Incorporating E-Learning in the Department of Work and Pension - Case Study Example

The Running Head: Incorporating E-Learning In The Department Of Work and Pension. (Your Name) (University) Abstract This report addresses the development of Blended Learning (BL) Technology in Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) within the wider context of the wider research issue of how effective learning takes place. An evaluation has been conducted of Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) learning theory, e-learning and BL literature. Primary research has been undertaken by surveying a sample of staff. Findings from primary research identifies that staff do not feel equipped to perform in their job role, despite a huge investment in a range of modernised BL products and whilst the DWP aspires to transform 40% of its training delivery into e-learning by 2008, the research identifies that 80% of staff have not undertaken e-learning in the last 12 months. The research also finds that 58% of staff are not aware of the Learning Modernisation Programme (LMP) the DWP’s investment towards twenty first century learning. Central to this approach of facilitation is the need to convince staff that e-learning is not ‘training on the cheap’. Rather, e-learning is about effective access to learning and knowledge. CIPD research has illustrated the shift from instructor-led training activities to work-based learning, which both encourages and supports learners (CIPD, 2007) Within the last three years, the DWP has invested £43,278 million pounds in adopting a shared service model. A study supported by IES Research states”Shared Services is an increasingly common organisational response to creating more efficient service delivery. The Department has met its headcount reductions through cost savings brought about by aligning the HR, Finance and Payroll functions within the organisation. The key driver for this has been the implementation of a new HR and Payroll software package known as Resource Management (RM). The Department has invested a further £1 million pounds in the RM system and significantly, here £9 million towards a Learning Modernisation Programme. This in turn changes the way in which staff training will be delivered, introducing a ‘blend’ of modern delivery methods. This research report looks at drawing up ‘best fit’ recommendations as the Department moves towards a programme of modernised learning. Introduction “Employees do not learn solely from courses, they learn all the time; they are learning from work, at work and by work”. CIPD, (2002). There are many new approaches to training and this report aims to explore the CIPD position on 21st Century training methods and how they are in use within the organisation in which I work. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) was created on the 8th June 2001, when the recently re-elected Prime Minister announced that sections within the former Department for Social Security, Department for Education & Employment, and Employment Services would be merged. It is an amalgamation of the former Benefits Agency and the Employment Service. The DWP is a large public service organisation comprising of approximately 130,000 employees, which makes up a one third of the home Civil Service. The DWP is responsible for the government's welfare reform agenda, delivering support and advice to people of working age, employers, disabled people, pensioners, families and children. It is made up of a number of executive agencies including Job Centre Plus. The DWP training and development requirement is significant. The Department delivers over one million training days per year. Yet, over the past two years, staff surveys highlighted that despite this investment, staff in general, felt that their learning and development needs were not being fully met. Currently L & D provide specific and/or technical training for all ES businesses, which includes both the Sheffield Employee Service and Newcastle Employee Service Centres. Most DWP training courses are run by Corporate L & D, which is a separate team responsible for the bulk of the learning which is undertaken within DWP, and which is delivered in an instructor-led environment, often requiring travel to a training location at specific times. This can act as a barrier for staff that work part-time as well as those who have caring responsibilities. Corporate L & D receive significant funding, to justify this investment, they work to published service level agreements and have a rigid L & D strategy, design standards and policies and procedures aligned to the organisational strategy. The Problem Following a re-organisation Employee Shared Services formed in September 2006. One year on The L & D team now need to be more pro active. For the last 12 months, L & D have been very reactive to the needs of the business. Adopting a number of ‘quick win’ solutions for fulfilling training needs. In reality, this has meant that the training delivered very often has done little to solve the problem. What has been happening is that the business has been too broad in their requirement, asking for training for example on basic payroll and stressing the requirement for it to be delivered quickly. L & D have then responded to that need without sufficient time to carry out a true training needs analysis, which is discussed further in the literature review. Often the training has failed to identify the problem, which is usually not ‘basic payroll’ but one small part of the process that staffs don’t know how to do. All previous L & D delivery was classroom based using in-house products designed to work around the former payroll systems. There is then a great need for this department to move from this old technology to embrace the modern BL method of learning, which is more efficient. Aims & Objectives The aim of this report is to, evaluate the current training methods used within DWP and compare these with CIPD’s Best Practice with a view to making recommendations for the most appropriate delivery methods to support the business post-Resource Management (RM) implementation. Objectives The objectives of this report are: 1. To consult with relevant staff to inform decision making for future delivery methods. 2. To evaluate and review the RM training delivery within Sheffield Employee Services. 3. To review current thinking on the ‘Best Practice’ training delivery methods. 