Can we think of training and development as a product that can be produced just like a chair or laptop? I would argue we can. Although not made of physical matter, a training has an audience whose goal is to create value for the customer. So if we think of a training as a product, we can apply design thinking to improve it.
According to the Interaction Design Foundation, “design thinking is an iterative process in which you seek to understand your users, challenge assumptions, redefine problems and create innovative solutions which you can prototype and test.”
We engage in this type of thinking when we center training design around a deep interest in understanding the people for whom we design training. I love using this technique because it helps me and my clients observe and develop empathy with their staff. We get curious and begin asking better questions about how we share knowledge and skills.
I recently read Matt Wallaert’s book Start At The End, and what struck me about this book was how helpful his processes are when you tackle ill-defined or unknown problems. For example, Wallaert offers a new framework for creating products and services grounded in behavioral science. As a behavioral psychologist who has worked for years in product design, he argues, “by starting with outcomes instead of processes, the most effective companies understand what people want to do and why they aren’t already doing it, then build products and services to bridge the gap.” He proposes a model that, while grounded in design thinking, centers around the “define” phase rather than the “prototype” phases. In the define phase, designers combine all their research and observe where their users’ problems exist. Although there is a lot more to it, the goal is to pinpoint your users’ desires (promoting pressures) and what might be stopping them (inhibiting pressures) to begin to highlight opportunities for innovation.
Let’s work through a training design case study.
You recently purchased, for your staff, a new software program. This will help them make reservations quicker and easier, but you notice they are still using the old software. Your first instinct might be to jump into action and plan a training to teach them how to use this new program. Instead, the Intervention Design Process (IDP) proposed by Matt Wattaert suggests that your desire to skip to the prototype phase is the assumption that you know why they aren’t using the software. Some of these assumptions could include the thought that your team just hasn’t been shown how to use the program or that they weren’t shown correctly. Suppose we step back and center our training design around the “define” phase. In that case, we might spend some time talking to or soliciting written feedback from each team member about what challenges or barriers they might be encountering while using this new software. By getting curious, we challenge our assumptions, and we might be surprised by the inhibiting factors. In this example, it might not be a lack of training at all. You might find that they have a desire and the knowledge of the program, but your current computers are not new robust enough to run this powerful program, and it takes way too long for each new entry page to load. Or you might find that while the program is faster and more efficient, it lacks places to enter specific and necessary information, and the team has not had the time to figure out where they can store this information within the system.
If we design training around assumptions of need, we risk falling into the trap of not providing the support we want to achieve the desired outcomes from our team and, even worse, bore or frustrate them.
If you would like help designing powerful trainings that lead to real behavior change for your team, please reach out to me for a free consultation.
Want to know more about Empowered Development Consulting? Reach out to me, Meghan Schiedel, and find out how Empowered Development Consulting can help you.