclosures if a conflict exists.

In Conclusion
Now that we've identified a few of the common things happening in conferences today, maybe you can make a more informed decision about the sessions you choose to attend.   If you're a conference organizer, take the time to know your presenters, and their presentations.  Avoid buzzwords, bad ideas, and self-promotion and your audiences will thank you, and return next year.

The Trainer is Naked!

Everyone knows Hans Christian Anderson’s tale The Emperor’s New Clothes. The basic premise, you may remember, is based on two weavers preying on the pride and vanity of an emperor. Educators often focus on the courage of the child to speak the truth. Training associations and conferences tend to focus on the throngs of educators who spout terms like LMS and SCORM mercilessly, while wasting thousands of hard-won profit dollars to at best maintain the status quo. I’m not a child, but I’m going to throw in some “truth” about the state of training today. Why? In the past two months I’ve taken a lot of classes, both online and instructor led. And based on my experience, things are not what they should be in this parade.

Let me begin by saying, good training benefits every organization, every employee. I am a firm believer that “good” learning experiences can take individual performance to a higher level, improve employee satisfaction, and generally improve the entire organization.

Ladies and gentlemen, the problem is – THERE ISN’T A LOT OF GOOD TRAINING OUT THERE. Most corporate training falls into three distinct categories:

• Compliance / Risk Management Training
• Employee Development Training
• Needs-Based Training

FIRST…

Compliance and risk management training is boring. Students hate it. Insurance companies and risk managers love it. Governmental agencies love it. Do you really consider this training? Let’s call the trainer flat out naked on this one, because it isn’t really training in the majority of circumstances. Put in the tape, take the test. Log on to the LMS, click next a few times, then take the quiz. Yes, we are 100% trained. These are some serious blanket statements, and there are exceptions. A very few exceptions. A lot of these programs are in place because we didn’t prepare someone (or a group of someones) to do the job the right way in the first place. We didn’t do our job initially, then something bad happened. So now we have lost the luxury of using training time and money for real benefit. Before you start thinking “that’s just a small area…” OSHA compliance was estimated as a $33 Billion per year as a direct cost to industry in 1998. [i]

Did your company buy a training package on Lock Out, Tag Out or Forklift Operation? Did you customize the curriculum for your company? Most of you will say yes, because you teach your Company’s policies and maybe changed the logo on the PowerPoint. Think about how many times you’ve had to un-teach something they just saw on a video, or had to explain outdated equipment (in the program, or in your own shop). Truthfully, the programs may be expensive, professional, and top quality. Yet they’re still junk. They miss on the one of the single most important mark: STUDENTS HATE THE TRAINING, especially the recurrent/refresher programs. If students hate it, they probably aren’t learning much. And if they aren’t learning – i.e., if they aren’t building the competency that forms the reason for the training – the whole program is pretty much a waste. Sign the roster and send them away; at least they’d be happy. If they’re competent, document the competency through observation or demonstration rather than waste 4 or 8 hours in a classroom.

The reality is that this is “check off” training; the result of a mandate or standard somewhere. Treat it as such. No amount of development work, SCORM conformant development, or flash animation will take away from the need to train employees properly when they first come onto the job, or make this kind of training truly effective at changing employee behavior. Once an employee has learned a behavior, you have to motivate them to “un-learn” it before you can imprint the correct process. How much time was spent in that last lock-out class “un-learning” how you currently operate in the “real world”? I bet you didn’t spend much.

