This discussion paper aims to stimulate and encourage debate about the way that people learn systems at work. It will consider the following: the importance of systems; is systems learning different from other forms of learning? current approaches to learning; and new forms of electronic support for learning. This will then lead to the description of a prevalent model and a consideration of whether that model is appropriate.
This discussion paper was prepared by a member of the CIPD Research and Policy team following a short scoping exercise. This involved discussions with training managers, consultancies, and government bodies. A series of interviews were held with the workforce in three organisations: a statutory body fulfilling a technical role in the energy industry; a commercial contact centre in the retail industry; the CIPD’s own customer contact centre. In addition Stephen Gourlay of the University of Kingston Business School was commissioned to write a short paper to provide a research framework.
Read Stephen Gourlay's paper
Background: the importance of systems
In his background paper Stephen Gourlay defined an IT system in the following terms:
An IT “system” is an integrated complex, consisting not only of the computer system at its heart, but also of the social and organizational systems of which it is part. This implies that an effective system worker knows how their activities relate to the system (i.e., to others, and to the overall purpose of the organization) and is not simply an expert at their immediate tasks.
There is abundant evidence that people use systems a great deal in their work.
In May 2007 the first results of the 2006 survey on work skills in Britain were made available and a report summarising the more important findings published. The survey showed that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of jobs which use automated or computerised equipment. Now it appears that over three-quarters of the workforce use such equipment at work. There has, it is true, been less of an increase in the last five years by comparison with the previous decade; this suggests that we are now achieving saturation point in terms of the pervasiveness of technology. However, set against that, over the last five years there has been a marked increase in the proportion of jobs in which computing, is considered to be an essential component of the job – 47% (nearly half the workforce) now report that they fall into this category. [Ref. Felstead et al.]
The numbers reporting a ‘simple’ use of computers is dropping. The growing use of computers at work, and the growing complexity of tasks, indicate that systems - software packages which enable the user to create, manipulate, analyse and otherwise process information – are growing in importance.
The following useful categorisation of IT systems was offered by a Capgemini consultant:
- ‘Shrink wrapped systems’ – i.e. those that can be bought from a retail outlet in a box. MS Office is the most obvious but there were a number of specialist applications for example accountancy software that can be placed in this category.
- Enterprise Resource Planning systems (ERPs) which attempt to integrate all data and processes of an organization into a unified system. ERPs are a very different category of software package – much wider terms of functionality and usually requiring more complex design and configuration as part of the implementation process. SAP dominates the market followed by the now merged Oracle/Peoplesoft. Major transformational projects arise when these systems are introduced.
- Portal type applications which provide user-friendly access to a range of systems. These can be designed and adjusted to offer the applications the user requires “you only see what you want or need to see”.
- Bespoke built systems which are designed for specific organisational purposes. These are many and varied. Examples extend from custody systems used by the Prison Service through to survey packages used at the CIPD.
There are some situations at work where a system achieves a prominent role or is of central importance. In many cases, these systems are ‘business critical’; if they crash or if incorrect or incomplete information is entered into them, the whole enterprise can be brought to a standstill. At contact centres, for instance, staff inter-face with customers through telephone conversations or e-mails and process that information using systems. They are constantly using their PC at their desks and begin their day by opening the systems which record, transfer and process information or allow access relevant customer information. Stockbrokers are dependent on computer systems to manage their clients and their client’s portfolios. In healthcare settings, such as the NHS, the move to Electronic Patient Records and associated applications is radically transforming the provision of care and the relationships between different parts of the ‘system’ (doctor’s surgeries, hospital wards and operating theatres, ambulance services, accident and emergency units, medical laboratories etc.)
How much effort is put into introductory and ongoing training, and how seriously it is taken, may depend on the importance given to the system. A Deloitte consultant made the following interesting points. Some people, whether because of innate capability or prior experience, may have greater “comfort with systems”. Another key aspect was “How much does it matter if you foul up?” The argument here runs as follows: if you make a mistake on a Word document (fail to get the fonts or margins correct, for example) it doesn’t really matter – it doesn’t go outside your personal space. If however you make a mistake on an ERP system it could have profound implications on someone else’s workflow or on the business as a whole (an incorrect invoice could be issued, for example). Therefore user training is essential. The same is true of, to a greater or lesser extent of some bespoke systems.
