Trainers: A KEY stakeholder in a successful PS implementation

One concern I have always had when I speak about Performance Support is that I will be perceived as “bashing the classroom”. I recently delivered a keynote on Informal Learning and Performance Support for the Institute on IT Training Conference in London. I had an attendee, or delegate to be geographically correct:), come up to me after my session asking if I felt that the classroom, and the instructor’s role specifically, was diminished by adding PS to a blended offering. That couldn't be further from the truth!!

Con and I are often asked to name the perfect place to introduce PS into an organization – EASY answer: The classroom! What better place to begin the journey towards independent and self-directed learning than the classroom? But for this to be successful you need a dedicated and gifted instructor at the front of the room. This is where true blended learning comes in. In one of our earlier posts on blended learning we talk about how PS is key to providing a true learning ecosystem. Just blending formal learning assets may save money and appear to be blending options, but it’s not truly supporting a learner across all 5 moments of need.

We have found that the most successful PS initiatives begin in the classroom and are introduced in the context of formal learning. Buy-in and support from the trainer is critical to this success and involves considering a few important factors:

1 – Involve the trainer early in the development process: In many of the learning organizations we work with, developing courses is a well oiled machine. It's a process where the trainers may be asked to participate, and one they have learned to trust to create fairly standard courses. Once you begin introducing PS into the mix the trainers need to be involved as early as possible so they can understand the intended outcome, design, and presentation. If they feel that PS has been thrust upon them many will not engage, in fact we have seen trainers even disrupt a PS roll out because they felt removed from the process. Many trainers see PS as a threat. It’s perceived as a tool designed to lessen their role. Again, not true! In fact, a trainer is key to making PS successful.

2 – Help your trainers to see their role differently: Integrating PS into a classroom involves more than just “demoing the PS tools at the end of class”. For these tools to be truly internalized and seen as being of value, the trainer needs to position them as an integral part of the classroom experience. They need to be seen as something that will truly help the learner in the context of their job, and as a tool that the trainer believes in! To make this work the trainer will need to teach a different level of skills than the ones they may have typically focusing on. Enabling PS is not about learning a particular rote piece of material, but rather the critical thinking skills needed to effectively problem solve and enable a PS tools in the context of doing their job. This will be a different way of approaching instruction. It begins with simply not answering as many questions and guiding the students toward the solution through the PS frameworks being introduced. The “industry term” for this type of learning strategy is “Metacognition” or learning how to learn. It involves teaching a learner about when and where to use particular strategies for learning or problem solving. This is PS’s greatest strength. The trainers who have mastered this technique are teaching at a level above all others. PS tools enable this to happen.


3 – Teach them the “Ramp up/Ramp Down” technique - This is an approach to instruction where the instructor intentionally eases themselves out of the “support” business while replacing their it with an equally effective PS strategies. As the graphic shown here illustrates, as the trainer’s level of support lessens over time, they replace that support with 3 PS tools – Peer, Job Aids, and Electronic Performance Support Systems (EPSS). Each moves the learner that much farther away from dependent strategies and that much close to self directed learning.

Trainers have a new and vital role to play in the overall success of a PS initiative. They simply need to be integrated and involved in a way that makes their role apparent and intentional.

Performer Support and the Moment of Change

Learning, Unlearning, and Relearning

In an earlier blog article (http://performancesupport.blogspot.com/2009/05/moment-of-apply.html ) we stated that the moment of “Apply” is the “most critical moment in any person’s individual learning process.” Certainly preparing learners for this “most critical” moment should be at the heart of all we do – after all, if people can’t perform at that moment, what good have we done with all our efforts leading up to it?

But there is another moment of need that directly impacts how we address the moment of “Apply.” Change is a fundamental reality in today’s work environment. It is often unpredictable, absolutely unrelenting, and, more often than not, terribly unforgiving. Alvin Toffler, writer and futurist, has observed that change, today, is “non-linear and can go backwards, forwards and sideways". He further describes how we must respond to this dynamic change environment, in his book Rethinking the Future:

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn."

The fundamental difference between how we support learners at the moment of “Change” and how we do at the typical moment of “Apply” lies in the requirement change makes of learners to “unlearn” and then “relearn” a new way. Our profession, for the most part, hasn’t provided the support it can and should when learners face this performance twist. Here are a couple of recommendations:

Take on the Challenge of Deep Rooted Change
Years ago, after completing work for a client, a participant in the project offered to drive me to the airport so we could continue our discussion. After a long drive I became a bit nervous about missing my flight. I interrupted our discussion and asked my driver, “How long before we arrive at the airport.” As he hit his breaks he turned to me and said, “I’m almost home.” Has something like this ever happened to you – where you have acted in an automated way? The cognitive principle at play in such circumstances is “automaticity.” Things that we do, over and over, tend to become automated in our skill set – to the point that we can do them without conscious thought. And when this has occurred within a workforce and the workforce is then called upon to change that automated performance, organizations face one of the most significant performer support challenges it can face.

