With less time available for training, coupled with shrinking supply chain teams, how are businesses ensuring training provisions meet optimum standards? Alex Edge, Supply Chain Insight Manager at IGD, investigates. This article first appeared in ESM Issue 2 2018.
In research undertaken by IGD in 2016, which examined skill levels in the supply chain, some 40% of respondents said that their current talent management and training provision was either ‘OK’ or ‘ineffective’, highlighting significant room for improvement.
This statistic was one of the main drivers for IGD’s new research on this topic: Supply Chain Training: Creating Real Impact.
Much of the output from this research was focussed on two principal areas: a) the perceived lack of time available for formal, face-to-face training interventions, exacerbated by leaner supply chain teams; and b) the introduction of zero-based budgeting for many supply chain teams, meaning that all spend now needs to be justified, often with a return on investment clearly defined.
Automation, Centralisation Creating Key Challenges
To keep costs low and reduce head counts, many large blue-chip organisations are also looking to centralise key supply chain functions such as demand and supply planning, combining this with automation and sophisticated systems to replace previously manual activities.
In reality, this will take the form of an intelligent, automated system that can plan the demand for ten production lines, with one person overseeing the decisions, rather than ten individual demand planners for each production line.
This future scenario could mean one of two things: the need and requirement for training is no longer there or is significantly reduced, or the type of training that needs to be undertaken is significantly altered. Moving away from calculation-based forecasting methods to managing the decision-making process for intelligent systems would be one example of this.
This new skillset puts supply chain roles in direct competition with different industries such as science and technology, driving the skills gap even further. IGD’s 2017 research, Mind The Skills Gap, examines this subject in more detail.
Key Questions To Address
With these challenges is mind, the three key questions IGD aimed to address with its research were:
• How do we create learning opportunities that are meaningful and relevant when back in the day job?
• How can we create more impactful supply chain training opportunities?
• How can we measure the true impact of such opportunities to justify future investment?
Many training programmes often fail to realise their true impact due to the lack of an evaluation mechanic built into the design of the programme.
The evaluation process can help achieve several benefits, such as informing the future design and direction of a training programme, or helping to understand if training objectives have been met.
The Kirkpatrick Four-Level Training Evaluation Model provides an excellent framework from which to do this. The model is based around four essential components to training design, building in a ‘results’ phase to help measure the true impact of a training intervention.
Look To Blend Where Relevant
‘Blended’ seems to be the training buzzword of 2018 so far. This could be an easy trap to fall into for many training managers, as it will save significant time and resources, but will it achieve the same required impact that a face to face session would achieve?
Using blended or online modules to share knowledge and insights, followed by face to face interventions to apply that knowledge, can be a very effective and time-savvy way to achieve maximum impact.
This solution also considers the 70/20/10 training model, allowing trainees to manage their own time and training around their day to day role.
Select Appropriate Metrics
When designing a training programme, carefully consider how the impact will be measured. This sounds obvious in practice, but in the long term it will help to encourage and drive the correct behaviours.
For example, looking to account a quantifiable cost saving to a supply chain collaboration workshop may not be realistic, so it is worth considering what other metrics could be used.
The lack of quantifiable return for some procurement or training teams may feel uneasy, however measuring behavioural change could drive the correct actions and result in longer-term benefit.
Consider Where Value Is Best Added
Businesses often face pressure to reduce the time and budget set aside for training, especially in the world of zero-based budgeting. But good quality training will generate business benefits (such as innovation or cost reductions), which in turn will justify the investment.
Consider using blended solutions only where necessary – although they can be an effective time saving mechanic for delivery, the objectives for this type of training are sometimes overlooked.
Where value is added, blended solutions, combined with face to face ‘application of learnings’ sessions are best placed to deliver the best overall benefit.
If you would like to chat more about how IGD can develop tailored learning and development programmes according to your specific needs, then please contact alex.edge@igd.com. Check out the full research on Supply Chain Analysis at supplychainanalysis.igd.com.
© 2018 European Supermarket Magazine – your source for the latest retail news. Article by Stephen Wynne-Jones. To subscribe to ESM: The European Supermarket Magazine, click here.
