Tris Brown asked:


Our experience and research tell us that most training initiatives consistently fall short for two reasons:

1. They are not fully implemented or executed.

2. They do not show measurable improvements in performance or in business results.

These two factors have rightfully created ambiguity and cynicism around training as a strategic investment. After all, why would an organization want to invest in processes without clearly understanding how improvements will impact their business?

There are clearly some disconnects between learning and results.

While many companies philosophically believe in “investing in people” through skill building, most are content with allowing the results to “take care of themselves.” The probability of this approach having a tangible business impact is slim. We believe that every learning investment must be managed appropriately if you expect a benefit. Without managing the learning process to ensure that training translates into performance and results, there may be little or no benefit for either the individual or the company.

For organizations and employees to realize the full value of training, they must connect two common “disconnects” that occur between learning and business results. Based on Kirkpatrick’s four level Summative Evaluation, the LSA Learning Maturity Continuum™ below shows five levels of measurement, and how, if learning and application are not effectively linked, true learning and business results can not be achieved nor measured.

The Disconnects

1. Adoption Disconnect. The first disconnect is one of adoption. Adoption is the linchpin between Learning (level II) and Application (Level III) shown to the right. While many are improving their ability to ensure that participants can exhibit the specific skills in a training environment, few do what it takes to ensure that those skills will be transferred and applied on-the-job. This “Adoption Disconnect” inhibits learning from producing performance improvement.

While improving key skills, knowledge, and abilities may provide some benefit to the individual, experience tells us that it is only truly valuable to a team or organization if those skills are transferred to on-the-job performance. This means that organizations must invest in and plan for what happens before, during and after their learning interventions in order to improve organizational performance.

2. Alignment Disconnect. The second disconnect is one of alignment. This is the key connection between Application (Level III) and Results (Level IV). Even if training participants are able to apply new skills and change their on-the-job performance, success is unsatisfactory if the new performance results are not aligned with what the business is trying to accomplish. While this may sound obvious, we continue to find organizations that press ahead with learning and development initiatives that have no clear link to business priorities. This usually occurs due to a lack of rigor in analyzing business priorities, performance objectives, and root causes as part of the design phase for a training initiative. This lack of alignment and adoption is exactly what causes training, and often Human Resources, to be out of step with the critical initiatives of a business.

We believe this lack of alignment is also behind the recent trend toward increased learning analytics and the desire to more effectively measure the return on human capital. In our conversations with Executives, Human Resource Professionals, and

Line Managers, they tell us that they need to measure learning initiatives to justify budgets, approaches, and opportunity costs. We believe, however, that most companies would be better served by focusing their resources not on measuring, but

on managing and fully implementing their learning initiatives in alignment with their key strategic priorities.

Two Steps to Connect the Disconnects™ of Alignment and Adoption

In order to “Connect the Disconnects™” necessary to transform learning into improved on-the-job performance and real business results, we recommend two key steps – starting with alignment.

1. Alignment: Begin with the business objectives in mind

We believe in a deep and fast analysis of business priorities and performance objectives to ensure that training initiatives target key results. While ”deep and fast” may seem contradictory, we know that in today’s competitive landscape an effective analysis needs to be:

I. Timely enough to keep pace with the rate of change within an organization.

II. Deep enough so that it identifies the few key levers needed to achieve the specific desired results.

When training initiatives have a clear line of sight to guiding business objectives, teams are able to move fast, learn, and adapt their approaches to produce defined results. The more actions are aligned with critical business drivers, the greater the impact. This is especially true if the organization views “training” as just one of many arrows in their solution quiver. Unfortunately, many organizations either spend their time and money attempting to measure results of a process that has not been properly managed or executed in the first place or they “push out” training events linked to “competencies” that have minimum impact on job performance and business results.

Alignment, the key connection between Application (Level III) and Results (Level IV), creates the foundation for skills to transfer to on-the-job performance and eventually manifest themselves in tangible business results. Without this alignment, organizations can only hope that their investments make sense. This feeling of “guessing” is what drives companies to decrease their investments in learning or to increase their attempts to measure ROI.

Once you have clarity around the strategic priorities, success metrics, and alignment, it is time to fully manage

and implement the learning solution in conjunction with other interventions – in other words “finish what you

start.” That brings us to step #2 – Adoption.

2. Adoption: Support individuals and teams through the learning transformation To be successful, each learning initiative must employ internal and external levers that enable the successful application of learned skills to job- specific tasks.