Software companies have paid dearly in their failure to provide meaningful solutions to this moment of change—where skills have become “deep-rooted.” For example, Microsoft had to force feed Vista through its market channels. There was very little pull from the marketplace. Why, because Vista, with all of its remarkable capabilities, lacked the performance support infrastructure necessary to help people “unlearn” their automated skills and “relearn” how to perform the same tasks in Vista. Had Microsoft provided this support, the uptake by their existing customer-base would have not only been dramatically faster (thereby accellerating revenues) but the good-will generated within that customer-base would have suppressed rather than fed Microsoft’s competing market forces.

When organizations face any major change initiative, there is high probability of deep rooted skills that require overriding. This can best be done with a robust solution that supports performers in their workflow, at the moment of apply when they are called upon to “unlearn” and "relearn." Too few change initiatives adequately make this crucial investment.
This challenge of deep-rooted change has been around for a long time. We now have the knowledge and wherewithal to address it directly. We simply need to understand the realities of deep-rooted change and step up to it, ahead of it, before it’s upon us.

Grow Dynamic Learners
As mentioned at the beginning of this article, there is a new era of change confronting organizations today. This unpredictable, unrelenting, and unforgiving environment of change requires organizations to cultivate dynamic learners – learners who know how to be rapid, adaptive, and collaborative in how they learn, unlearn, and relearn. Today’s learners must cultivate a mindset that anticipates change. These dynamic performers must also have access to tools to help them detect change before it is on top of them. Because they live in a state of continuous change they must also cultivate personal learning strategies that minimize the probability of their own skills becoming automated (deeply rooted) unless those skills merit becoming so. These dynamic learners learn on the run and rely on performance support tools to assist them at every moment of learning, unlearning, and relearning. And when these dynamic learners see change coming at them, they know how to assess their current readiness to perform, identify what skills and knowledge they need to cast aside and then determine how to take advantage of performer support systems to assertively adapt to the conditions around them.

Is it possible to help learners develop these dynamic learning skills and disposition? Absolutely. Here are some blog articles we’ve posted that partially address how this can be accomplished:

Friday, January 9, 2009 “Flourishing During Rough Economic Times”
http://performancesupport.blogspot.com/2009/01/four-recommendations-for-learning.html

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 “The Role of Engagement in Performer Support”
http://performancesupport.blogspot.com/2008/11/delivering-even-greater-strategic-value.html

Thursday, September 25, 2008 “Surviving Unrelenting Change”
http://performancesupport.blogspot.com/2008/09/challenge-worth-pursuing.html
Thursday, August 14, 2008 “Organizational Learning Agility and Performance Support”
http://performancesupport.blogspot.com/2008/08/negotiating-churning-waters-of-change.html

The last blog article (listed above) references a research report we published last fall that discusses the vital need for organizations to cultivate the capacity to “learn at or above the speed of change.” Since publishing this report we have been engaged in a year-long benchmarking study with ten remarkable, and in most cases, multi-national organizations. The results of this study have reinforced the need to cultivate dynamic learners and the reality that it is possible to do so. It has never been sufficient to build exceptional learning and performance support solutions. The ultimate key to success in all we do lies in the choices people make and the way they choose to go about it. This is especially true when we work to support performers at the moment of change.

Where to from Here?
Our performance support community needs examples to help us move forward in this area. We have many excellent examples that address typical moments of “Apply.” But how are you addressing the moment of “Change?” How are you cultivating “Dynamic Learners?” Share with us what you’re doing and we’ll continue to share back.

If I could start the jouney all over again...

As I sit here waiting for the long weekend to arrive (for our non-US readers, this coming Monday is a holiday called "Labor Day" here in the states) I've had a moment to reflect on my week. I was filled with appointments, presentations, and travels talking about the value and application of Performance Support (PS). Candidly, I've been overwhelmed of late by the huge upsurge in the popularity of this discipline. Whether it's the economy, conversations sponsored by industry leaders such as Elliott Masie, or just the natural evolution of learning, PS has clearly moved into the spotlight in many organizations and is quickly becoming a vital part of their overall learning strategy. It's ALL very exciting and long overdue...

