Conference ilbbak::us_sales_service

    I was going to start a new note, but this one is as good as any to make
    the suggestion that we begin to deliver major portion of our training 
    on-line and use our technology instead of our travel/expense budgets
    to get trained. I had hoped this mornings training-focused DVN would
    provide some insight into this, but it didn't; Bookreader isn't really
    computer-based instruction, as one of the Field callers pointed out.
    
    As a sales person with fewer Sales Support resources and the need to be
    viewed by my customers as having added-value, I need to know a lot more
    about our products and services and also what's behind them. Because
    there's so many of them and they change so often, I can't be expert 
    on all of them all the time, but I do have to have a minimum level
    of knowledge. And I have to be able to quickly raise that level of
    knowledge on demand when an opportunity comes up.
    
    Right now there is no structured way to do this. I go to the library
    and get a copy of all relevant materials, search the notes files for
    relevant conferences, OPAL presentations, etc. and then sit down and 
    wade through them and try to build myself a training program. 
    
    Highly inefficient both personally and for the Corporation.
    
    How much better to be able to view an on-line self-paced training 
    module that has been designed specifically for the purpose by our 
    training professionals. They could work with the Corporate people 
    that usually put the lecture training together and then deliver it.
    Instead of them developing overheads for traditional delivery only a
    few times, why not spend a bit more time and enter them into an 
    OPAL-like delivery system where I can access/download them for use at 
    my convenience? And charge these same people with keeping them up to
    date at the same time they develop the Sales Update articles on the new
    models, changes, etc. 
    
    The bottom line is that much of the training I see discussed (as in this
    note and another on CASE/COHESION training back in NH) could be
    delivered without requiring travel, could make provision for those 
    who can't travel, and/or need the training later on, and could take 
    advantage of the technology we're putting in place as part of the 
    Account Workbench.
    
    Comments?
    
    Regards, and GOOD SELLING!
    
    Fred Keller
    State Gov. & Healthcare Sales
        

    re: .1
    
    Hear! Hear!
    
    I, too, believe we should invest more in computer-based or
    computer-assisted training.  I would guess that the cost of developing
    a good CBT course for a product would cost significant less than
    sending a couple hundred (couple thousand, more likely) people off for
    training.  I prefer to sit in my office with the product and learn it. 
    I work in sales support.  I have to know, from a user's and from a
    technical standpoint, about quite a few products.  I CANNOT get to
    classes on all the products that I have to evaluate and work with.  CBT
    would make me much more effective in my role.
    
    I believe we need to continue with L/L classes, but for quick product
    introductions and initial hands-on experience, CBT is a great answer.
    
    tgc

    Fred,
         Good input in note 64.1.  As you state in your paragraph
    2 "...there's so many [products and services] and they change so
    often...", there are many choices to be made on what should be offered
    in training courses, classroom or CBI.  Could you list in priority
    what in your opinion the field could use in the short term via CBI
    as well as standard on-going needs that should be offered via
    CBI. I will forward your response and any others to Bob Goode in
    Sales Training and ask for his reply to be published in this
    conference.

Fred,

I'm one of the people working on strategies for trying to get 
more info out to the field using computer-based technologies... 
Thanks for your encouragement.

I'm curious about your statement that Bookreader-based
courses are "not really CBI"... I agree, it is pushing it
to call Bookreader CBI, because there is no answer judging or
programmed logic as is found in more traditional CBIs... They
are simple, online tutorals... 

However, I don't think the point is to argue whether something is or 
isn't CBI, but more to question whether the training works or not.
(Just because a course is "real CBI" doesn't necessarily
mean that it is effective... and just because something isn't
real CBI, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't work.)

The thought behind using Bookreader is that - in instances where
we choose Bookreader as the medium - we think we can 
successfully meet the training objectives.  Developing courses
for delivery through Bookreader is an order of magnitude less
expensive and less time consuming than other authoring systems... 
so it is a question of choosing the most cost-effective solution (emphasis 
on "effective" ...we know that cutting corners developing courses that don't
work is throwing money down the tubes)

Are the Bookreader courses failing to satisfy the training requirements?

What is that training missing that would make it more effective?

What do you consider to be features of effective training?
(it would help if you could prioritize this list)

BTW - Our strategy is not exclusively Bookreader... We have other
tools that we use when there is a need for color, or animation, or
answer judging... but in choosing them, we are accepting that
those courses will be more expensive to develop, take longer to
develop (slower time-to-market), and more difficult to update
and maintain.  As you know, there are always tradeoffs.

