Training Industry Quarterly - Spring 2013 - (Page 42)

tracking trends | Ken Taylor Knowledge transfer is really formalizing the process of sharing Knowledge Transfer: Can We Really Be That Bad at It? W hen looking at the fundamental underpinnings of two processes, onboarding and knowledge transfer, both basically involve some form of training or learning activities that pass on a select subset of the corporation’s knowledge to an individual or group of employees. The difference is that knowledge transfer also considers the collection and origin of the content. Training Industry, Inc. recently completed a study that focused on how effective learning leaders believed they were when it came to onboarding and knowledge transfer. Not surprisingly, 66 percent of learning leaders felt they were effective when it came to onboarding, but the interesting finding was how much that contrasted with their self-assessment when it came to knowledge transfer. Sixty-one percent of learning leaders felt their organizations were ineffective at knowledge transfer. (See Figure 1.) Best Practices – What Do They Tell Us? When we drilled down further to understand the difference, it became apparent that the underlying problem was really a lack of formal process around knowledge transfer, a stark contrast to the onboarding process in most companies. We asked more than 200 learning leaders to give us some of their best practices for both of these processes in an effort to share what learning leaders have discovered when challenging either of the two critical learning activities. Learning leaders listed the following best practices to ensure onboarding programs are current and aligned with business goals 42 Figure 1 The majority of learning leaders (66%) said that their training organization is effective at onboarding Effective 11.6% Ineffective 10.7% 0% 54.4% 23.3% 20% BUT The majority of learning leaders (61%) said that their training organization is ineffective at transferring knowledge from transitioning employees to their replacements 40% 60% 80% Percent of Respondents, N = 206 2.9% 36.0% Effective Ineffective 0% 28.4% 32.7% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of Respondents, N = 208 Very Effective Somewhat Effective Very Inffective Somewhat Ineffective © 2012 Training Industry, Inc. (in order of most to least often mentioned): E •  nsure leadership involvement and support before, during and after onboarding. •  ontinuously evaluate training to make C sure it is both current and effective, making changes accordingly. •  nvolve all departments/functional areas I in the design, development, delivery, and review of onboarding. A •  gree on business goals beforehand and develop an onboarding/training framework for those involved to follow. P •  lan and implement coaching programs or mentor networks for new or transitioning employees. Training Industry Quarterly, Spring 2013 / A Training Industry, Inc. magazine /

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Training Industry Quarterly - Spring 2013

Training Industry Quarterly - Spring 2013
From Where I Sit: Back to the Basics
Table of Contents
Ad Index
Guest Editor: A Brave New World
Extracting Learning From Work
Poor Behavior: Your Brain is Partly to Blame
How to Design Engaging Training Programs
The Missing Link in Learning
Don't Let Training Be Half-Baked
What the Latest Brain Research Tells Us about Designing Learning that Sticks
Motivation: The Key to Learning Transfer
Improving Learning Outcomes with a Bite-Sized Strategy
Adult Development: Predicting Learning Success
From One Brain to Another: What We've Learned about Learning
Formalizing Informal Learning
Tracking Trends
Tweet Suite
Company News

Training Industry Quarterly - Spring 2013