The Liebert trainees return to the classroom to discuss the improvement methods used by Giesse.They also draw upon their observations of the factory floor to ... Click Here to read the whole article.

Voice of the Customer
As a first step toward re-designing the training model, customer requirements are examined using the tree diagram below.  Note that each driver category has been expanded into a group of more specific requirements.  The first six requirements under "effectiveness" represent increasing levels of mastery as embodied by Bloom's taxonomy. 

Other requirements represent various dimensions of cost, as well as key determinants of flexibility or responsiveness.

Benefits Analysis
By minimizing expensive face-to-face instruction and travel, as well as elimination of the direct costs of printing and shipping training materials, the blended model offers a minimum cost advantage of 50% (not including student travel costs).  The differential of these direct costs is easy to measure.  Other benefits which are harder to quantify, but present, include: reduction of administrative overhead for scheduling classes, and the benefit of on-demand e-learning reference resources.  There is complete certainty that the blended model has a far lower cost structure.  There is also complete certainty that blended models are more flexible - the e-learning component features a lot size of one, so participants can start at any time with no lead time.  So the remaining question centers on effectiveness.  Fortunately, an emerging body of evidence indicates that blended learning is substantially more effective than classroom training alone.  In 2006, the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative (http://www.adlnet.gov/ ), which is funded by the DOD, conducted a Meta-Analysis of ninety-six research reports examining results of 26,460 people taking 208 different training courses.  A summary of results is presented below:

Similar results were experienced by Quest Diagnostics in 2006 when the company migrated from ... Click Here to read the whole article.

A more complete analysis involves evaluating multiple dimensions of performance in a matrix format. The project prioritization matrix gives each of five factors a designated rating, and the product of those factors gives a relative score that can be used to set priorities.

To build a priority matrix, start with assigning a weight to the direct bottom-line impact, i.e. cost reduction, of each potential project. Then add rankings in other categories such as importance to the customer, implementation cost, feasibility (probability of success), and leverage (positive impact) on other processes. The ultimate priority ranking by the aggregate "score" is different than the priority from cost savings alone because of the weight of other factors.  You may find that a potential project that provides a relatively low direct bottom-line impact may jump to the top of the list based on its high importance to the customer, ease of implementation, and positive leverage on other processes. 

This priority matrix format can be modified to fit the needs of your organization - add or delete factors, or change the rating scales to give greater weight to a factor.  Try it out by downloading the template below.

Download project priority calculator