Much has been written over the past few weeks about pay for learning.
Seems both pro and con abound and some of it is about "learning something
someone else invented, dreamed up, wrote about" (as in training/education)
and some about "learning to invent/create/originate new or better". Not
sure what distinctions to draw on this or if distinctions make any
difference in what I am about to pose.
Quite a few years ago, I worked with a consumer product IMHO. It required
learning theory in the classroom and learning by experimenting on the job
(what I and the operators would create as better and new). As I moved into
this plant from an earlier assignment, a non-expert (my new boss) had
chosen a $60M project for me to follow which was supposed to alleviate a
bottleneck.
I did start the project and even bought the equipment. After the first
installation (of a proposed six), nothing happened to the bottleneck. All
of the operators and my new boss were puzzled. I called a couple of
company experts and they explained why the change did not work and would
never work. I later took a couple of courses on extrusion which helped to
explain the THEORETICAL dilemma we faced. I then taught the theory (one at
a time since training on this high falutin stuff was only for us big shot
engineers with lotsa college) to the operators over a two month period.
After they understood the theory, we then had a blast together.
Needless to say, the theory was not directly applicable. However, through
relatively controlled experiments (this was 1978-80; prior to teamwork
stuff in the U.S.) we actually made some original theoretical discoveries
not covered in any scientific literature. To this day they are still a
trade secret. We were brilliant? No! Were we interested in making our
plant run better. Not initially. Only through building trust, caring for
each other, collaborative thinking, engaging our minds to look at the
whole system, and some dumb luck did we begin to care about the plant. WE
more than doubled capacity, reduced manpower needs by 40 per cent, and
decreased consumer complaints by a factor of 6. When I moved to a new job,
this effort stopped along with the improvements and original ideas we
implemented.
IMHO, learning through scientific experimentation (in 1980 and still
today) was not a way to get ahead for an engineer. I did it out of a pure
passion for learning (to get rid of the boredom of "PUTTING IN EQUIPMENT -
my real job) amid criticism from management. After this experience and
then replicating results like this later on as a production manager for
three separate plants, the one remarkable constant was the relative surge
from flat sales as quality improved and costs declined. This from learning
as both Deming and Senge would recognize.
For those who say managment or the customer should not/will not pay for
learning (learning to create a better future or learning like in class
room theory/from books, etc.), I say customers won't pay for a continued
lack of significant improvement or applied invention which in some way
changes the value equation (no defects with a useful functionality as
perceived by the customer versus how much it costs) or creates a totally
new value equation. An organization that does not adopt this belief, will
survive the 21st century only through temporary patent protection of an
extremely unique product or service or being a small niche player with low
enough profits to discourage other entrants from getting onto their
playing field.
-- Dave Buffenbarger dwbuff@aol.com