Issues for you to consider
- What sort of systems are in use in your organisation?
- How important is it that the users apply the full functionality?
- Who is responsible for training when systems are introduced or new staff join?
- How effective are current arrangements?
Is systems learning different?
In our ongoing research the CIPD has emphasised the conceptual distinction between training and learning. Training can be defined as “an instructor-led, content-based intervention, leading to desired changes in behaviour” and learning as “a self-directed, work-based process, leading to increased adaptive capacity” Critically, learning lies in the domain of the learner. Only learners can learn: they can be made to sit in the training room or in front of a screen but they cannot be made to learn. Therefore an effective strategy to promote learning must consider the wider context and issues of management, motivation and preparedness.
To quote again from Stephen Gourlay’s paper:
The dominant approach to learning, until recently, treated learning primarily as something that happened away from where the learning was to be applied; as something accomplished by an individual; and as something that should be designed and delivered by a professional tutor. The result was formal training programmes, typically delivered off-the-job, by subject experts.
Recent studies and research have questioned the realism and utility of this model. It is now increasingly the view that learning is a social activity because learners acquire information from their social networks as much if not more than from formal experts (social information processing). While there is a place for formal designed learning activities, learning in relation to, and on-the-job is more effective than off-the-job training. More generally, learning clearly takes place all the time whether or not the individual is aware of learning, or whether the experience they are undergoing has been designed with the intention of teaching something.
Perhaps the strongest conclusion to emerge from the feedback that took place with organisations in the scoping exercise was the emphasis that the individuals placed on self-directed learning. Moreover they seemed confident and comfortable with the situation
“As long as the systems work and we know who to go to when they don’t, that’s fine”. (Staff member at CIPD contact centre)
“I like real life training. Just show me, give me an example and let me get on with it”. (Staff member at CIPD contact centre)
“It wasn’t until I got on the phone and started to do it myself that I felt confident that I was learning.” (Agent at commercial contact centre)
“There is always someone here to ask; we learn from other people. Some experienced staff members are particularly good at helping others”. “The systems support our processes: what we need to do is to understand these processes. In part this must come by osmosis.” (Line manager at statutory body)
“I’m happy to try and figure out what you need to do. Nowadays there is a standard layout on most packages which follows Microsoft, so its trial and error”. “I will trawl the internet for solutions to particular problems.” (Technical specialist at statutory body)
It should be noted that this finding is entirely consistent with our CIPD research particularly the 2002 and 2005 Surveys. Here a telephone survey of individual learners showed that learners prefer active rather than passive learning. The respondents’ clearly preferred method of learning is being shown something and then practising it, this was particularly true for those with no or low levels of qualification.
Issues for you to consider
- Is the way that people learn systems different from the way they learn other job-related skills?
- How motivated are your learners?
- How capable are they at managing and directing their own learning?
- How much intervention is required?
Current approaches and their problems
There seems to be no survey base of information on current practice (certainly none has been uncovered by the CIPD). However all those who were interviewed identified the following as the standard pattern.
When a system is introduced or a major update takes place, there is an initial period of classroom training for those staff who are seen as important to the change process. This is designed, and often delivered by the system suppliers and can cover:
- how to do the required task; what is the activity that the individual must perform?
- what are the implications of the task? This is the wider contextualisation. “Where does my piece of the world fit and impact on this?”
This second piece is often neglected.
The training pattern follows the identification of users, classroom element and support for post-implementation training. Often the support community are drawn from the implementation team. They can be described as super-users, champions or floor walkers.
Ongoing training or training for new joiners who arrive after the new system has been introduced is recognised as a widely-neglected area. Received wisdom is that this is almost always dealt with at the workplace through on-the-job training, often delivered by champions or super-users.
For convenience we can call this the above the “default model” for learning IT systems: an initial short period of off-the-job classroom instruction followed by self-directed learning with the facility to call on the services of expert co-workers.
