Will the squeeze on funding create a change of focus for training in the food industry?

Stephen Mather

Watson Neale & Mather

Managing Director

Will the squeeze on funding create a change of focus for training in the food industry?

By Stephen Mather

When there’s not much money around and against the backdrop of a dynamic, delivery focused industry with tight margins it is no surprise that the idea of training people in non-compliance subjects such as Management Skills or Lean Manufacturing Tools and Techniques can be a difficult sell internally especially when there is a price tag involved.

So in this environment when a training company or college comes along and says that you can get training for free by pulling down some government funding it’s a bit of a “no brainer” as they say. But while there is nothing wrong in looking for help from the government to fund training it is my belief that an over-reliance on funding has, at times encouraged an industry approach that is a bit like putting the proverbial cart before the horse, which doesn’t always focus on establishing a clear and measurable return for the business.

The danger is that the focus of attention becomes the funding framework and not the change you need to see in the individual’s performance as a result of the training. A further danger is that so long as we are starting with the notion that this training is free it seems less pressing to measure the return on investment (ROI) so the outcomes tend to revolve around pointing to numbers of people through courses or having gained qualifications, all of which are things that are nice to have and might fit into our long term people development strategy, but that leaves us with the uncomfortable job of demonstrating how the business has benefited from the programme, remembering that while the course may be paid for (or subsidised) through the funding, the time invested in taking people out of their day job or arranging cover is still a major cost.

Of course it’s not the funding per se that is the issue, it’s more the way the training industry has evolved as the conduit through which to access it. This funding model can encourage a businesses to approach training from the wrong way around in that the business finds training that can pull down funding, looks to see how it can be used, and then works out how to measure the return, instead of identifying a required increase in performance or business improvement and then thinking about what interventions are required to increase the skills and knowledge or change behaviour in that area.

Starting with the end result clearly in mind means the interventions are targeted specifically to get the results required and will probably be a combination of classroom training, coaching and on-job learning. Looked at this way round measuring ROI becomes much easier because we can simply measure how much of what we wanted we have got as a result of the intervention. Of course there is no harm in looking to see if there is any funding available for the specific interventions we have identified but whether we find any or not the training should stand upon its own merit as an investment that has returned through real measurable performance improvement that added some value to the business.

So while the reduction in available funding will throw up a challenge to people development in the industry I believe it will be an opportunity to get back to focusing on making sure that training and coaching interventions are developed as a direct result of a business need and for me the project based approach will be the way forward which identifies a specific improvement and then puts together a package of training and coaching to help the individual or team deliver it. Of course qualifications then need to be flexible enough to cater for this “results centred” approach but that’s a subject for another discussion..