The more I think about my own journey and the conversations I've had this week, the more I wish I could do this whole learning thing all over again. I would do it all so differently. Those of you who have known me for a while, know I've been at this learning arena for a long time - 26 years to be exact. The first 5 were spent as an elementary school teacher in upstate NY. After getting my Masters in computer education, I joined what is now Element K in its VERY early years (I was the 26th employee to be exact back in 1987) and spent 16 years there. I then went to Microsoft for 3 years and was a Director in the learning group. And finally, for the past 3 years I have been with LearningGuide. The irony of that journey is that I didn't utter the word "Performance Support" during the first 23 years of it! I built a lot of GREAT training assets, many of which I am very proud of, BUT never broached the world of PS until very recently.

I think I have found a home! Throughout most of my professional life I have struggled with the fact that although I was certified in training/teaching, it seemed like very little of my teachings had a long term and direct impact. People may have liked me and probably learned a whole lot of good stuff, but I grew tired of hearing that much of it didn't "stick", was hard to truly apply, or just didn't have the long term impact it should have. Why was that?

If I had to do it all over again, I would throw out much of what I learned about ID and do it very differently. Don't get mad a me here, but frankly the last 3 years of my professional life have strongly challenge much of what I had been taught during the first 23, including all that wonderful academia stuff. Fundamentally I was taught that everything could be solved with good training. It was the proverbial "hammer looking for a nail" and EVERYTHING looked like a nail!! My latest journey with Conrad into a deep study and intentional work in the PS arena has changed my outlook.

If I could do it all over again, I would stop even worrying about training, at least initially, and architect all my learning solutions around PS. If that didn't work, or couldn't stand alone, which in many cases it can't and shouldn't, I would build good sound training to back it up and fill in the gaps. Until 3 years ago I did it in the opposite order. I RARELY build job aids or EPSS tools to support my training initiatives, and because of that very little of my training continued on into the learner's real world. PS is such a strong and powerful discipline that I now view it as the first line of attack and defense when it comes to a learning problem, and I'll build training as a secondary approach.

Now, many of you who are reading this may accuse me turning my back on training. That couldn't be further from the truth. Training is still important. It still has a vital role to play in an overall effective Learning Ecosystem. My point here is that PS actually makes training better and allows it to do what it does best - make someone knowledgeable. PS on the other hand helps make them productive and acts as a perfect complement to training. My point here is that I feel PS needs to lead the charge, not take a back seat to training as it has for years.

Since hindsight is 20/20 I'm going to leave that argument in the past and move on. The learning solutions I design going forward will all pivot around building, implementing, and maintaining effective and relevant PS which is supported by an just the right amount and type of training. My experience of the past 3 years has taught me that, in the end, that's what learners have wanted out of "training" all along... Care to join me in the dialogue?

Another PS Component!

"Self-Check" — a Fundamental Principle of Training and Performer Support

During graduate school, I embarked on a project that inadvertently schooled me in the impressive power of self-evaluation as a principle of instruction. I had just completed a course at the University of San Francisco from Michael Scriven – a thought leader in the practices of performance evaluation. Following, I had developed a training program for an organization and was in the midst of conducting the training when one of the participants said to me, “Why don’t you stick around after class and watch us do our impersonations of you.” I was caught a bit off guard and asked “what do you mean?” His reply: “Every day after class we all take turns impersonating you for the day. Some of us have gotten really good at it.” I stayed that night and watched as every idiosyncrasy I had exhibited that day during the training was magnified out of proportion and turned into hilarious laughter.

That evening, as I drove home, I concocted a plan to force them all to view and evaluate themselves and their peers. I admit the idea was somewhat motivated by revenge but the impact of viewing myself through their eyes had actually been instructional. I developed a performance evaluation tool and trained the class in how to use it to evaluate the performance of others. And then the day of reckoning arrived. I placed every student into a set of fabricated scenarios that were as realistic as they could possibly be and videotaped them. Now, if you know my age, you know that this took place during the emerging days of video technology--so this was a novel idea at the time. I then scheduled sessions for each participant to view his or her performance along with four other peers. They all rated themselves and each other against the 10 performance rating scales I had developed. Where there were discrepancies in the ratings, they discussed and consolidated them into a single rating. It was payday! The result? They had the time of their lives. And what is more, this group ended up exceeding the performance capabilities of any previous group. In addition, as we followed this group into the real world of application, they demonstrated an accelerated performance improvement path that was astonishing.

So, here’s my point. In the discipline of instructional and learning design, we most often view evaluation as something we do to determine if learners achieved what we set out to help them achieve. We measure the merit and worth of the experience. We work to deduce the return on investment as a result. This is all fine and good, but evaluation has much more to offer. It is a principle of instruction not just a practice in the training development process. When we train people how to evaluate their own performance we place them on a path of ongoing improvement. When we provide them tools to ensure that their self-evaluation is objective and deliberate, we ensure that ongoing growth occurs at maximum potential.