During the interviews conducted with the staff at the three organisations we asked questions about user preferences. The same answers emerged in all discussions. There was an evident comfort with less formal learning delivered in the work-place by colleagues. Not once did anyone say they would have preferred more off-the-job training in the classroom. There was a distinct preference for learning through supported hands-on practice. This in turn determines the approach and preferences of trainers.
“We used to train joiners on absolutely everything and we scared people by showing them too much. We now get them on their feet with an understanding of the basics and put procedures in place so they learn on the job after that”. (Training Manager at commercial contact centre)
“You can’t create the same environment in the training room; you can role play as much as you like but every customer is different” (Agent at commercial contact centre)
“After initial training from me, detailed systems are learned on the job. This works well if learners are capable and motivated and you have the right person giving the instruction. This gives people the first principles that they need to build their own knowledge”. (Training specialist at statutory body)
Issues for you to consider
- Does the default model as described above apply to your organisation?
- How do you identify expert co-workers? If so, how effective is this arrangement?
- Does the organisation give them sufficient support?
New approaches to learning support
In his paper Stephen Gourlay points out that:
“Traditional training takes sequences of instructions (protocols) but this may be less important that having good software design which allows the users to teach themselves through graphic displays, for example”.
The idea that good software design can allow users to teach themselves has evident attractions.
In a sense, all technology systems directly enhance the performance of people’s work, by streamlining their activities, improving their communications with others, or amplifying their capacity (computers can remembers things which the human brain cannot, and can be easily searched and cross linked). But there is another category of technology which has been labelled Electronic Performance Support Systems (EPSS). Particularly in the US there has been a growing literature advocating the use of such Support Systems, which are generally held to be more ‘intelligent’ or more ‘proactive’ than simply largely repositories or data bases. The concept has been defined as “a computer-based system that improves worker based productivity by providing access to integrated information, advice and learning experiences” (taken from Raybould in Wikipedia).
It is possible to identify several forms of electronic job or learning aids that can be made available through the individual’s computer. Some examples are:
- Microsoft have a range of products designed to assist users which vary in sophistication. These include a help search using verbal questions, and a pop-up paper clip offering learning suggestions. At the more sophisticated end, anyone struggling when upgrading to Microsoft 2007 can access a menu on a “get-started” facility which shows how “old-money operations” can be replicated in the new system.
- A global learning partner of SAP has developed a tool that provides customised learning scenarios that display applications of the ERP that are relevant to the client’s application.
- Many professional community networks exist to provide help and support – technical IT problems are particularly well covered.
- In the health sector, there are some prototypes which are based on a standard ‘patient journey,’ and which prompt the clinician or attendant to do certain actions – order tests, take readings, generate referral letters, even look for particular symptoms etc.
A distinction that may emerge, therefore, lies between those electronic job and learning aids that rely on the initiative of the user and those that are generated automatically by the system itself. The value of the former must depend in part on the commitment and interest of the user. This is certainly the case in the use of external data-bases and is part of a movement that has been described as “the googlisation of learning”.
What is far from clear is the impact on practice of such job or learning aids. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many users resent and resist such prompting, which they may see as deskilling them or calling their expertise into question. However some of the more sophisticated and advanced applications – particularly those that seem to ‘learn’ from the user and which actually make life easier, for example, of the proactive offering of choices by Amazon.com, which looks for similarities in search terms or matches up buying practices by other customers - may be welcomed.
However it has proved difficult to find many hard examples in the workplace where such aids are in use.
Issues for you to consider
- How far does the design of your software aid and support your learners ?
- How effective are the learning aids ?
The CIPD would welcome illustrations, from personnel or training managers who have experienced their use that could form the basis of relevant case studies. Please email Liz Dalton.
A model for learning systems
In his research paper Stephen Gourlay of Kingston Business School considers how organisations should respond to the challenge of equipping staff with the knowledge and skills required to gain maximum leverage from new systems, thus promoting organizational goals. He draws on the work of academic researchers and commentators and indicates what might constitute good practice.
In his view training to use systems must become part of a broader process in the organisation; he observes that ‘learning systems’ involves adults learning in relation to and in the context of work. He goes on to argue that “in so far as adult learning theory has addressed learning in or at work this has been through the ideas of informal or incidental learning…Neither form is a designed form of learning (thus both are informal) and simply happen in work situations when people are engaged in trial and error processing”.
