3 Responses

1. Make it your own
   I think nobody can give you the advice you’re looking for here.

   I don’t work for your business and can’t possibly look to give you any benefits of your suggestion but I can give you a few pointers for making this work:

   – determine any issues caused by working in the current manner (i.e. inconsistency between trainers in terms of knowledge, style etc., the time taken to give trainers the knowledge and support they need and so on)
   – demonstrate how you could solve these problems or at the least alleviate them
   – be honest and talk about the morale implications of change
   – show that the best approach to move forward would be consultative (i.e. talking to both the trainers and their managers)
   – try and demonstrate a cash benefit of your approach
   – don’t talk in generalisations, be specific

   and that should do it.

2. Centralise or not
   Elaine
   I think Nik is right to be cautious about offering advice on this without knowing the specifics of your company. I think his suggestions are sensible too.
   All I would add is that some learning, development and training is driven by the centre/top of an organisation, so sometimes those people want direct control. In practice, if the trainers act as both proactive and responsive consultants, their line of control is less important.
   Equally, many training needs derive from operational issues and individuals’ career and competency needs. Being close to the ground and working closely with line managers can be really helpful. But again, the reporting lines can be relatively unimportant.
   Finding out what is driving the desire for the change may help you to determine whether such a change is about power, is symbolic, is an attempt to remedy a percieved weakness or whatever.
   Often managers look at structural change as if it were real change. It is usually better to address the underlying issues, and then consider the benefits or otherwise of restructuring as a consequence.
   It is the nature of these things that you may end up with more questions than answers.
   Good luck
   Graham

3. A combination of strategies can work
   Hello Nik,
   I agree that I do not know your organization. I will offer a combination strategy that worked superbly well in a large telecommunications company. We centralized the needs assessment, design, and development phases of performance improvement at corporate HQ. Then the testing, implementation, evaluation, and sustaining phases were decentralized to 6 geographic areas, and the functional divisions. This increased the quality and consistency of design and development. It also increased commitment and ownership of quality with the delivery and sustaining effectiveness.
   hope this helps,
   margo