I’ve been considering this principle, lately, in the context of the practices of performer support. We have developed great methodologies for developing “sidekicks” and “planners.” And we’re making real headway in learning how to “broker” all our learning assets to accommodate performers at all five moments of need. It seems to me, that there is an additional area to consider – in support of performance. If planners help me prepare to perform and sidekicks assist me as I perform, what do we do to help performers review their performance, determine how they could have performed better, and take the steps necessary to perform better next time they are called upon to act in a similar manner.

It makes sense to me that we should consider this vital part of performance improvement as part of the practices of performer support. It begins by developing self-assessment tools and then bringing those tools into formal training along with our planners and side-kicks. As we have recommended with all other performer support tools, a fundamental objective in formal training is to train performers how to use these performer support tools. This should include learning how to use the self-evaluation tools you create.

If any of you are already doing this, let us know. Provide us some examples we can share with others. This is an idea worth pursuing. We not only need to support performers at all five moments of need, we also need to support them throughout the performance process; before they perform with “planners”, while they perform with “side-kicks”, and after they perform with “self-checks.”

Michael J. Gelb wrote, “Champions know that success in inevitable, that there is no such thing as failure, only feedback.” Self-evaluation can be the most influential form of feedback possible. It ensures persistent growth. It may very well be the most powerful principle of instruction and learning. And it certainly has a vital role to play in performer support.

What's in a Name? ... EVERYTHING!

As we've shared many times in this blog, the label "Electronic Performance Support System", or EPSS, was first originally claimed by Glory Geary in her 1991 groundbreaking book which shares the same title. Performance support (PS) as a discipline has matured tremendously since that time, and has truly come into its own over the past few years especially due to the current economic climate we live in. It has also risen in importance and impact due to a maturation in the way we look at learning. Thanks to the innovative thinking of thought leaders such as Conrad Gottfredson, my colleague and friend who co-authors this blog, and Allison Rossett out of San Diego State, we now see learning as more then just a series of formal learn events, but rather as a journey between BOTH formal and informal learning moments. Many have used Conrad's 5 Moments of Need to illustrate this very powerful concept. The learning organizations who are architecting learning solutions across these 5 moments are the ones who are providing a level of service learners have been waiting for and needing for years.



With all this fine work, it still troubles me how our industry tends to put PS into a box where it can't truly reach its potential. I blame the "shiny penny" phenomenon which often inflicts our industry. when a trend or "cool" approach/technology comes along we tend to gravitate towards it and leave other approaches behind. We can become so enamored with these methodologies that we can often to lose the overall context of all that we've learned and can go so far as offering unbalanced and ineffective learning strategies.



The current "shiny penny" is social learning. Now before anyone gets angry with me, I am a HUGE fan of social learning and all it has to offer. Social learning includes all the powerful collaborative web 2.0 technologies which are emerging today. It also includes many non-technical approaches such as mentoring or peer instruction. Social learning is, and will continue to become, a very powerful part of any effective learning strategy, BUT it's not in and of itself PS.



In two articles I recently read on learning, PS was positioned as a subset of embedded or contextual learning systems. I would argue that the sequence or classification needs to be reversed. Embedded or contextual learning systems are actually a subset of PS. Not the other way around. If we want to promote PS to the level of effectiveness and influence it deserves we need to move its overall positioning to its rightful place.



I would argue that PS is actually the "informal learning" many of us have been struggling to define, fund, and defend for years. In an earlier blog posting Con and I defined PS as "providing intuitive, tailored aid to a person at his or her moment of need to ensure the most effective performance.” This is meant to be an all encompassing definition. It is not technology dependent, although many PS offerings are technology based. If we look at PS from this perspective emerging and other long standing approaches such as:

• EPSS


• Social Learning


• Coaching/Mentoring


• Help Desks


• Job Aids


• FAQ websites

are all subsets of an effective PS strategy. To say that PS is limited to a job aid or an on-line support tool is also limiting its overall effectiveness within your learning organization. It is limiting its ability to be designed, funded, and integrated as a larger and more powerful part of an overall learning architecture.

Would it be appropriate to stop speaking in terms of "formal and informal learning" but rather group them into "formal and performance support" buckets? My argument here is that when we us as broad a term as "informal learning" we begin to bring in assets such as parking lot conversations which, although they are clearly a place where learning and knowledge transfer occurs, they are also an area where we as a learning profession will have little impact and control. PS should include all those informal assets we can and should impact, design, and facilitate.