He suggests that adult learning theory typically overlooks the role of context and, in particular of other people:
“professionals, at least, are more likely to learn from their peers (as co-workers or mentors) than as the isolated individuals envisaged by other adult learning perspectives”...
He points out that, in the early days of computer systems, an assumption was that people would have similar training needs and would all seek the most rational and effective way to use technology. As the prevalence of computer systems has increased, and the researach base has developed, it has been recognised that:
“effective learning, particularly for work-related skills is primarily or social/communicative in nature” (see his reference to situated learning theorists)”
and
“system use was facilitated by networks of social support and influence; and was strongly affected by perceptions of how others used the systems” (see his reference to social information processing).
Such insights seem to accord with what was observed in practice in the scoping exercise. The proposition is that people learn through informal means, develop their capability through trial and error, and then extend their skills through exchange in a, hopefully supportive, network of co-workers. If this is the case it may be that the current ‘default model’ (an initial short period of off-the-job classroom instruction followed by self-directed learning with the facility to call on the services of expert co-workers) could be the best option. If this is the case trainers may not need to do more than we are doing already.
The discussion questions set in the section on current approaches can only be answered in the context of the organisation and the system concerned. However, it is not difficult to identify reasons why, in adopting this default approach, we may not be leveraging new systems in a way that produces maximum organisational gains. As is well known, informal learning amongst peers means that people can learn bad habits as well as good. People may simply forget things they have learned in the initial classroom period or never get the opportunity to transfer learning into practice. Of course much, to return to a point made earlier in the discussion note, may depend on the importance of the system to the business of the organisation.
What is evident from a consideration of how people learn IT systems, (probably more so than any other sort of learning), is the importance of workplace context. To quote from the Research Paper:
“training is but one of the a complex of factors that influence users’ learning of IT skills and the extent of usage whether at individual, group or organizational levels….it is important to recognise that effective system learning is a contextual process embedded in the workplace, and very strongly influenced by the social processes of an organization or a department”
Such sentiments lie at the heart of much of the consideration of learning today – across the whole spectrum of knowledge and skills. They raise issues on the role of the trainer and the role of the line manager; and of our understanding of learners and their motivation to learn and perform. A particular interesting example was encountered at the commercial call centres visited in the scoping exercise. A new sophisticated tool was introduced to improve the business service and this allowed the agent to offer a higher value service to customers. One positive feature of the change was the favourable response of agents. When asked about the best and worst features of their job, all the agents interviewed emphasised positive interactions with and the gratitude of clients. Here improved job design using and IT system led to enhanced job satisfaction and motivation.
Drawing from our broader CIPD research we suggest that the role of the trainer should be described as; “Supporting, accelerating and directing learning interventions that meet organisational needs and are appropriate to the learner and the context”. The challenge is to determine what interventions are appropriate and how and where they should be delivered.
Issues for you to consider
- What challenges does learning IT systems present for you in your organisation?
- What questions does it raise for the range of your responsibilities and relationship with others who are responsible for supporting learning?
Going forward
Over the next few months we shall be producing an online tool which we shall launch at the Human Resource Software Show in June.
Are you interested and willing to assist on this project? Specifically:
- Have you any comments or insights on either of the two papers?
- Have you any illustrations of IT system learning that we could use as a case study to support the online tool?
- Would you be interested in joining an active learning set on “How do people learn IT systems?” Participation would be open to those who are engaged in implementing a change/learning process in their organisation
If so we would be interested in hearing from you. Please respond by sending an email to Liz Dalton.
References
Stephen Gourlay’s paper
Who learns at work 2005
Felstead A, Gallie D, Green F, and Zhou Y (2007) Skills at Work 1986-2006, SKOPE/ESRC
Using technology enablers to develop individual responsibility for learning at Scottish Fire and Rescue
Technology skills in HMS Daring
Training and learning for a new system at the Comet Customer Support Centre
Virtual worlds and learning: using second life at Duke CE Second Life
Developing talent at Strathclyde Fire and Rescue