It takes a lot of time and energy to wrestle the future-state design into a detailed, working reality. Because of this, programme decision makers can be tempted to push back timelines to engage training, waiting until there is a higher degree of certainty across all aspects of the solution before starting to think about what the training experience will be.
Training as the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff
Timelines have compressed, access to SME time is cooked, and the training team spends its energy rescuing end users, instead of stopping the crisis in the first place.
With this mindset and approach, you also lock-in
- more cost
- a greater risk to go-live
- greater risk to adoption
- more re-work
- poor end-user readiness
- extended hyper-care
- and a lot of noise around your programme.
What if the perfect starting conditions never arrive?
Traditionally, asking any programme steering group what is holding them back from progressing with training and you hear a familiar list: final process maps, signed-off system design, a stable environment, confirmed role design and “availability of Bruce, Liz and Geoff”.
This list may feel like necessary ideal prerequisites to start training activities, but they are in fact just obstacles masquerading as ‘barriers’. We see this as a mistake, and one that can be avoided
“The programme is behind, so we’re going to have to push training out”
But go-live isn’t moving. In a world where “MVP” is the programme team’s ‘noun of the day’, and programmes are working with processes and designs running at seventy percent maturity, training takes the same approach, and will deliver an iterative approach. The key thing is to detach the full T&D design and build phase from the strategy work that can start now.
At Sysdoc we have a Simpler, Smarter way: The training workstream does not need perfect starting conditions to begin adding value. It needs a seat at the programme steering group early, and, by using a staged approach, can turn partial information into useful direction. Whilst this involved some T&D cost built-in a touch earlier than otherwise planned, this approach pays dividends many times over for the programme budget, team member burnout, the organisation overall and crucially for the end users themselves.
Sysdoc’s Simpler, Smarter way in three key parts:
1
Part one– it’s never too early to start the training discussion.
The training strategy, which often kick starts the training plan as one of the programme’s earliest activities, can run as a standalone package to the design and build phase of the T&D workstream. It can begin as soon as the programme gets off the ground because, at its heart, strategy development is an exercise in engagement. The final artefact provides guidance, direction and frameworks, but its greatest value lies in the discussions, decisions and alignment created on the journey to writing it. Start that journey early and training earns its seat at the table while there is still time to influence the programme. Crucially, this is not the entire training team (and therefore large cost) coming on board.
2
Part two: use an iterative TNA to support early development and reduce risk.
By its nature, a Training Needs Analysis (TNA) is often seen as a data-heavy activity that depends deeply on the wider programme. Its dependency on change management insights, evolving processes and a clear understanding of people and roles is frequently used to justify delaying the analysis. A more practical approach is to treat the TNA as an asset to iterate: begin with a high-level analysis that provides enough evidence to shape an outline curriculum, then validate and refine it through a second, more detailed TNA as programme information matures. This gives the programme an early baseline training product on which to build, test and scale for rollout.
3
Part three: design and develop anticipating change, not a frozen state
If the design will keep moving, design learning that expects it. Blended learning is the practical mechanism. A mix of traditional classroom training and digital Learning and online guides lets you place the high-risk content in formats that are easier to revise.
A general rule of thumb if a topic is difficult to understand and has a higher likelihood of changing then more traditional learning formats are the better option for developing training content – it’s easier to amend a workbook then an eLearning or video. Content that is relatively safe like context, or standard processes work perfectly in digital formats that allow learners to pull at the right time knowing that the messages are not going to change as the programme matures.
Three questions for programme decision makers
- Strategy: Is the training lead in design decisions and governance early, or are they scheduled to just be the recipient of outputs once the progamme has certainty?
- Analysis: Is your training needs analysis set up to be an asset to iterate, and one that is created early? Or is it a one-off analysis you intend to do ‘just-in-time’ before a training team arrives?
- Training Design and Development: What confidence do you have that your training experiences and materials will be adaptable enough when the programme changes direction in the lead-up to go-live.
Where to start
Reframe training, not as a downstream consequence of a programme's decisions, but as one of the inputs that makes the programme better: fewer heroics at the end, because the right conversations happened at the start.
Sysdoc has 40 years of experience in delivering ERP adoption for organisations. If you want to avoid the mistake of delaying Training, save on programme costs, programme team burnout and deliver greater business adoption with less noise, then let’s talk.
