Compare & Contrast:
Traditional Training vs. Xpert Mapping™ PERFORMANCE

Most training doesn't make a difference. The training experience may be pleasant, or not. But the outcome is the same: no change. The training manual sits on the bookshelf until it gets filed, hopefully reluctantly, in the circular file (waste basket). 

So how does People Architects Xpert Mapping™ "Experience" make a difference and result in real change and real results? How do we incorporate the ongoing coaching, feedback and support required for continuous performance improvement?

Let's do a compare and contrast.

Phase

Traditional Training

 Xpert Mapping™  PERFORMANCE
Capture Wisdom Ask average performers to tells us what we do. Sometimes just ask the managers. We determine who the truly successful performers (experts) are.

Ask around to see what people say they do. We use a systematic research approach to uncover and document the ABC'S of experts' wisdom.

Create a designer training model that appears rational even if's not applicable. We capture the actual mental model that experts have developed for themselves.
Boost Knowledge Organize the training around the product information and non-performing staff who are familar with the topic. We organize around real-life performance data from people who do the job.

Include everything that everyone thinks is important. We leave out knowledge that is not critical to performing.
  Organize the training around the product information and non-performing staff who are familar with the topic. We organize around real-life performance data from people who excel at the task.
  Include everything that anyone thinks participants should know. We leave out the knowledge you don't need to know in order to perform.
  When you try to apply the model, it doesn't work in your actual situation. Because we model experts, who have developed the approach for most situations, our model is ROBUST.

Plus, we teach you how to determine if your situation is an exception.
  Define vague objectives.

i.e. "Seperate people from problems."

 We carefully set objectives based on the ABC'S of peak performance we learned from the experts:

 

Affective (emotions)

Behaviors

Cognitive (thinking)

Social System

 
Practice Skills Everything is done as a classroom event: focus is on knowledge aquisition with a short final practice exercise, which you hopefully get to, as there is so much knowledge to cover. Aspects that can be better done online (knowledge, basic skills) have already been completed (with testing to show the participant has passed), practice and giving advanced feedback to best apply skills is the focus for the workshop.
  Delivered by people who have either never done the job or failed doing the job so now they are trainers. Facilitation by an expert: use elements (Xpert Map™ components and video) from peak performers
Coach Peak Performance Left up to the managers to do intuitively. "It's what we pay them to do." Managers are trained first using a detailed 1-page coaching form. Managers participate as co-facilitators in any practice work.
  The only thing to measure here is how much participants liked it using a "smile sheet" evaluation form. Data from the coaching form is the first step for performance-based evaluation.
Optimize Performance Support The learning is not reinforced and never applied on-the-job. Tools are created and incorporated into performing the work.
  The culture actually makes application politically impossible. Our approach caught and compensated for critical cultural and political dimensions of performance.
  Support tools are never developed. Successful performers have already demonstrated how to succeed with existing tools and constraints.
  People liked it. We kept our jobs. Few if any lessons learned. This project forms a foundation (methods, culture, technologies, etc.) that helps build systematic development in the future.
  ROI is unknown. Since there is no performance change, it was really a negative ROI. ROI consistently exceeds 8:1 in the first year.