Running head: CASE ANALYSIS IV: THE ABBY CARLIN CASE 1. Case Analysis IV: The Abby Carlin Case Trina A. Wellendorf Purdue University

Transcription

1 Running head: CASE ANALYSIS IV: THE ABBY CARLIN CASE 1 Case Analysis IV: The Abby Carlin Case Trina A. Wellendorf Purdue University

2 CASE ANALYSIS IV: THE ABBY CARLIN CASE 2 Case Analysis IV: The Abby Carlin Case Introduction An instructional designer does not need to be an expert on the subject they are designing instruction for; rather, they are considered experts on instruction and rely on subject matter experts (SMEs) for content knowledge. Abby Carlin is not an expert on steel stamping machinery in large manufacturing facilities, but she has been tasked with designing and delivering training on the use of steel blanker machines to new machine operators at Fritz David Manufacturing (FDM), a manufacturer of large steel car parts. The current operators are experts who have not documented their methods, and they are all retiring in the next 90 days. The plant manager, Andrew Thomas, is beginning to realize the predicament he is in regarding hiring and training novice machine operators. It is Abby s task to work with the current operators as her SMEs to design and deliver a training program for the new machine operators in the next 90 days. Key Stakeholders The primary stakeholder is Abby Carlin, the lead instructional designer from Learning Together Through Training (LT3) on the FDM steel blanker machine operator training project. Abby took this role to gain experience and successfully complete a project after obtaining her master s in instructional design. Her task is to design and deliver a training program for new machine operators on how to use the steel bleaker machines. Since Abby has no experience in manufacturing, she will need to rely heavily on the subject matter experts for content. Abby was given this opportunity by her former instructor, Dr. Joyce Abbott, the LT3 vice president of design. Dr. Abbott is serving as a mentor and advisor to Abby throughout the process. Additionally, as the vice president of design at LT3, she will want this project to be successful for her company s reputation.

3 CASE ANALYSIS IV: THE ABBY CARLIN CASE 3 Secondary stakeholder, Andrew Thomas, is the client representative from FDM. Andrew is the plant manager whose entire team of seasoned steel blanker machine operators is retiring in the next 90 days. He has identified new operators to start, but they lack experience operating the plant s steel bleaker machines and will require extensive training. Until now, his team has not documented their procedures or done formal training. Past new employee training has been experienced operators teaching new employees how to operate the machines on a one-to-one, ad-hoc basis learning as they used the equipment. Due to the large number of new hires, the one-to-one method is not acceptable as it would cause a drop in productivity across the board. Andrew has hired LT3 to design and deliver training to three shifts of inexperienced operators in 90 days without affecting production. Other secondary stakeholders are the machine operators, both those retiring and those who are starting in the next three months. The operators who are retiring are the SMEs on operating the steel bleaker machines but are not interested in spending their last days documenting their procedures. Andrew told Abby, They aren t really interested in training in training the new guys. The problem is, they are the only ones who know how to operate the equipment (Ertmer & Quinn, 2007, p. 147). The new operators need training on the how to effectively and safely use the machines allowing them to be productive quickly. Design Challenges Abby has a challenging task ahead, but an effective solution is very attainable. She needs to begin with engaging the existing machine operators as SMEs and then decide on a delivery method. Design Challenge One Abby may lack manufacturing experience, but she has at her disposal a wealth of knowledge from the existing FDM steel blanker machine operators who are the SMEs. Currently, the SMEs are focused on retiring due to incentives offered by FDM and are not interested in training their replacements and working with an instructional designer on content development. Unfortunately, FDM

4 CASE ANALYSIS IV: THE ABBY CARLIN CASE 4 did not build in conditions similar to the federal government who required 20% of retiring workers time to be spent mentoring new employees (Employment Spectator, 2011). In FDM s case, the workers are ready to retire and have little incentive to document their best practices prior to their departure. An additional constraint of the project is the short timeline: Abby has 90 days until the transition between the retiring and new workers is complete. To tap into the SMEs knowledge and gain their assistance with content development, Abby needs to begin working with them soon. Research has shown that, Greater involvement of SMEs throughout the content development lifecycle is associated with greater effectiveness in engaging them (General Physics Corporation, 2011, p. 2). Since she has a short timeline and a need for their help with content, Abby should make developing a rapport with the SMEs her top priority. One challenge Abby has had in conversing with the SMEs is that she is unable to hear or see well on the plant floor due to the loud noise and restrictive safety equipment. To talk with the SMEs, Abby would need to have them leave their workstation and enter the break room which is not convenient for the SMEs. Design Challenge Two Once Abby has started engaging the SMEs, she needs to next decide on how she will deliver the training to the new machine operators. There are three shifts of operators requiring training in the short 90 day timeframe, and Abby will have to thoughtfully coordinate how they are able to receive training. Ideally, the operators would spend the majority of their time working on the machines and learning from the SMEs. However, there cannot be an impact to productivity and having all of the new operators working one-on-one with SMEs would cause issues with production. Additionally, the volume and lighting conditions of the plant floor make communicating with and observing an instructor nearly impossible. To move forward, Abby needs to decide on the format and location of training delivery. Proposed Solutions