SECOND…

Who Moved My Cheese? Yep, I’m going to go there because that mouse is naked. Spencer Johnson’s tale is a good parable, and good read that will help you in understanding organizational psychology. It is a good BOOK. It isn’t a cult, or some existential training program that revolutionizes management. Good trainers should have had an understanding of these concepts all along! Yet we routinely, and endlessly, push our corporate hoards through employee development programs in the hopes that some will survive the next purge or merge. I really love all the teamwork training that’s out there; some of the team-building exercises promoted by our “experts” belong on reality TV. The fact is that teamwork develops when a group of people are faced with a common challenge, which forces them to work together, and has a (generally) positive outcome for the team members. The “M & M Game” really doesn’t do much to build solid, lasting teams. I don’t recall seeing the US Marine Corp implementing it at Parris Island, SC ; and the USMC is regarded worldwide and taking disparate socioeconomic youth and turning them into the most effective teams in the world. I’m kind of partial to learning from those who ARE experts, not those who are CALLED experts.

Yes, just like compliance training… These employee development programs are almost as universally hated. Well, hated by all but the most rear-end kissing employees who would write a positive review about cafeteria food that gave them salmonella. The truth is, if you want to develop your marketing department – bring in someone who has done it and let him or her learn your business. Then develop smaller, social learning opportunities. Develop mentor relationships. Solid management, solid leadership, and providing resources will develop your employees. Be extremely careful sending people to external training unless you’re sure it will have a positive effect.

THIRD…

Okay, well after two passes down the parade route the emperor is still naked. The third category is finally something that is starting be worth the time and investment. Needs-based training. Who defines the need? Who fills the need? That’s the area that can make or break this type of program. These are those unique, custom-built in-house programs. Often these hit closer to the mark than the other types of training. Why? Because they are typically internal to a company. They make use of in-house subject matter experts. When you pull a few of the SME’s together and ask them to help develop training programs –guess what? Remember what I said about a shared challenge? You can get a solid team when your SMEs start working together. Beyond training, good ideas breed good ideas, efficiency of process of person, and so on.

The problem with this area, over the past five years, has been the transition to “Online Education”. We’ve taken 15 years of PowerPoint, narrated it, and thrown it on a server somewhere. In addition to the time and money saved by doing learning-on-demand, we saved our students from any chance of improving their performance. We removed the ability of the student to interact with what was a skilled subject matter expert and peers. Properly constructed online programs can overcome the loss of the SME and peer group; poorly constructed ones exaggerate it.

How many properly constructed online programs are there? I see a lot of client content on a day-to-day basis. I’d say less than 10% of all content that’s posted meets even simple tests for “good courseware”. And let’s talk about this SCORM stuff for a second. SCORM is a solid, but complex standard. I love the ability to randomly pull questions from a pool, track interactions, etc. Probably that same 10% of online content makes us of SCORM features. A core group of academics is already pushing for the “next” update. Hey, fellow educators. Let’s take a minute and get the content that’s out there up to at least one of the standards we’ve written before we go writing the next one. Even better, before we worry about the technical aspects of delivering content via a system that costs upwards of six figures… LETS SHOOT FOR THE CONTENT ITSELF BEING OF BETTER QUALITY!!!

In my days as a public safety instructor, I used very simple tests for competency that took into account the big-picture outcome I was shooting for. “Would I let this paramedic student take care of my infant son?” But honestly, if the students went home at the end of the day tired, maybe a little dirty or sweaty because they were doing things in a real-world environment, and feeling a little smarter or a little better prepared – I felt I had done my job.

Gang, we cannot teach everyone everything. The Trainer isn’t wearing any clothes. Somewhere along the line, as an industry, we have become so caught up in the profession – and have become so vain that we aren’t seeing the obvious, just like Anderson’s Emperor. Training is about teaching someone to do something new, or do something they already do, better.

Good Training Requires:

• The Right Curriculum
• The Right Environment
• The Right Student
• The Right Instructor
• The Right Technology

Stop selling yourself, and your students, short. Put the buzzwords on urban dictionary and take them out of your vocabulary. Go put some clothes on and get back to teaching. Our students, and our profession, should demand nothing less.

---

[i] James, Harvey S., Jr., “Estimating OSHA Compliance Costs.” Policy Sciences 31: 321-341, 1998. Kluwer Academic Publishers.