by Phil Smith, Vice President Client Services
There is a large volume of material circulating on the Internet, providing philosophical approaches to lifelong learning for individuals. The concept of “continuous learning”, as it applies to the workplace, tends to revolve around these two generally accepted definitions:
- “Ongoing learning process that seeks to incorporate the lessons learnt (from the results of already implemented changes) into a continuous improvement program” (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/continuous-learning-activity.html), and…
- “Total quality philosophy in which every process and system in a firm is subject to constant scrutiny to (1) eliminate waste, (2) reduce response time, and (3) simplify process or product design” (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/continuous-improvement-program.html).
These links will take you back to the core concept that organizations must base their manufacturing and/or services on processes, and that once established, processes must always be under formal measurement, scrutiny, and improvement. If you are in a knowledge-based industry, such as software engineering and quality, then you have to extend the concept into your training program. Training must be viewed as a process and must always be improving. This applies to your own skill set as well—it’s not just about process capability, but also about people capability.
There is some overlap with workplace continuous learning (employer sponsored improvement) and self-improvement (individual sponsored improvement) in a few articles that I recently stumbled onto where the authors were clearly unhappy with current or past employers’ training programs. I’m not providing links because in many cases it was obvious which employer had caused enough emotion to ignite a blog. However, these articles do raise interesting points, specifically, who is responsible for an employee remaining current with their technical skills: the employee, or the employer?
I’m referring to widely accepted workplace concepts related to improvement; not just improvement of the product or service, but also improvement of the human capital used to deliver. I’ll state my opinion clearly right here: the employer is responsible. Organizations that rely on people’s knowledge, skills, and efficiencies have a significant responsibility and market incentive to keep their workforce as far ahead of the competition’s workforce as possible. These organizations have a social and economic responsibility to provide formal plans for training and they need to execute those plans with relevant material. The results and methods the training uses must be measured and improved over time.
I use the term “economic responsibility” because training is actually a pursuit of efficiency and improvement. Without these investments, companies lose ground to competition and ownership value erodes. Additionally, leaving training solely in the hands of employees will result in poor alignment with company objectives and unpredictable results.
I use the term “social responsibility” because the software industry typically keeps people so busy working billable hours that we don’t make time for training programs. We create them; we just don’t execute them. Cost pressure from offshore providers has left US-based resources in a predicament, because training costs are no longer easily hidden inside billing rates. Therefore training programs get sorted to the bottom of the priority list and do not receive attention. In some cases, recent graduates end up more qualified in relevant technologies than long-term industry experts. Technologists who do not take it upon themselves to learn relevant technologies may end up on the wrong side of the cost benefit curve, which certainly feels unfair to the many who work long billable hours to make their company successful.
Other industries such as health and legal, which are knowledge based, require that people be licensed, and that licenses be maintained over time on the basis of formal, ongoing education. We’ve missed this concept in the software industry, which has been convenient in that it allows us to be informal with our staffing decisions and enables us to exchange hours that should be dedicated to training and certification for more billable hours.
On the flip side, you can’t argue with free market economics. Graduating students will always have some advantages that may or may not outweigh their lack of experience, and offshore resources will always have some cost advantage that may or may not outweigh distance and other factors. Employers will always have challenges with cost and commitments, resulting in pressure for more billable hours. In the end, the only person that can be held responsible for a person’s career plan, training, and marketability is the person. Life just works that way. Making sure you are marketable is basically the same as being a gazelle out on the plains. Fast and capable is essential. With that in mind, if I could personally meet the people whose blogs read like, “it’s not my fault,” I think I’d have difficulty finding sympathy.
So, is the employer responsible for training, or is it the employee? Yes.