Recently, someone posted a question on LinkedIn.Com asking why training is undervalued in technology projects. Here's my answer to his question:
In my opinion and experience, training for technology projects is typically undervalued because corporate management feels that the technical people performing the project work should obtain the necessary technical knowledge on their own time and on their own dime. Companies just do not seem to be willing to put forth the money necessary to adequately train their employees anymore. The bottom line is the bottom line, and if the company is paying, say, an engineer several thousand dollars a year, then they expect that engineer to keep up with all of the latest technologies and information on their own.
Of course this idea is flawed because you're not really paying said engineer because he knows everything about everything, but rather he's invested the time into learning how to learn technical details and concepts. So the company thinks they're buying an SME in everything technical, when what they really need is an SME in learning and applying technology appropriately and to the proper levels of accepted best practices.
With regards to how this question relates to project management, in the PMI world there is an entire section, under the Human Resources Management knowledge area, dedicated to adequately training, or rather developing, your team.
In my opinion, if you do not put forth the effort to develop your team, then you really do not care about quality. There is a qualitative aspect to project management that is grossly outshined by the quantitative aspects. In other words, executive management is more concerned about the quantity of work (i.e. the number of projects that are completed on time and within the necessary budget constraints) than they are about the quality. Sure quality is important, but overall it's more important to get the work done, and at the lowest possible cost. I believe trainers and training organizations need to perform some analysis that clearly demonstrates the real world, monetary value that training can provide.
For example, Company A and Company B were both performing a widget project. Company A spent an extra 2 months sending their technical staff to training. The result: Company A was able to get the same project done 3 months faster, 30% cheaper, and with a 15% higher degree of quality than Company B. In addition, Company A was able to apply the knowledge gained from the training to other projects within the organization, which resulted in a 35% increase in overall efficiency and a reduction in overall project costs of 12.5%.
These are concepts written in the language of executives. They understand the bottom line. They are looking to cut costs, increase efficiency, improve profit margins, and increase overall shareholder value. If you can demonstrate how providing your technical staff with adequate training can do these things, you will have every executive in the country beating down your door.
Any thoughts? Leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Good comment, Gary. I absolutely agree. Most corporate managers are loathe to invest in the training of their own technical staff.
This is especially true in a recession. Why invest money to train your people if you know another round of layoffs are just around the corner? If you're a manager, the last thing you want is for your department to look 'expensive' to the bean counters.
The other reason is more insidious, I think, and it stems from the short-term focus most CEOs have. Most American CEOs aren't compensated based on long-term results. They're compensated based on next quarter's stock price. Investors want a quick hit so they can take profits and get out.
That fish stinks from the head down: if CEOs are compensated that way, they'll make sure their lieutenants are as well. That means forget about anything called 'investing' in your team. That's long term thinking, and apparently, it's simply un-American.
Very little in this country will change until American CEOs are compensated for long term, sustainable profitability instead of next quarter's stock price.
Post a Comment