Reply With QuoteI re-launched a training program for work. The initial project involved training upper and middle manager types in various topics of safety management. It was complex, high level stuff. I wrote and directed a series of training videos and developed new approaches to an organization's environmental, safety and health programs. The multi-day program was called, "ESU - Environmental and Safety University." It was hailed as ground-breaking, innovative and a benefit to the way in which my industry as a whole approaches the topic. I even developed new methods of teaching the topic. No one had seen anything like it in my industry before. Portions of it were adopted by other companies. I was pretty proud of it all and believed it to be the highlight of my career.
A year after it's completion and distribution, the information and programs developed went nowhere. When making inquiries of employees and front line supervisors about the systems that were taught, they hadn't heard or seen any of it. The very people it was intended to help were in the dark about what I was talking about.
I had made a very serious miscalculation regarding to what level of management and employee the material should've been directed. In my zeal to show off to company leadership of how smart and creative I was, I forgot who needed to know this more than anyone else in the organization. It was a humbling and eye-opening realization.
Since then, I've retooled and simplified the material. The videos are still shown but the systems have been revised and made more focused on real needs and true circumstances faced in a workplace. The information wasn't dumbed-down, but made more practical, useful. As a result, a handful of the programs have undergone drastic change. For instance, the original method of root-cause analysis we used employed the Isikawa "Fishbone" system and approach. I've used it for years, but in practical terms it has some inherent flaws which are difficult to overcome unless an extremely skilled facilitator is used. Instead, this portion of the program has been revised and improved by replacing it with a system that uses causal factor charting and a series of questions (not unlike Taproot systems) to arrive at a root cause. The results are repeatable and can be done by anyone with a rudimentary understanding of what to do.
As a result of me letting go and re-examining the program, it is now shorter, more meaningful, aimed at the right audience and most importantly, it is being used. It is making a difference and having a broader impact. The largest hurdle to overcome was me. My ego and excitement over my first born got in the way of realizing it had flaws that needed to be changed. My baby had issues and with work I think they've been addressed properly. Fortunately, I got a second chance to make it work. I learned to focus on the audience and the material's intended use rather than the material and how clever it all was.
Geesh, that was long-winded. My apologies but thanks for letting me confess a bit.
Bookmarks