A process approach to project manager training

INTRODUCTION

Several years ago the General Electric Company's Nuclear Services business implemented a Project Manager Training program that was designed, developed and conducted based on a series of specially created training processes. Today, not only is the training program continuing, but it plays a key role in the process-focused approach the business has taken to field services projects.

The intent here is to show why and how the training program was developed and implemented. Also included is a look at nuclear services projects as a business process and how the training program relates to this process.

WHY INVEST IN CHANGE?

The approach many companies use in developing project managers involves putting young engineers in the field and letting them learn through on-the-job experience. Although experience may be the best teacher, when used alone, this approach has a number of down sides. It is nonstructured and holds no guarantee that individuals will learn critical skills. Also, the field engineer's first opportunity to be assigned as project manager is often a “throw ‘em in the deep end and see if they can swim” situation. Those who survive often become premier project managers, but there are real and hidden costs associated with project failures, customer relations and employee satisfaction.

Figure 1. Why Invest in Change?

The nuclear utility industry itself has been changing. Figure 1 illustrates some of these changes. Three Mile Island (TMI) events took place on March 28, 1979, with effects still being felt today. By the mid-1980s GE Nuclear Services was dealing with the inevitable changes in customer and contractor relations. Utilities were under more pressure to control O&M costs and struggling with justifications for including new plant construction costs in rate bases. Contracts moved toward firm pricing and contained more shared risk and reward. Causes of successful and unsuccessful projects were examined closer in order to identify the best practices. From this last set of activities emerged the observation that successful project managers operated with a different mindset than their less successful counterparts.

From a business perspective it became evident that companies who wished to remain in this market would have to make changes in the way projects were run and in the people who ran them. For us the need for many of these changes was also mandated by the fact that there was an ongoing commitment to continue providing products, services and technology for the fleet of Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) we had designed and supplied to the industry. Business plans were developed to ensure our continued competitiveness in this market.

One facet of our planning included the creation of a cadre of capable and effective project managers, and it was decided that a Project Manager Training program needed to be developed.

Authorization to proceed was obtained and a business manager or representative from each of the project-oriented groups was selected to act as a member of a review committee to oversee the development effort. The first agenda item for the review committee was the identification of program goals and design considerations (see Table 1).

The most challenging of the design considerations were those which required that the training be tailored to our audience and our market. Individuals who would attend the training would range in experience from new hires to decades in the field; had educations from high school diplomas to advanced degrees; were geographically dispersed around the world; and were available to attend training anywhere from several months to only a few days every year. (It was not uncommon for a project manager to get a copy of the contract for his next job while wrapping up a project close-out. He would read the contract on the plane to the next job site.)

The types of projects involved were equally diverse. They ranged from small, development projects up to large, multimillion dollar, two or three month nuclear plant outage projects which involved mobilizing a thousand people and millions of dollars worth of sensitive equipment.

The obvious solution to these difficulties included short, intense, seminars which focused on application of principles to this project environment and which could be conducted at any location. The next step was to develop the training.

Figure 2. Performance-Based Training Classic Approach

THE CLASSICAL TRAINING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Training and education are different. Where education involves the acquisition of knowledge with generalized expectations for some application of this knowledge, training is usually focused on a specific group of job skills. This is often referred to as performance-based training.

The classical process used for performance-based training development is illustrated in Figure 2. Although there are numerous variations, the basis process has been around for decades and has a strong track record. In this process the analysis phase consists of validating the training solution to the performance issue (Needs Analysis) and spending time with a number of job^-incumbents identifying each of the skills, abilities, prerequisite knowledge, etc., needed to perform each task within the job functions.

This information is then used in the design phase to create a training program architecture. Learning objectives which describe very specific behaviors are written and tests for whether or not the trainee has mastered these behaviors are designed. These are combined with the optimum learning sequences and environments—classroom, laboratory, lecture, CBT, etc.—to form a training plan. Training plans are often completed by a training designer and handed off to a developer.