5 CASE ANALYSIS IV: THE ABBY CARLIN CASE 5 Now that Abby knows the need to engage the SMEs and decide on a training delivery method, she can proceed with devising solutions to pitch to Dr. Abbott and Andrew. Proposed Solution One The first thing Abby should do is engage the SMEs and establish communication with them to allow for an open relationship when she is developing content. One best practice she could do is to hold a kickoff meeting with the SMEs (General Physics Corporation, 2011) in the break room where they can easily see and hear each other. She could post an announcement on the bulletin board and include Andrew s name to show leadership support and importance of the training project. The meeting could be at lunch or coffee break time to prevent issues with productivity on the floor. At the meeting, Abby would need to clearly communicate the expectations by defining roles and responsibilities for the SMEs (General Physics Corporation, 2011). Although hosting a SME kickoff meeting is a best practice, it is not guaranteed to get Abby a bunch of willing SMEs. In fact, she may get no one to show up because there is no true incentive to be a SME when you re about to retire. Abby could try serving lunch as a way to entice SMEs to attend her meeting, but it is still not a guarantee of their commitment. For training delivery, Abby could do a combination of classroom instructor-led training, webbased simulations and hands-on practice. The instructor led portion could be about safety and highlevel information regarding working with the machines, such as terminology and machine parts. The web-based simulations would be either instructional videos or game-style scenarios with visuals of the machines. The hands-on practice would be done in rotations on the machines allowing the new users a chance to practice. The combination approach to training delivery presents a myriad of challenges. For the instructor-led classroom training, Abby will need to find someone to teach the course and she will need frequent content reviews from the SMEs. To make instructional videos, Abby will need to video the

6 CASE ANALYSIS IV: THE ABBY CARLIN CASE 6 SMEs and receive their permission to tape them. Also videos require adequate lighting and the plant floor has poor lighting. For gaming scenarios, Abby would need to obtain a large budget, hire a game designer, procure content for the games from the SMEs and have adequate time for development. To do the rotational hands-on practice sessions at the machines, at least one SME would have to give up his machine causing a dip in productivity. Also on the floor, a SME would be needed to supervise and the students may have a difficult time hearing the instructor s feedback. Proposed Solution Two A different way Abby could go about approaching SME engagement and training delivery is to ask Andrew for three SMEs (one per shift) to serve as part-time instructors. They could spend 20% of their time in their last two months as instructors and mentors to new machine operators similar to how the federal government utilized a phased retirement approach (Employment Spectator, 2011). If Andrew presents this as a respectable opportunity to the SMEs, it would incentivize them to spend a portion of their pre-retirement time as a SME with full leadership support. If there were SMEs with 20% of their time dedicated to training, Abby could have them initially spend their time on content development both observing on the floor and discussing in quiet break rooms. After the content has been finalized, the SMEs could serve as the classroom instructors regarding the safety and terminology knowledge and as the hands-on supervisors on the plant floor. The SMEs would be able to field questions and direct new operators on how to use the machines. The main issues with the approach have to do with training time, cost and productivity. If the SMEs are only using 20% of their time, the training will be limited to that 20% for every shift the SME is working. With the short timelines and need for a low student-to-teacher ratio, Abby may not be able to get everyone trained in time. Also, the cost of having three SMEs spend 20% of their time may not be acceptable to Andrew. He may question why he is spending money on Abby rather than on his own

7 CASE ANALYSIS IV: THE ABBY CARLIN CASE 7 workers. Additionally, the 20% dip in productivity each shift may not be acceptable to Andrew. Maintaining production was his primary concern, and this solution may not be feasible because of it. Final Recommendation The final recommendation Abby should present to Andrew and FDM should be the second solution: to have three SMEs dedicate 20% of their time until retirement serving as mentors and instructors to the new operators. To gain Andrew s approval about the cost and decrease in productivity of this solution, Abby will need to have data available to back up her solution. She will need to objectively show Andrew that regardless of how they approach training, there will be a small decrease in production due to the SMEs serving as instructors and giving up machines for practice sessions. She ll need to articulate that having a dedicated SME is more cost-effective than having random SMEs volunteer each shift. Her focus needs to be on having structured times for classroom training and hands-on practice on the floor, and that having clear times for training is better for productivity than random interruptions to machine usage.

8 CASE ANALYSIS IV: THE ABBY CARLIN CASE 8 References Employment Spectator. (2011, July). Phased Retirement Will Ease Transition, Fed Workers Affirm. Retrieved November 12, 2012, from Ertmer, P. A., & Quinn, J. (2007). The ID Casebook: Case Studies in Instructional Design (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. General Physics Corporation. (2011, May). Best Practices in Engaging SMEs During a Learning Content Development Project. In TrainingIndustry.com. Retrieved November 12, 2012, from %20research%20report%20final%20may%2017th.pdf