The question of who is responsible for IT training has been an ongoing debate since organizations first started using IT systems, but one thing is constant: No one is fighting to own training. Although training is essential for every company using information technology, any department suitable for the task of conducting technological training perceives this responsibility as an extra load that is placed upon its already burdensome schedule.
Companies have grappled with several different internal IT training models over the years. Sometimes, training for IT is established as a separate department within IT, with Human Resources having its own training department for non-IT topics. Other organizations have attempted to consolidate all training (both IT and non-IT) under HR, with HR working with IT subject matter experts (SMEs) to develop a curriculum. Still other companies have dedicated trainers within each business function to work with IT, HR or wherever new training topics are coming from, in order to develop both training and knowledge transfer. In all of these training models, IT remains involved whenever training concerns systems — because systems are highly specialized and are not generic topics that just anyone can pick up.
From an IT standpoint, the most difficult of these training models to work with is HR-controlled training, because in this type of training deployment, you are also fighting for training time with other HR educational items — such as new employee orientation, the training of employees in corporate policies and procedures, and also certain legal and ethical topics, such as sexual harassment.
The second popular deployment model for IT training is to assign trainers within each business area so that every business function has within it a dedicated training person, who then coordinates with IT in the training of new systems. This can work well, provided that IT also has a liaison and support person on its end to work hand-in-hand with department trainers to ensure that systems and technology knowledge transfers occur.
Still, the overwhelming majority of businesses continue to favor the idea of IT conducting IT-related training. Training is something that IT (given its technical orientation) grudgingly does. Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that despite IT‘s reluctance about assuming responsibility for training, IT-led systems training often works best for companies. Here’s why:
IT already knows the systems it is about to deploy, so it’s better prepared to transfer this know-how into training. There is no denying that IT training also receives an extra boost when localized trainers in different business departments also join with IT in the training. These departmental training resource people can be on hand to answer questions and ensure knowledge transfer after more formal training has been conducted. It is this scenario (the combination of IT trainers with local department subject matter experts) that has emerged over time as a best training practice in many organizations.
By developing training for new systems, IT acquires a deeper understanding of the human factors that go into successful system building. (For example, what is the easiest way to develop a user interface for maximum usability? What information should business users receive on reports, and how can they best view this information?) Human-factors engineering is traditionally a soft area for IT, so whatever can be learned from training can be productively incorporated into future systems to enhance user satisfaction, potentially lessening the load on the help desk.
Of course, none of this can happen without the right people conducting the training. For IT, this means hiring (or developing) staff with excellent communications and teaching skills, who also have the ability to understand the technology and the purposes behind the applications that they teach. These people usually come out of applications, quality assurance, or business analysis groups.
So if there are strong arguments for IT ownership of IT training, does it make IT feel any better when it looks at its daunting technical workload and sees folks being assigned to training? Probably not. But in the long run, transferring system knowledge out to the end business is what makes applications valuable — and IT is still in the best place to make this happen.
For further information, see:
Five Best Practices for End-user E-Learning
Dell Education Services
Case Study: Flattening the Learning Curve at the District School Board of Niagara
        | 
 |
