No one can argue the benefit of skilled training. There’s an old adage about knowledge being something that can’t be taken away from you. How true a statement is this? Once we’ve learned something, we can retain it for our lifetime, particularly if our knowledge is put to use in practice often. Many certification authorities place a value on practical application of knowledge; allowing re-certification to become nearly automatic if the skill in question has been in consistent use. Training is valuable, no question about it.
However, in today’s marketplace one of the greatest concerns businesses have is return on investment (ROI). Payback, as we sometimes call it. We’re talking about what an organization gains for spending capital. In the case of training, sometimes the decision is made to forego something formal such as on the job training or passing on of tribal knowledge in favor of saving money. Often, training is an afterthought, particularly in cases of areas of sub-specialty for skilled professionals. It’s as if there’s an expectation once the basic skills have been mastered, a person should be able to teach themselves new skills that are in some way related to their area of specialty. For example, training in reliability testing methodologies. The logic being a skilled mechanic, electrician, or engineer should be able to spend some time with a vibration instrument, electric motor test set, or infrared imager and be able to figure it out and adequately apply this newly gained skill.
Sometimes this approach works, but how can you be sure? How does one quantify the level of knowledge they don’t possess? In the world of reliability training we refer to the concept of being “unconsciously incompetent” - essentially having no idea what one doesn’t know. As a trainer of several reliability technologies, I’ve had students show up for a basic Level I Thermographic Applications course professing years of experience with their instrument. They were expecting to be bored for most of the class. In almost every case, even experienced people end up learning concepts they find extremely useful in the application of their chosen technology.
So moving forward with the assumption that training is essential, how does one go about finding the right type of training? Choosing a training provider is like shopping for anything else. It comes down to the overall objective of the training. Does your organization require certification or an overview of a new technology? Does the training need extend to a group or is the requirement for a single individual? Does the training need to occur on site or can the trainees travel? Often answering these types of questions will narrow down the list of potential providers. Generally speaking, the decision comes down to two choices; training from the equipment vendor or from an independent training company.
Much like any other life decision, the decision of where to get reliability equipment training is a double-edged sword. There’s good and bad to either choice. Many people prefer good news first. With equipment vendor, often training is offered free. In the world of reliability, many vendors offer multiple product lines and some offer products across the spectrum of testing methodologies. It’s in the best interest of the vendors to offer product training along with purchase of the equipment. Increasing the satisfaction level of the customer is a great way to ensure repeat business. If a company purchases a vibe instrument, thermal imager or motor test instrument, they usually can expect at least a rudimentary training session by the vendor. Sometimes this is enough, if the end users of the newly purchased instrument already have experience in the technology.
Stay turned for “Return on your Training Dollar – Part II” blog entry to be featured next month on IRTalk.