4. To conclude in a number of ‘best fit’ recommendations to move towards a Modernised Learning Programme. Literature Review To inform this research and its findings a literature review was carried out. A literature review is defined by (Marchington & Wilkinson (2006): “ a concise and critical review of the relevant literature” (p.400). It draws on current practice and theoretical knowledge to inform research and key themes. This Literature Review discusses the broad concept of training (together with development, learning, and education). It then moves from generalisations to presenting critiques of e-learning and blended learning in order to inform and guide discussions presented later in this report. Training and Development At its most basic, training refers to the acquisition of skills, knowledge, and competencies that are achieved via the teaching of practical or vocational skills and bodies of knowledge which relate to specific useful skills (Sloman, 2003; Marchington and Wilkinson, 2006). Moving to a more specific definition, Training and Development can therefore, be described as the field concerned with workplace learning with the objective of improving performance (Harrison, 2005). Notably, training can loosely be categorised into either ‘on-the-job’ training or ‘off-the-job training’. On-the-job training refers to training, which is delivered in normal working situations utilising the actual tools, equipment, documents and materials that trainees will use once fully trained. Traditionally, on-the-job training has been considered the most effective method of vocational training (Sloman, 2007). On the other hand, off-the-job training refers to training, which is conducted away from normal working situations and is commonly used for training in concepts and ideas. Advocates for off-the-job training argue that it allows trainees to get away from work and completely focus on the training being delivered (Sloman, 2007). Meanwhile, the term Learning and Development, which has been discussed at great length by Harrison (2005), is often described as a set of ‘interventions’ and ‘activities’ intended to ‘improve the skills and knowledge’ bases of organisations. “It is increasingly common in organisations that focus on their employees also as learners, and where there is a clear value placed on education as a source of competitive advantage” (Harrison, 2005, p.46). Regardless of the type of training to be delivered, Marchington and Wilkinson (2006) state that providing any form of training and development usually follows four steps: (a) Identifying employees’ training and development needs; (b) Developing a training plan for each individual; (c) Selecting or, designing or conducting training activities; (d) Evaluating the results. By following this procedure the ‘value adding’ processes can be much more easily identified. However, without an effective evaluation strategy it is not apparent if learning has taken place. Within DWP, the current L & D approach to training is sometimes haphazard and often ineffective. Training’ is a relatively narrow concept that involves the delivery of planned instructional activities and might incorporate departmental activities and processes when used in organisational settings (Sloman, 2003). Also, it is widely accepted that ‘learning’ focuses upon ‘changes, which take place with individuals and specifically the processes whereby skills, knowledge, or attitude is gained,’ (Brown et al., 2006). ‘Development’, however, concentrates on the different views of interaction of external and internal factors being a significant part of HRM and, moreover, as Harrison (2005) stipulates, increasingly ‘strategic’. It is generally argued that ‘education’ allows for development of intellectual capability together with conceptual and social understanding, and specifically in organisational contexts it, develops work performance via the learning process. E-learning E-learning is a somewhat general term used to refer to computer-enhanced learning that significantly is used interchangeably in many contexts. The worldwide e-learning industry is worth billions of pounds with many organisations featuring in this market having become commonly heard known names such as, e.g. SkillSoft, Epic and LearnKey. Naturally, e-learning is ‘suited to distance learning’ and ‘flexible learning’, the latter being a concept embraced in most modern organisations (www.thes.co.uk). The key advantages of e-learning are its flexibility, convenience, ability to allow learning anywhere (so long there is access to the Internet) and the provision for learning at an individual’s own pace. Morrison (2003) highlights how e-learning in an organisational context can mean that learners are able to undertake their regular duties within the same learning period. In addition, there are time and transportation, cost and time benefits for e-learners as they do not have to travel to training centres. At the same time, organisations adopting e-learning are able to re-use the courses, thus saving money, as there is no need to duplicate the cost for every user. Of course, the initial costs of e-learning implementation are high as systems specifically designed for e-learning are required (Ettinger and Holton, 2004). These are however, largely considered as one-off development costs. Other benefits include the ability to learn with ‘fellow course members’ irrespective of their location whilst also providing greater adaptability to the needs of learners and ultimately greater variety in terms of learning experiences (www.trainingzone.co.uk) On the other hand, disadvantages of e-learning include the lack of human interaction and critics argue processes risk becoming no longer educational in the highest philosophical sense. Many users combine this with the feeling of isolation; however, as Brown (2006) describes it, in recent years the development of discussion forums and computer-based communication in e-learning has reduced this. In addition, learners are always encouraged to meet face-to-face with other learners and discuss their experiences; however, for those with busy professional and social lives, this isn’t always possible. Blended Learning “Blended Learning however, combines e-learning with a variety of other delivery methods to give what many describe as a superior learning experience” (www.vnulearning.com) Over the past few years, training professionals have become increasingly pragmatic towards their approach to technology-based media by using it to augment more traditional