Once the appropriate success levers are selected and aligned with the learning development process, the adoption and mastery of new skills should be facilitated using the 5Ri™ Methodology. Through this methodology, skills are adopted, transferred, and successfully applied through the 5R™’s:

I. Relevance: How does the skill development apply directly to an individual’s role and the group’s purpose?

II. Resources: How are the necessary time, information, tools, technology, supporting processes, and structures being made available to produce the desired result?

III. Reinforcement: How is your environment supporting (incentives, consequences, recognition, etc.) the application of the new skills?

IV. Renewal: How is the organization ensuring continuous improvement through coaching, mentoring, follow-up, and refreshers?

V. Review: How are you evaluating the efficacy of the intervention at individual and group levels?

These five critical elements should be identified, managed, and adjusted before, during, and after each learning initiative to ensure adoption, transfer, and performance.

This combination of clarity and systemic support helps to transform learning into improved on-the-job performance and real business results – the real ROI of learning initiatives.

This approach places learning (as needed, just in time) within project teams, business initiatives, and projects instead of just inside a classroom or on a computer screen. Learning should be integrated as a part of your job – not outside of your job.

When we ask executives why they are not fully managing or implementing their learning solutions, they provide three consistent answers.

1. First, it takes time and effort.

2. Second, they are not sure how to do it.

3. Third, even if they knew how to do it, they may not have the skills required to get it done.

While we appreciate the obstacles, we know what it takes to create focus, clarity, and dedication to achieve a true competitive advantage through people.

Conclusion

In summary, because everyone has limited capital and resources, we believe that you will have the best return on investment if you focus on helping people achieve the critical few priorities of the business and on fully implementing solutions before you worry about complicated metrics that are usually based just upon people’s perceptions.

There is little benefit to measuring a “flawed and shallow” implementation. We recommend that you focus, instead, on proper execution before investing in measuring something that has never quite lived up to expectations due to a lack of clear direction and strategic alignment. The far more valuable question becomes “How do you manage and fully execute your training investment to get the results required by your business plan?”



Kansieo.com

Carl Cullotta asked:

Most companies in the innovation game can proudly point to their winners–those new products/services that launched success fully and exceeded expectations for re venue/profit/market share. However, those same companies often express frustration/dissatisfaction with their overall return on innovation investment. Frank Lynn & Associates has worked with many companies that are considered innovators in their industries. This issue of the Client Communiqué shares some lessons learned from the firm’s experience with those leaders.

Lesson Learned: Even the leading innovators express frustration with the process.

We see three common issues that create dissatisfaction: metrics, project initiation, and the innovation process. Inappropriate metrics result in misplaced expectations–even the most successful innovators should expect fewer “hits” than “misses.” Misguided project initiation clogs the development pipeline with so many low-probability projects that the winners cannot be funded properly. And, poor process management sustains the ultimate losing bets in the pipeline for too long. Resources are fragmented across too many non-productive projects, again under-funding the high-probability opportunities.

Lesson Learned: Successful innovators have established metrics that highlight the process.

Most companies measure innovation based on the outputs. For example, a common benchmark demands that 20% of company revenues are generated from products/services launched in the last three to five years. This may be an appropriate strategic goal, but it does not measure the effectiveness of the innovation process. (Even the poorest process can meet this revenue goal if enough resources are thrown at it.)

We have found that the most effective metrics provide actionable insights to the process of innovation. Some of the better practices include:

> Revenue return/dollars invested–including both headcount and hard costs of innovation. This measure provides an indicator as to how well you are allocating resources. Actions derived from this metric could include a change in the project staffing model or changes to the timing of the hard costs (patent application, field tests, etc.) to help lower overall project costs without affecting positive outcomes

> Average number of projects/innovation employee–often, companies take the approach that “every idea is a good idea.” So many development projects are started that the staff cannot devote sufficient resources to any to effectively move them forward. “Addition by subtraction” can result by limiting, or even capping, the number of development projects allowed in the pipeline at any time. A second benefit of this approach is how potential development projects are screened and justified, which is likely to become more rigorous and disciplined

> Average project duration–companies that struggle with innovation have trouble saying “no.” The slimmest glimmer of hope is enough for the sponsor (often an executive) to keep the project alive. The pipeline remains clogged, and the best bet opportunities cannot receive the critical mass of resources they require to move forward. A metric to address this issue is a hard target for average project duration. This metric results in more frequent and disciplined project review. Even a goal to decrease average project duration by 10% will result in quicker “go/no go” decisions and better overall resource utilization

Lesson Learned: Successful innovators actively manage the source of development projects.

Historically, companies tended to take an “inside out” approach to innovation (i.e., “let the inventors invent”). The result was that the vast majority of projects had little direct relation to a market need. While these projects often resulted in neat new ways to use new technologies, they were usually considered ahead of their time. (A good example is a mainstream technology used in warehousing and distribution today–RFID (radio frequency identification). When introduced in the mid 1980’s, they were generally met with market indifference.)