Figure 3. Our Development Process

Remaining process activities consist of developing materials which will be used to conduct the training, prototyping or testing the training and, finally, delivery. Monitoring performance of those who have completed training and feeding results back into the program is essential in ensuring that job performance requirements are continually being met by program graduates.

Our training organization had been using this process—or variations of it—for quite some time when it undertook the Project Manager Training development effort. It was immediately evident that the classic process would not meet our needs for this program for a number of reasons:

Time. The classic process tends to be very sequential, with each activity being dependent on completion of its predecessor. This is usually not a problem when developing limited-scope performance-based training, especially if learning objectives have already been prepared and the analysis phase can be short-cycled. Trainers will toss out numbers on the order of 30 to 100 hours of development time for each hour of classroom time depending on factors such as the amount of analysis required and the availability of information. We didn't have that much time.

Goals. Because of the varied backgrounds and paradigms of the future audience, we needed to address not only the training need but had to include an educational element of the program.

Data. Information which needed to be included in the training was literally in the minds of hundreds of people scattered all over the country. Also, in the classic process, once analysis is complete and source data is gathered, there is generally limited involvement of job incumbents. Information is incorporated and training gets pulled together based on the expertise of developers and instructors. In our case, for purposes of credibility, applicability, and realism, it was imperative that internally recognized experts remain intimately involved throughout.

OUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

A team was put together which consisted of a project manager, a training designer, and several technical writers. This team developed the process shown in Figure 3. Although the original charter was only to develop a Project Manager Training program, it was evident that a natural by-product of the effort could be the generation of a Project Manager's Reference Manual. The Review Committee approved the added scope.

During the analysis phase research and data-gathering was conducted. Research included looking beyond our then-existing internal sources. Institutions and consultants were looked at, along with a long list of books and publications. This produced volumes of information which was then categorized and summarized into topically based modules. The Review Committee examined and approved the modules and, for each one, identified a number of internal Subject Matter Experts (SMEs).

Information from the initial analysis phase was used to structure interviews with each group of SMEs. These interviews were kept very informal to capture how and what they did, what they needed to know to do it, what worked, what didn't work, and why. Everything was recorded on videotape for use as the basis for structuring an expert system for that area or module. These expert systems took the form of behavioral algorithms which the team referred to as process flowcharts.

A prototype seminar/workshop was then structured and conducted for each of the modules. Attendance at these prototypes included the respective SMEs and a cross-sectional representation of the ultimate audience for the completed training. The purpose of these workshops was twofold: first, to validate the process flowcharts and capture the associated explanations; second, to test delivery mechanisms for the final seminars. Each of these prototypes was also videotaped and transcribed. An additional outcome of these prototypes was the “war stories” which the experienced project managers used to illustrate the how and whys of the process flowcharts. Many of these eventually found their way into the final training to be used for the same purpose.

Once each prototype was completed, the videotape and transcriptions were used to parallel efforts to develop the respective training seminar and reference manual section. When each modularized piece was completed, it was reviewed and approved by the Review Committee and training could begin.

Figure 4. A View of the Training Program

A VIEW OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM

The training program is viewed as part of the professional development of our project managers (see Figure 4). Engineers hired in right out of college will go through a Field Engineering Program (FEP) for up to a year. During this time the individual receives classroom, job and field training before being turned over to one of the project's businesses as a capable field engineer. At some point down the road, the individual may have the opportunity to attend a Project Administrator's Course, which prepares him or her to act as the project manager's administrative assistant. When the individual and his or her manager agree that the person is ready, attending to Project Manager Training is scheduled. This usually happens after a number of years of field experience. New hires with previous experience are enrolled as agreed to by their manager.

There are seven seminars in the program. They range in length from one to three days, each with a cumulative duration of 15 days. It is rare, and not recommended, that an attendee go through all seven at a single sitting. Instead, individuals usually attend one or two seminars, return to the field and apply what they have learned before returning for additional training. To some extent, this recommendation is enforced by availability of field engineers to attend training. Although as many as eight full presentations of the program are scheduled and conducted each year, it is common for an individual to take two years or more to complete the entire program.

