Computer skill training

There was a time, not long ago, when choosing computer training was easy. The audience, content, and method -- the who, what, and how -- were usually the same: We trained everyone (the who) on the basics (the what) in classrooms (the how). It was the easy thing -- and the right thing -- to do.

The changes that caused us to train were vast and indiscriminate. We brought in computers, and everyone had to get trained. We changed hardware and software a few times -- data terminals to PCs, DOS to Windows, WordPerfect to Word -- and we trained everyone again. Clear goals made our choices easy: We had to teach our people some basic skills, beginning somewhere near zero, so they could do their jobs with these new tools.

We had it easy, and we didn't even know it.

Today, choosing computer training is more complex because our goals are more complex. The audience, content, and method -- the who, what, and how -- have changed.

The audience is seldom everyone. When Microsoft won the war for the desktop, software stabilized. New versions bring only incremental changes, and we no longer need to train everyone all over again. There are pockets of large-scale training law firms finally jettisoning WordPerfect for Word or companies implementing enterprise-wide systems such as PeopleSoft and SAP--but most of us have been using the same software for several years.

The content is moving beyond the basics. There are few people who have to start at the beginning. Corporate training today is more likely to focus on upper-level skills.

The method hasn't changed as much as you might suspect, if you read the training press. Despite the buzz about online learning, we're still delivering most of our training in the conventional way--in classrooms with live instructors.

Here's some advice on how to handle the three variables--audience (the who), content (the what), and method (the how).

First, identify your audience

Okay, who needs training? Raise your hands.

In a superficial way, that's a pretty good question. Self-selection is perhaps the most common way to determine who gets trained and on what topics. People are often good judges of which skills they need to do their jobs and which skills they don't have. These self-selectors are identifying their skills gaps.

A skills gap is the distance between the skills you have and the skills you need. You decide who in your company requires computer training by looking for skills gaps. To find these gaps, you should assess both skills and needs.

Assessing skills and needs are two sides of the same coin. We sometimes do the former without the latter. To make the best choices for training--to make sure our time and dollars are well spent--we need to do both.

This is a relatively easy task, although creating the assessment tools will take some time if you choose to do it yourself. (Many training providers will do this for you, often at no charge.) First, make a list of what the application (for example, Microsoft Word) can do, the tasks it can help users perform. Second, for each job, edit the list, keeping only the tasks each job requires. Third, have each person rate his or her ability to perform the tasks--that is, their skill--on their list. The skills gaps will be apparent. Those with skills gaps are your audience--the ones to be trained.

One caveat: Training is not always the answer. There are many reasons why someone may not be performing up to expectations: They don't want to; there are roadblocks in the system; they don't have the right tools; they don't have the proper skills. Only this last item calls for skills training.

Second, determine the content

What gets taught?

Ideally, each person receives only and exactly the training they need. Some need no training at all, as determined by your gap analysis. Some need to begin at or near the beginning, and others need a selected set of specific skills. How do you handle all that? By matching content to needs.

There are two ways to purchase content: "as is" and custom.

Public classes and "as is" content. When you enroll someone in a public class at your local training center, you accept the content as is. Sometimes "as is" fits what you need, particularly on the basic skills level. Beyond the basics, the fit of "as is" gets looser.

Many training centers still use "Intermediate" and "Advanced" or "Level 2" and "Level 3" for upper level courses. When you're trying to match content to needs, this structure makes the task difficult. What is "Intermediate Excel," after all? Is it anyone's job to be an intermediate-level Excel user? Of course not.

In this too-common situation, the course titles tell you little about the course content, and since content is based on relative difficulty, it may not include a complementary set of skills. Your people may sit through hours of content that misses the mark.

To solve this, first look for a vendor that uses topic-specific course titles, such as Excel Formulas & Functions or Word Styles & Templates. You will be more likely to find a fit when the courses group together related topics. Next, whether the course uses a topic-specific title or a generic one, review the course outlines carefully, and make sure all or most of the content meets your needs. Many training centers also offer half-day, in-depth, and single-topic classes, which provide a better fit and a good value.

Custom training. Another solution-and a better one if you have more than a few people with similar needs--is to set up custom training. With custom training, you ask the vendor to mix and match topics so your staff receives only and exactly the topics they need.

A custom class provides the best balance of cost and content. Custom training isn't simply the vendor's standard content delivered just to a private audience (although this is as far as some vendors will go). In true custom training, the vendor learns your specific needs and issues and incorporates them into the training. For example, in a Microsoft Outlook or Lotus Notes e-mail class, the trainer will learn your company's e-mail policies (amount of drive space, maximum attachment size, policy on personal messages, etc.) and will add that information to the course content.

Look for a vendor who willingly customizes the content and who understands that the closer the content matches the learner, the better the training.

When you have individuals with unique needs, you can arrange one-on-one custom training. This is more expensive per person than classroom training, but provides the most precise person-to-needs match.

Third, choose a delivery method

Instructor-led or computer-based? The debate rages on in training circles, fueled by the millions of dollars invested in online learning vendors. Yet, instructor-led training still dominates. According to Online Training Needs a New Course, an August 2000 report by Forrester Research Inc., "uncompelling, static content and resistance from employees who prefer traditional training methods" plague online training initiatives.

To have the impact that's expected of it, Forrester's report says, "Companies must look beyond cost savings and convenience to focus on developing highly interactive solutions that enhance business performance."

Still, online training may be the best solution for some of your staff. People who can benefit include those who are very self-directed, those who don't wish to or can't attend classes when scheduled, and those who want just small chunks of instruction but not an entire class.

When choosing instructor-led training, there are a few variables to consider.

Class size. A typical class size for computer training is from eight to 12, yet even the experts disagree about ideal class size. With custom training, you have some control over class size, but there's a trade-off. A smaller class permits more individual attention, especially during the independent exercises. Larger classes permit you to train more people with fewer total classes. With public training classes, you have little control over the class size, except to choose a vendor with a maximum class size that you prefer.

Delivery style and methodology. All training is not created equal. Not all trainers and training companies follow the accepted practices of computer training delivery first set down in the 1988 landmark publication, The Computer Training Handbook, by Elliott Masie and Rebekah Wolman. Beware of training that's primarily lecture, with little verbal interactivity. This method works for a few learners, but most need a greater mix of approaches. The best delivery substitutes discussion for lecture and emphasizes self-sufficiency (find the way to achieve this result) rather than mimicry (press these keys and see the result).