As the “market driven” buzzword took hold, many companies moved to the other extreme. Every development project has to have justification from the marketplace. While hit rates on innovation did improve, this approach lost the “quantum leap” advances–too many of the projects resulted in small incremental improvements in features/benefits. These were certainly welcomed, but not market changing.

The most appropriate approach is a combination of the above extremes. We use a benchmark of 75%–75% of the projects initiated should be market driven. These projects are targeted from the outset to deliver a specific benefit to a specific market segment. The desired competitive advantage for the innovator is stated as part of the justification for the project. Effectively, these 75% of projects are sponsored by the marketing/sales organizations. The remaining 25% of projects are less constrained. Sponsorship can come from anywhere within the organization. The inventors are allowed to invent, and while the hit rate on these projects is substantially less than the market driven ones, the payoff can be substantially higher.

Lesson Learned: A key differentiator that separates innovation leaders is the discipline in process management.

A world class innovation process requires disciplined management. State of the art today is the “stage gate” process. Development projects are managed through a series of stages. Each stage culminates in a review and “go/no go” decision. Only those projects that pass through this gate are funded to the next stage. The discipline introduced through this review process assures that the development pipeline is kept lean, and resources are skewed to the highest probability opportunities.

While the concept of a stage gate process is easy to envision, what separates the successful innovators from the rest is the set of inputs used at each stage. Assessment of both technical and market feasibility are intertwined. A typical stage gate process would consist of the following stages and inputs:

> Stage One: Concept Definition–the purpose here is to articulate the logic behind the development concept, as well as the assumptions that justify the project investment

> From the technical perspective, the basic science/engineering hypotheses are introduced. The sponsor also provides a road map as to how the technology would be developed and scaled up. What assumptions would have to be tested? Where are the potential barriers? And what is the technical project plan for development?

> From the market perspective, some broad definition of the target market and potential benefit must be provided. To whom would this product/service be sold? Why would customers prefer it over existing solutions? Why not? Typically, this information is gathered through secondary data and/or a few conversations with potential customers to gauge desire to have an alternative solution

> Stage Two: Proof of Concept–the purpose of the proof of concept gate is to provide evidence that validates the concept behind the development project. Broad financial metrics are introduced to begin to flesh out the potential return on the innovation

> Proof of concept from the technical perspective means that the science/technology works. Whether in a lab or pilot plant environment, prototypes can be produced to meet the form and function requirements outlined in the concept design

> From the market perspective, positive reaction to the concept must be proven. Through some combination of qualitative market research (“what if” testing) and quantitative research methods, a sense for market acceptance, potential size of market and share, and broad price/value relationship versus existing alternatives must be established

> Stage Three: Commercial Viability–at this stage, the purpose is to assure the concept has “scalability”

> From a technical perspective, the ability to manufacture the product on production scale (or replicate the service model) must be proven. And, the economics or doing so must remain in parameters set earlier in the concept definition stages

> From the market perspective, the concept must pass “beta testing.” Prototypes should be accepted by target customers and the perceived benefits realized. Reactions of target customers at this stage will provide guidance to the timeframe and aggressiveness of the launch and ramp-up, along with the financial ramifications

> Stage Four: Commercial Positioning–the purpose of this final development stage is to define the most viable positioning of the product/service prior to launch. This stage serves as the bridge to the commercialization steps

> From a technical perspective, the positioning step proves that the product/service can be produced, packaged, and delivered to the target customer in a form that meets the promise of the concept for the customer and provides value relative to existing alternatives used by that customer

> From a market perspective, the parameters for launch must be established. These include all aspects of the offering, including price points, packaging, etc. Often, these are established by launching the product/service on a small scale (i.e., in a couple of test markets) and making the necessary modifications in the offering prior to broad commercialization

> Stage Five: Launch–the launch stage represents the handoff of ownership of the project from the development group to the mainstream organization. Product or market segment management takes ownership. Business plans are developed, including revenue goals, operational strategies, sales/marketing/channel strategies, etc. to bring the innovation into the mainstream of the business

Summary

If we look at the big picture, we find that the most successful innovators understand the importance of managing the process. In doing so, they address each of the drawbacks discussed above. These companies understand that the metrics must address the process. They are driven to initiate projects primarily from the “outside in.” And, they are disciplined in managing the low-probability opportunities out of the pipeline as soon as possible. The result of these disciplines is that innovation leaders differentiate themselves as much by treatment of the losers as by generating a wealth of ideas or commercializing the winners.