1. Prototyping a High Quality Student Employee Cameron Goble Technical Training Consultant

2. “TRAINING SUCKS.” Let’s fix that.

3. Starting points: Life is too short to build something nobody wants. My assumptions about what people want are probably wrong.

4. LET’S FIND OUT WHAT’S REAL.

5. Write my assumptions down: Customers Problems they have and are eager to solve Proposed Solution: Value Key features Channels to reach customers Costs & ROI

6. Write my assumptions down: Image credit: LeanCanvas.com

7. My assumptions: My customers are managers & supervisors who organize or perform training. Their problem is that their training documentation is out of date and hard to get to. My proposed solution is to create co-working meetings where IT stakeholders can collaborate to update training docs with best information.

8. Focus on people’s stories! Image credit: Wisehunch.com

9. My interview process:

10. Problems: Supervisor Perspectives Training costs lots of time Over-loaded with things to do Docs are up to date, they’re just hard to use day to day Hard to focus on “doing it right” Inconsistent results from training

11. Problem: Student Perspectives Training feels hurried, disconnected Need professional support Fast turn-over Loss of experience when they leave Don’t “get the big picture” Heavy reliance on one person who knows it all

12. PROBLEMS FIGURED OUT. What’s the solution?

13. Solve customer’s problem: “Travel time is too long.”

14. Solve customer’s problem: “Students need better training.”

15. TIME TO EXPERIMENT You may feel a brief discomfort.

16. Lean science!

17. Experiment 0: Commitment Hypothesis: If new employee training is a valid pain, then Supervisors will volunteer time to discuss a program to improve training.

18. Experiment 0: Commitment

19. Experiment 0: Commitment VALIDATED 3 staff managers and 1 student employee shared existing documents across departments

20. Experiment 0: Commitment WHAT I LEARNED Customer-facing departments (CSS, SCONS) responded more strongly than more internal tech teams. Students can write awesomely complete documentation for other students.

21. Experiment 1: Format Hypothesis: If better training documentation is a need, then Early Adopters will endorse a new format that is: Structured complexly Useable by students as they shadow Pedagogically sound

22. Experiment 1: Format

23. Experiment 1: Format VALIDATED Manager was enthusiastic about the “at a glance” nature of the canvas. Manager fell into a constructive, generative mode as I introduced the format.

24. Experiment 1: Format WHAT I LEARNED IT CSS Student Supervisor was my “Early Adopter”. Managers did not want to be involved much at this level.

25. Experiment 1: Format PROBLEM SOLVED! Docs are easier to use overall! Docs are useful for trainer and trainee alike during shadowing!

26. Experiment 2: Ownership Hypothesis: If the new format is valid, then early Adopters will spend time and talent to write their own training docs in the new format. They will “make it their own”.

27. Experiment 2: Ownership

28. Experiment 2: Ownership VALIDATED Manager used to format to create good documentation with little training. Manager innovated some additions to the format (Causes, Quick Checks, Escalation Path in Cherwell)

29. Experiment 2: Ownership WHAT I LEARNED Time to develop: 10 minutes. Minimal revision required by me.

30. Experiment 2: Ownership PROBLEMS SOLVED! Early Adopter can write awesome docs! Manager’s training idea was creative, hands-on, engaging!

31. Experiment 3: Scale up Hypothesis: If the format provides a desirable ROI, then Early Adopters will want to generate a full scope of training in the new format.

32. Experiment 3: Scale up

34. Experiment 3: Scale up VALIDATED Early Adopter created SKA graphs for all levels of student employee roles Early Adopter envisioned students training each other Others joined Early Adopter in this work.

35. Experiment 3: Scale up WHAT I LEARNED Canvas-style format is validated. Nothing succeeds like success.

36. Experiment 3: Scale up PROBLEMS SOLVED! Student job roles are now clearly defined! Student employees can pass their best SKA on! Momentum is growing!

37. Experiment 4: Involve students Hypothesis: If the job roles and SKA really match, then experienced student employees should be able to write quality training documentation.

38. Experiment 4: Involve students VALIDATED (Sort of) Target number of docs were created by a group of student employees. Quality was variable.

39. Experiment 4: Involve students WHAT I LEARNED Students need initial training on using the format and the expectations of quality. Certain students were identified as high performers by the quality of their documentation.

40. Experiment 4b: Involve students WHAT CHANGED Select Students created high quality docs. Students trained other students on Pinnacle processes. THEY LOVED IT.

41. Experiment 4: Involve students PROBLEM SOLVED! Supervisors free up their time and still get training docs! Students are being recognized for their expertise! Training is directly relevant to how students work & learn! Peers are mentoring!

42. Experiment tracking: Image credit: LeanCanvas.com

43. SOLUTION ITERATING NICELY. What’s next?

44. Assumptions valid and invalid Image credit: LeanCanvas.com

45. Next experiments: Evaluation: How can student trainers fairly and consistently evaluate their peers as they train? Sustainability: How can the training be part of the whole IT Student employee experience?

46. Evaluation Rubric FailedNeeds WorkPerformed Well Could Teach Others

47. I HAVE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THOSE IDEAS TOO. Stay tuned for results!

48. Caveats: If we just straight-up adopt this, it will fail The value lies in the process, not the product

49. Contact/Questions Cameron Goble Technical Training Consultant Phone: 277-1543 Email: camerong@unm.educamerong@unm.edu Blog: camerongoble.blogspot.comcamerongoble.blogspot.com