Due to the fact that we have limited time and resources, we are trying
to choose methods that enable us to do the most with what we've got...
to get as much self-paced training out there for you as possible.
(But, like I said... If what we're doing isn't working, we need to
hear about it... preferably with some specifics on what the issues are
so we can evolve the technology in a positive direction.)

---
I appreciated your suggestion that there should be some connection
between the folks who are developing training and the folks who
are developing other information vehicles (Sales Update) you deal 
with... There is a strong movement towards trying to reduce the
redundancy of effort across the whole information set that you
and our customers deal with... hopefully with the result that
people get more of what they need, in a form that works for them,
when they need it.

---
This is the first I've seen/heard of this notesfile... I hope we
can use it to get more good feedback like this (64.1, 64.2) 
from the field.

Regards,
Kathy Eldredge

    Kathy, re: my comment that Bookreader wasn't really CBI: during a
    recent DVN one of our executives was asked a question on training, and
    to him Bookreader seemed to be the answer. My comment was really made
    in this context; there's more to it than just automating the manuals.
    
    I'm much more concerned about how we can do a better job of keeping the 
    masses in the Field (of which I am one) current on new technologies and
    products. We need to deliver quality training when and where it's
    needed, hopefully in a cost-effective manner and using the technologies 
    we sell. ANd that's one of the first problems we've got to solve.
    
    What we sell and what's available in the Field are far apart. Two 
    delivery technologies are prevalent in the Field: VT's and mail 
    (i.e. inter-office). Forget anything that requires DECwindows or PC's;
    you'll only get to a fraction of the target audience. What sounds good
    to planners used to the average technology in GMA offices (and I was one 
    until quite recently) doesn't work out here except to a few Sales Support
    types in the privacy of their own offices. My offices (DEC and home)
    consist of a VT and a good 'ol DECmate II, so if whatever training is
    designed targets these I'm in fat city!
    
    Now what do I need. My VAX/VMS customer just called and wants to discuss 
    MUMPS for an application he's considering buying. I need to have a quick 
    way to do a crash course in MUMPS on demand in the shortest possible time.
    I've been around a while so I know where to locate LOTS of source data
    from the Sales library, VTX Sales Update, VTX SPD's, Competitive
    Analysis, NOTES file discussions, etc. 
    
    But then it takes far more time than I can afford to sort through it all 
    and learn what I need so that I can do some degree of consultative selling
    with my customer.
    
    What I could use is a MUMPS 101 (or PATHWORKS 101, DECwindows 101,
    etc.) short course I can access through my home DM-II in the evening.
    This course could be built automatically for me using something like
    VMS MMS or UNIX "MAKE" facilities to go out to various libraries (the
    same ones mentioned above, plus the ones used to create the Sales
    library materials) and selectively extract the most current information
    to build me a custom course. I could either view it on my terminal or
    print it out so I could read it at my convenience, with any
    graphics/images going to the LNxx in the office.    
    
    What have I gained? I didn't have to spend the time gathering all the
    info; a simple request spooled in the background while I did something
    else. I didn't have to read it all and sort it out; somebody (hopefully 
    with a training background) had predefined what needed to be accessed and
    selectively extracted to show me only what's needed. I was able to do
    it on demand when the need was real and I had specific requirements. And 
    I did it all with commonly available technology either on-line or at my
    convenience off-line. 
    
    So I show up at my customer's office better able to carry the call alone 
    if need be, or to participate constructively with a Sales Support person 
    if available. And maybe I also did a crash course on a new product as
    well to uncover some new opportunity, just because I had the extra
    time!
    
    Nothing visibly hi-tek here, but it did use our technologies (MMS/MAKE,
    E-pub, etc.) and it would be effective (at least for me...).
    
    Comments?
    
    Fred  :^)
    

A big part of the problem with "keeping" the field "current" is that EVERYONE
is trying to do it! There is so much data flying around the network that 
most of it is trashed before it is read. Segmentation was an attempt to reduce
the amount of information sent to us. It is a failure. Now I not only get
reams of information from the individual marketing groups but also from 
Segmentation. Also the marketing groups that use Segmentation define the target
audience so broadly that most of the information goes to most of the people,
not the objective at all.

