Training Plan Development via Task Assessment – Part 2

Example Task Assessments

     Part 1 of Training Plan Development via Task Assessment covered the basics of task assessment.  In this installment, example task assessments will be presented to demonstrate application of the method to manufacturing and service operations.  The manufacturing example is taken from Human Relations in Supervision by Willard Parker and Robert Kleemeier for purposes of comparison.  The service example presents a small subset of the possible tasks that may require training in an automotive repair shop.

     The Parker and Kleemeier example lists 12 tasks required for the manufacture of optical glass reticles (lenses).  To eliminate a discrepancy in the text, only 11 tasks will be used in the example.  The tasks to be assessed, in the sequence performed, are:

1. Grind to thickness
2. Grind to diameter (finished)
3. Grind bevel
4. Inspect before polishing
5. Block up
6. Fine grind
7. Polish
8. Remove and clean
9. Inspect
10. Etch
11. Fill in etched lines.

Task assessment ratings are based on the best information available; the example relies on assumptions about production capacity and technologies in use.  Production impact (PI Rating) is correlated, in large part, with the speed of a novice compared to that of an experienced operator (capacity) and how quickly the novice can gain the required skills (learning curve).  The CE Rating (Cost of Errors) communicates the direct and indirect costs of process failure.  Nonmonetary costs, such as the effects on customer relationships and public reputation, should be considered in the analysis.  The SK Rating (Specialized Knowledge) indicates the level of skill required to be successful at the new task.  In the context of a college curriculum, we call this the prerequisite for a course.
Using the form shown in Part 1, the optical glass reticle manufacturing task assessment looks like so:

Notes for each rating may reference specific content of training, explain the rating given, or provide any other reminder the evaluator feels is relevant to successful training for the task.  The Training Schedule should be established as a company standard for each task; it could be based on an historical average of training required for novices to become proficient, an estimate of training requirements for a new process, or another rational basis.  Trainer Requirements should also be company standards, requiring consistent qualifications for trainers of comparable tasks.
     If you’ve been following “The Third Degree,” you may notice the example’s similarity to a Product FMEA.  This is purely coincidental, however; an employee may be required to learn several unrelated tasks.  The resulting task assessment and training plan will not exhibit the Product FMEA’s “linearity.”  The service example, presented next, demonstrates this clearly.
 
            The automotive repair shop apprentice example has been created in similar fashion to the optical glass reticle manufacturing example.  The resulting task assessment looks like so:

In this example, more generic training schedules are used, defined by the apprenticeship’s operating schedule.  That is, if three days are needed for oil change training, for example, the apprentice is scheduled to work three days per week.  Training schedule definition is flexible, allowing each organization to define them in the manner most appropriate to their operations.
     Variety of customer requests is characteristic of service operations.  This is evident in the Applicable Processes or Products column in this example; a training plan derived from this set of tasks will not result in proficiency in all tasks required by all customers.  Task assessments could be performed in sets with identical applicability, if this better serves the organization’s needs.
 
     In Part 3 of Training Plan Development via Task Assessment, we will turn the example task assessments into customized training plans.
 
References
[Link]  Parker, Willard E. and Kleemeier, Robert W.  Human Relations in Supervision; McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1951.

Jody W. Phelps, MSc, PMP®, MBA
Principal Consultant
JayWink Solutions, LLC
jody@jaywink.com