methods of training (CIPD 2007). Consequently, such patterns have resulted in the increased use of the term ‘BL’. The term BL is most often used to describe a solution, which combines a number of different delivery methods. At the same time, it can be used to describe learning that mixes various event-based activities whether self-paced learning, face-to-face learning or live e–learning, there is no one formula in existence, which is able to guarantee learning. Overall, BL is described as a powerful training solution dependent upon the right balance and mix of delivery methods in order to achieve the best blend of skill enhancement and sustainability. Ultimately, BL is designed to ensure an organisation’s long-term competitive advantage. The more obvious advantage of adopting BL is that learning itself becomes a process as opposed to an event because it puts training into the job environment whilst providing forums for all learning interactions. Moreover, if delivered well, it reinforces and coaches, using minimum effort and aiming to achieve maximum results. Whilst BL can be a powerful strategy for some, for others it has proven to be a “recipe for disaster” because achieving the right blend requires hard work, resources and expertise. It seems not all organisations are willing or able to provide these in the right balance (Martyn 2000). The most common downfall for those attempting to adopt BL is actually in deciding what their blend is and ultimately should be. It is argued that this comes down to knowing your organisation, its past, present and future; and moreover the people within it Methodology Primary research often involves the use of methods such as observation, interview and the administering of questionnaires. Questionnaires were administered for the purposes of carrying out the research to obtain the primary data. A questionnaire is able to capture much data from a wide range of people in a relatively short scale of time. Questionnaires also ensure objectivity because everyone is asked the same questions in the same way. Further, a questionnaire is a quick and efficient method of gathering the data, without incurring costs. Some problems were encountered in selecting a valid and reliable sample. A sample of between 50 to 70% of staff would be considered reliable, however, given the extremely short timescale, plus the time involved in analysing the data, a smaller sample of 75 staff (25%) was identified. Random sampling means that all respondents have equal and independent opportunities to be picked, and this holds a truer representation of the population (Baker, 2001). Furthermore, random sampling and involvement of the administrator in choosing the samples helped to avoid any bias by the researcher. Staffs were selected purely at random from the organisation chart. This ensured an objective sample of staff across all grades, age, and experience and gender proportions. The sample involved a total of 75 questionnaires being sent of which there were 38 respondents. It is common in research, to have cases of non-respondents. Again, the lack of response was very disheartening and is discussed further in the Reflections section of this report. In designing the questionnaire, a simple word document was used to allow the questionnaire to be broken into three sections. These various sections were important in providing a better means of analysis at every stage of research. The first section included a capability matrix, which listed each area of processing work, and staffs were asked to rate their level of competency against each area. The second part of the questionnaire repeated the same questions asked via the reactionaries to evaluate if there had been any change in the results, perhaps indicating an improvement in the scores once staff had the opportunity to consolidate their learning by working on the ‘live’ system. The third part of the questionnaire sought qualitative data and views on what future training provision staff would like to see; it included ten pre -determined questions seeking staff opinion on the future direction of the L & D team. The questionnaire seeks somewhat qualitative data (thoughts & feelings) rather than quantitative which relates to factual dispassionate or objective issues. The qualitative questions asked in the second questionnaire add weight to the quantitative data identified as part of the secondary research. Qualitative research is concerned with the personal responses and understanding of human beings and can include opinions, values, likes and dislikes. Qualitative researchers are interested in asking ‘why’ to questions. Qualitative research can be characterized as the attempt to obtain an in-depth understanding of the meaning and definitions of the situation. Secondary Research is defined by Saunders et. al (2003), as “data used for a research project that were originally collected for other purpose.” Secondary research acts as a benchmark for the primary research and gives a good direction for the researcher to undertake in carrying out research work. In order to provide validity to the primary data in this research, reliable secondary data was gained from reactionaries from training that ran from January to March 2007. The data was fed into an Excel spreadsheet to allow for analysis and to identify trends. It was planned to use data from events run by all four trainers in Sheffield. However, due to confidentiality, I was only permitted access to data from the events that I, as researcher, had run. It is acknowledged that this introduces an element of bias to the research. The secondary data was considered valid and reliable. From the secondary data the conclusion can be drawn that staff did not consolidate their training through the use of desk aides and e-learning and this is backed up further by the primary research data. This, therefore, means that the training experienced was not ‘blended learning’ in the context which it is known; this was looked at further by the literature review. The groundwork for this research project began in January 2007, with a programme of train-the-trainer events, where Oracle, the providers of the RM system, effectively trained the trainers using a range of ‘off the shelf’ material. This introduced the concept of blended learning to many of the trainers who previously had only experienced classroom delivery. However, potential problems were identified with the material as it was felt it was too generic in areas and not suited