JayWink Solutions
  • Home
  • How We Work
  • Services
  • Blog
  • Racing
  • Contact
Book an appointment with JayWink Solutions, LLC using Setmore
Picture

Training Plan Development via Task Assessment – Part 2

2/13/2019

0 Comments

 

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:
Picture

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:
Picture

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
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Author

    If you'd like to contribute to this blog, please email jay@jaywink.com with your suggestions.

    Archives

    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018

    Categories

    All
    Consulting
    Cost
    Customer Experience
    Maintenance & Repair
    Management & Leadership
    Mentoring & Career Guidance
    Operations
    Productivity
    Product/Service Development
    Project Management
    Quality
    Safety
    Sustainability
    Training & Education
    Uncategorized

    RSS Feed

    Picture
    Picture
       © JayWink Solutions,  LLC

Site powered by Weebly. Managed by SiteGround
  • Home
  • How We Work
  • Services
  • Blog
  • Racing
  • Contact