For PS to reach its full potential we need to begin discussing the discipline on a broader scale. You might be saying, "Bob, you're splitting hairs here. What's in a name anyway?" My 28 years in learning have taught me that branding and a shared vocabulary is EVERYTHING when it comes to effectively introducing and promoting a sustained learning approach. We need to do the same for PS!

Lessons Learned

The Personal Rewards of Training in the Virtual Classroom

Bob and I just finished teaching our new course: High Yield Training in the Virtual Classroom. During this virtual Instructor led training (VILT) course we employed our GEAR design and development process.

For those readers, not aware of the GEAR methodology, here’s a brief description:

The GEAR™ model consists of a spaced learning that includes a series of virtual training/coaching cycles that allow participants to apply immediately what they learn to their own work requirements.

When most people gather virtually, they merely meet online and then disperse. That’s it. With the GEAR training/coaching model, gathering online is only part of the learning journey. Following every session, participants expand and personalize their understanding of what they have learned and then take steps to apply concepts and tools into their work streams. The final step in the GEAR cycle is to report progress and receive personalized feedback from the trainer and peer participants. (For more detailed information about this model view the following recording: https://admin.na4.acrobat.com/_a826380069/p22534461/

Bob and I have marveled at what we experienced, as trainers, during this virtual course approach. We have previously participated in the development of courses using our GEAR model and observed remarkable results in learning outcomes for our clients including the exhilaration it was for the trainers. But this was the first time we have developed and delivered a course of our own employing GEAR.

The result? In our combined experience of training adults, we have not experienced greater personal satisfaction as trainers—ever! This wasn’t just “High Yield Training” for those who participated as learners, it was “High Yield training” for us as trainers. We finally spent most of our training time doing what no other training delivery system can do as well. We orchestrated adaptive learning embedded directly in the work-stream where we were able to provide individual attention to students with tailored feedback – and it was GREAT!

In addition, the lines between formal and informal learning blurred – as it should. We built a performance support broker that provided a bridge from the virtual classroom into the on-the-job independent learning process of participants. Fundamental to the GEAR approach is intentional informal “Expand and Apply” learning assignments.

Now, lest those who took the course and are now reading this blog wonder about these comments – we’re not saying that the course couldn’t have been better or that it won’t get better. It could and will. But, that’s the learner side of things. For a few of our learners, the transition from the traditional classroom to the virtual classroom was a bit difficult, because, frankly, we failed to help them reset their expectations from a traditional classroom mindset. The GEAR model requires learners to engage and own their own learning journey and it is impossible for any learner to hide from it.

What we found as trainers is that we knew where everyone was at every point of their learning journey to competence with greater precision than we have ever known during traditional ILT.
For the majority of participants, who jumped in and embraced the GEAR learning approach, it was transformational. Here are a few excerpts from learner comments to illustrate:

“Thank you so much for this excellent opportunity for growth. This was a fantastic program that has taken my teaching to a whole new level.”

“The VILT workshop taught me how to properly use technology to actively engage learners in a virtual learning environment. The opportunity to use the virtual classroom first hand, from my own office, gave me a true appreciation for the effectiveness of the VILT techniques. The month of the workshop flew by, and by the end I had the knowledge, resources and tools I needed to move my learning project forward, by leaps and bounds.”

“It was great to see a Virtual Classroom firsthand., This class not only helps you design for Virtual Classroom; it helped me improve my design process for all delivery methods.”

“The GEAR model provides us with a practical, proven approach to designing and delivering training that helps our learners go from just “knowing” to “doing.” In fact, the principles we learned in the Virtual Classroom training will make all of our instructor-led trainings better!”

From these comments you can see that participants emerged from their learning experience with an understanding of how to improve training in the traditional classroom setting as well. But what we want to celebrate with you in this blog article is the absolutely rewarding experience training in the virtual classroom can be for trainers. This course wasn’t a webcast. It was rigorous training that pushed learners to work to learn. And they worked, they learned, and they performed!'

Certainly the solid performance outcomes from this kind of training is rewarding to us. But our journey through the teaching process was even more rewarding. We worked more closely with our learners than ever before. They made greater progress in their learning than we have ever seen in traditional Instructor Led Training. We were able to coach learners through the fundamental learning moment of need—the moment of Apply. We were able to draw upon our experience to provide feedback that connected to improvements in the learner’s skill-sets, thereby manifesting the benefits of that feedback in the quality of participants on-the-job work projects.

We found exhilaration and intrinsic reward every step of the way. Training adults was the best it has ever been.