to the culture of the organisation. Presentation and Analysis of Information Learning Assessment The primary data collection sought to gain staff opinion of the on the method of learning on DWP.The Research was supposed to seek staff opinion on what future delivery methods staff would like to see. The analysis of findings has shown that the current situation is not working. Despite a huge investment in the RM training, staff overall do not feel confident in carrying out their day-to-day work. Generally, it was felt that whilst the course delivery met the objectives the actual content was insufficient and did not appear to provide the skills and knowledge necessary. Although a number of communications were released about the implementation of RM, there was very little communicated to staff regarding the new team structure. Therefore, although staff had an awareness of the capability of RM, they didn’t know what type of work they would be doing on a day-to-day basis. Some staff raised the fact that the training is only useful as long as they know their new roles Therefore, the reactionaries was poorly designed by the project team as realistically staff were unable to comment at this early stage. This is one of the disadvantages of using secondary data. The primary data however, sought staff capability in 36 areas of processing work the same areas can be matched to the new proposed L & D. (www.hrzone.co.uk) Noticeably, 92% are shown not to be confident regarding changing sickness absence to third party claims. Again this could be due to the team structures, as historically staff trained in attendance management would have dealt with this process. 85% were not confident on medical retirement, again this could be for the same reason. 82% of staff was not confident on the harassment, bullying and discrimination policy. This is significant and shows a training need in this area. Historically the HR Business Partner would have managed this work. It is important that staffs are aware of the policies around these issues from both a personal and professional perspective. 89% were not confident in compulsory redundancy. This again could be due to Sheffield not being involved in the process until the final stage, i.e. terminating officers on Payroll The data gathered from the questionnaire fundamentally showed that despite the DWP’s investment to the learning modernisation programme and resulting staff awareness sessions, disappointedly 58% of respondents stated they were not aware of the Learning Modernisation Programme. This could be true of new starters, however, it is frustrating to see that existing staff appear not to have taken the messages on board. This indicated that the learning that was taking place in this organisation was very inefficient. The results in the question 3.9 of the questionnaire (How closely do you feel RM training meets your learning needs/learning style?) were extremely unsatisfactory; no one was able to state that the training completely met their learning need and the learning style. 57% of staff answered that the course did not support their job role. This percentage is very high and in order to make the training work the delivery methods need to change. The secondary data identifies that most staff appear to learn best from when the learning is personalized and flexible. Future training needs to use methods that are suitable, acceptable and easy to learn from, for all employees. Furthermore, each employee has different cultural, social and educational background, which are major factors in that the learning style and needs are different for each person. Other key factors include employees of different age groups, different skills and ability in order to respond effectively to the aims of the course. Significantly here, some of the comments from the primary data include:- “I am not very good on a formal course environment as I'm slower on the uptake and continually fall behind on all courses I have attended”. “ I have struggled with the speed of this course”. “I will be looking to spend day 2 of this training which is now free to explore the system again and consolidate.” One way of changing the learning method of the course would be to split the modules into bite sized chinks so staff can ‘pick’ the relevant bits. Also it would be essential to raise major key points at the beginning of the session and make sure that the employees do understand them, before moving on to the main part of the session. Additionally would be essential for workshops to be made, in order to make staff practice and assess what they learnt and what they did not, in order to cover the existing gaps. Overall the evidence suggests that whilst DWP has made progress towards introducing BL, this has been met with resistance from staff. Currently, following the introduction of the RM system, staffs feels deskilled and are less open to taking on self managed learning. The challenge for the L & D team is to introduce a ‘best fit’ approach, which takes on board staff perceptions to e-learning, and supports a more modern approach with a ‘blend’ of different delivery methods. This would enable the learning to be more specific to the individual’s learning style, coupled with this approach is a learning path that enables them to see the relevance to their job role. Conclusion The DWP should change their method of learning to embrace the blended learning. This is because the current method of learning in the organisation does not effectively addresses the problems of the DWP staffs. The introduction of Blended learning will help to enhance learning in the department. This is because the e-learning will help to personalize learning in the department to cater for individuals learning differences. It will also provide flexibility in the learning process. This will offer the staff an opportunity to learn at their convenient time and place. References Books Brown et al., 2006): E-learning Technology, Oxford University Press: London. Harrison (2005) Learning And Training Process, Oxford University Press: London. Martyn Sloman’s (2000), E-learning Revolution published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Marchington and Wilkinson (2006): Modern Method of Learning, Prentice Hall New York. Saunders et. al (2003),How To Conduct a Successful Research, Chicago University Press Chicago. Websites www.cipd.co.uk www.learningcircuits.org www.trainingzone.co.uk www.thes.co.uk www.hrzone.co.uk www.vnulearning.com Read More