Figure 5. Conduct of Seminars

The training is conducted at different locations around the country, and because of its inherent flexibility, individual seminars can and have been taken to a GE project team at a job site.

A question often asked is “Why is the sequence laid out this way?” The answer is simply because of prerequisite knowledge and skills for each of the seminars. For example, before an effective project plan can be developed and proposed, the planner must be well versed in scheduling, cost estimating, contracting, and have an intimate understanding of what managing such a project will entail.

The last seminar in the series is titled Project Management Skills. It is in this session where “soft” skills such as communications, team building, leadership, decision making and negotiating are addressed. It has been our experience that it is in these areas that a project manager can easily make or break a project without ever realizing it. In our highly technical environment, these “soft” skills are taken very seriously.

Each seminar is conducted slightly differently, but they all have common elements (see Figure 5). Several of the seminars require that pre-reading material be sent to attendees in advance. The instructor and a SME work in concert to cover the material through a series of lectures, open discussions, practical exercises, critiques, and in some cases, team competitions.

Figure 6. Projects Process

Figure 7. All Components Have to be in Place

Formal feedback systems provide a means to modify and update the training program. But, as with any such training program, it is often difficult to determine what proportion of improvements in the performance of projects over time can be attributable to the training the program manager received. However, impressive results come through informal channels in anecdotal form. We consider the program a success.

PROJECTS AS A BUSINESS PROCESS

GE Nuclear Services is engaged in continuous quality improvement efforts as are many companies today. Our approach is a process versus program focus. Key business processes have been identified and prioritized. Cross-functional teams are trained and tasked with mapping and improving each of these processes. One of these major business processes initially targeted for improvement was the Projects process (Table 2).

Figure 6 illustrates the hierarchal relationship between several of our business processes. Major processes or process families include Customer Feedback, New Product Development, Proposal and Work Performance. The projects process is within the family of Work Performance processes. The assigned team further broke this process down into sub-processes, prioritized its efforts and focused subteams. First-cut improvements developed for several of these subprocesses were piloted at selected field projects earlier this year. Results from these pilots are very encouraging and we are currently revising and preparing to roll these improved processes out throughout the organization.

INTEGRATION

Continually improving business processes is a necessary commitment for any company in today's economic environment. But alone it is not sufficient. For us to ensure effective project implementation with predictable results of satisfied customers and employees, and delivery of superior product and service quality, all critical components have to be in place.

Figure 8. Training and Process Relationship

Figure 7 shows how these components relate.

An underlying foundation is management support throughout. Effective implementation is then possible if empowered and accountable personnel are using the best standardized practices available. These practices can only remain there if they are continually improved through effective process management. On the human element side of the equation, personnel will only be as effective as the training (including experience and education) and the tools they are provided with, and so long as the organizational culture supports these behaviors. As a business we are making headway in each of these areas even though some challenges are more difficult than others. None of these components are overnight phenomena.

TRAINING AND PROJECTS PROCESS RELATIONSHIP

The ties between our Project Manager Training program and our Projects process are shown in Figure 8. This relationship is reinforced on a regular basis through feedback and process improvements. Also, because of the cross-functional participation by individuals with responsibilities in different areas, there is an open exchange of information and a blurring of internal organizational boundaries.

For GE Nuclear Services this has been an exciting and challenging journey. We intend to continue—and by virtue of our chosen path-to improve.

Mark Price has 20 years experience in the nuclear field, both naval and domestic. His experiences include work in two naval shipyards, participation in power plant construction projects, providing reactor operator training, as well as work in the health-physics and radiation chemistry fields. Mark developed the G.E. Nuclear Services Project Manager Training Program from the ground up. This development project required the integration of knowledge and efforts from several departments within G.E. Nuclear as well as extensive research in field of project management. In addition to developing the Project Manager Training Program, he provides facilitation and training support for the organization's Continuous Improvement Initiatives.

pmi