How does training shape operator performance?

Performance-Shaping Factors Series

NEWSLETTER ARTICLE

Operator performance is a function of numerous interacting variables. This series of newsletters examines each of these variables, or performance-shaping factors (Figure 1).

Lesson 6 – Training

If I were to ask training managers what percentage of their students are good operators upon leaving the training program, what percentage do you think I would get? If I were to ask that same question of operations managers, would their answers match the training managers?

Not too long ago I was able to ask that question of several training managers and operations managers. I did not get matching answers. In fact, they were nowhere close. A good friend of mine taught private pilot lessons. He said, “I turn out good students.” I responded, “But do you turn out good pilots?” That similar difference in perspective seems to be present in the process industries.

Congratulations, You’re Qualified?

Why the disconnect? I would argue at least two causes. One is the subjective nature of achieving the required skills/knowledge. Too much weight is given to the person judging if the individual has achieved the necessary level of performance. The other is that most training programs are an open loop system, with little to no feedback on the performance of the trainees after they are “qualified”.

What is needed is performance-based training. Classic Systems Approach to Training (SAT) or Instructional System Design (ISD) emphasize (1) that training should be developed from an analysis of job requirements and (2) that there be a mechanism to measure the effectiveness of the training. The former should result in observable learning objectives. This is the same problem seen in alarm management, where an operator response is to “know” or “be aware” of something. These are not observable responses or actions. There are an infinite number of things to know. There need to be action verbs associated with the learning objective, e.g., list, select, identify, control, etc. Knowing about temperature runaways on exothermic reactions is meaningless. List the three likely causes of temperature runaways is measurable.

Did It Work?

I know of no facilities in the process industries that have a means to determine the effectiveness of the training their operators receive. Millions of dollars are spent every year without a clear understanding of whether they are achieving their objective in the most cost-effective manner. Simulator companies tout their products with anecdotal or subjective data. If actual job performance measures were used, then actual performance data could be used to assess the effectiveness of simulation. For example, “Operators with our simulator acquired the critical job skills in one-half the time of students without the simulator.”

In both defining the learning objectives and evaluating performance, objectivity is needed. What behavior (visible) must the operator exhibit? And are they exhibiting that behavior? Granted, in times past the latter was often difficult to quantify for console or panel operators. However, modern distributed control systems can capture operator behavior as it relates to control of the process. Tools can be built into the system to measure operator performance variables. A legitimate concern is that such a tool can become a club, used on someone with gaps in their skill level, rather than as a mechanism to improve training.

Does your training produce good operators? If you don’t have measurable objectives, both learning and operational, then success is a matter of luck. Perhaps you have taken the firehose approach to training, hit them with everything and hope the important stuff sticks. It is an odd approach on which to spend millions of dollars.

Copyright 2023 Beville Operator Performance Specialists, Inc., All Rights Reserved