The story about MUMPS is a good example of what would be an improvement. To take
the idea a little further...

There should be a hierarchy (dare I say architecture?) of information
need with appropriate sources of that information identified and methods of
reception (as opposed to delivery) defined. The fact that the field has very few 
PCs and Windowing devices is not the issue, I believe that if the proper 
information flows were defined there would be sufficient justification for 
implementing the correct infrastructure in the field based on savings of field,
marketing and infrastrucure overhead as well as the increased sales and customer
satisfaction that would result from more effective information flow.

The top level of knowledge need is related to corporate strategy. This is 
something that everyone (!) needs to know. It would encompase our corporate 
strategy (per KO) marketing strategy (per BJ) our technical strategy 
(per Demmer et. al.) and our channels strategy (per Atlas). This should be 
taught at CSST and SSST and updates once or twice a year with support materials
(internal and external) always up to date.

The next level is Industry and Technology specific training. For people who 
are specialists is they would be trained and kept up to date regularly in thier
chosen specialties. Everyone else would have accesst to the training on an 
as needed basis. Not that I have not made any distinction between sales, support
marketing, the field, HQ, management or foot soldier nor defined any methods
of reception.

The next level is product specific. There should of course be a general level 
of understanding about our product offerings across the board. This training 
would be a multi-level, just-in-time training that ANYONE can access that
is hierarchical. I mean here that it is easy for the receiver to get a high
level introduction to a number of topics quickly and with no hassles and
then proceed down levels of greater and greater detail as required (down
to the BOM level). Everyone (within reason) would have access to all of the 
information (many times I have to call support hotlines not because I need their
help but because they have better data that I have.). 

All of these training schemes should have feedback/question loops so that it is 
extremely easy to get explantions/clarification/corrections t othe right poeple
directly. It is very frustating to have to make a dozen phone calls trying to 
get to the one person who knows the answer to what are often basic questions.

Sales Flashes, Sales Update, Marketing Newsletters, and all other field 
corespondence should be carefully controled. Anyone who is writing memos
to sales reps is not talking to customers.

By the way I also believe that most of our cataloges and most of our printed
literature should be eliminated and replaced with just in time delivery
methods. 

    re.6: very well put! I emphasized the low-tech aspect because too often
    the planners bank on the hi-tech aspect to do the job, instead of
    having a well thought out information hierarchy such as you suggest.
    
    Re. the reams of info we're receiving: many of us schedule off-hours to
    do our reading, and have quickly learned that it's much faster to skim
    through it in printed form. So we print it out all out and very quickly
    discard most of it once we're through with it. I observe reams and
    reams of paper flowing through LPS-20's and virtually right into the
    wastebaskets. I guess we could just delete it right off, but it might
    have a vital piece of information and there's no good way to retrieve
    it later when needed. A JIT system such as we're suggesting could have
    a pointer to it and include it in the information hierarchy to be
    extracted for individualized training on demand.  
    
    An observation: like any other organization, our internal training orgs
    have experienced continual reorganization and turnover at all levels.
    Every time a new group gets in power they typically start all over again 
    and reinvent the wheel, discarding all that has gone before. You can
    observe it all the time: someone leaves and for a while their desk/cube
    sits empty until someone comes in and puts everything in a dumpster.
    I've seen people go and nobody interviewed them to find out what they
    were doing, what they had done, what information they had that could be
    important to somebody, etc. It's as if what they were doing was of no
    importance and never mattered. Systems and information flows they had 
    initiated and managed suddenly stopped until somebody else had a bright
    idea and the wheel was reinvented yet again.
    
    Somehow we've got to develop a corporate memory and spend our time
    improving instead of reinventing and relearning. Hoepfully we'll
    develop a long-range training architecture that will last longer than
    any of the readily-changable management teams! Our Corporate network
    shows that we can do it; we don't throw it out and start all over again
    every time there's a management shift. And we didn't throw out VAX,and
    we won't throw out ALPHA, just because somebody leaves for whatever
    reason. 
    
    Bottom line is we've got to develop ,and invest in, a long-term training
    architecture. When we do we'll begin to leverage the tremendous power
    latent in our people by showing them that their knowledge and skills
    and experience are key assets worthy of retention and development. We
    are spending a lot on training, but it's more of an expense than an
    investment the way it's being done now. I know we can do better!