WHAT DOES GOOD LOOK LIKE?
Getting a grip on competence and performance.
Being competent or having competence are ubiquitous words in terms of training results. So is the word, performance. Trainers are typically asked, “is he (or she) competent?” or “is his (or her) performance satisfactory?”. These appear to be critical questions. They are asked in an attempt to determine if the training has been successful. Has the training achieved what was expected and intended? For those on the training delivery side, students achieving competence or performing satisfactorily means they have done their job correctly. For those on the customer side receiving the training, it is a confirmation that their staff are “good enough”.
We use these terms freely, on both the customer and supplier side but do we know clearly what we are talking about? How are these terms defined? It seems that there are as many answers to this question as there are people asking it. One place to find an answer might be the NZQA. However, the NZQA does not provide definitions of performance or competence. The reasons are twofold. Firstly, with such a breadth of subjects and possible applications, a definition, to be inclusive would have to be so broad as to be virtually meaningless. The second reason is that it is really up to the individual industry training organisations ITO’s) to define, in their specific context, what competence and performance mean. Interestingly, the ITO’s state that performance and competence are determined by assessors. Ok, so what do assessors deem to be satisfactory performance and competence? The answer is by following the unit standard evidence requirements and through good judgement. Fair enough. So what is good judgement then?
These definitions appear to allow plenty of scope for individuals to assess performance and competence as they see fit. Giving trainers the freedom to determine what good looks like does have its benefits. It allows for unusual circumstances, for example. However, it also allows for varying levels of acceptable trainee achievement which opens up areas of potential dispute over fairness, safety, and quality. I previously worked for a large aircraft maintenance firm which was heavily involved in OJT. Trainers primarily relied upon their professional judgement in determining if a trainee had achieved an acceptable standard of work whereupon the focus of training could move to some other task. This created wide variations in time, quality, safety, and assistance needed among the trainees. Each trainer had many years of relevant work experience and had passed internationally recognized trade qualifications and yet they had widely differing views on what constituted an acceptable standard for training. They all seemed to know what good felt like but didn’t know how to describe it adequately or assess it consistently with their trainees. It seems this is a common issue with trainers of many ilks. When asked to define what good looks like, they rapidly descend into fuzzy terms and language. These are all intelligent, highly capable people. Is it really that hard?
My experiences led me on a mission to find, if possible, a clearer destination for my work colleagues training efforts. After much deliberation, we came to a mutually agreed set of standards. Here they are:
Performance is either satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
Satisfactory performance requires all the following standards to be met:
The task was carried out error free
The task was carried out without requiring supervision
The task was carried out in a reasonable period of time
Sounds simple enough but I can guess a few readers will be priming a critical response so here goes trying to remove the devil from the detail.
Many may say that a performance in some circumstances may be satisfactory but in others, unsatisfactory. My view is that is down to defining the task and the conditions in which it is undertaken. There will always be a level of task completion or its results that the receiver or customer will be satisfied with. Conflict or confusion between training supplier or provider and organisational customer typically occurs when expectations on both sides were not deflined, understood and agreed before delivery.
Surely error free is an unrealistic requirement for satisfactory performance. Lets face it, we all make mistakes and when we are developing new skills, we are bound to make them. Error free, as I see it, is defined as any safety or quality related mistake that does not affect the other two standards (without requiring supervision, in a reasonable time) while meeting agreed customer expectations. In other words, is the person supervising the work sufficiently confident that the individual undertaking the work will make errors so minor that this will not reasonably be expected to affect completion time, the need not to supervise, and customer satisfaction. In most training scenarios, the immediate customer is likely to be the trainer, who is typically expected to be supervising the trainees work.