Bloom’s Categories of Learning are widely accepted in the instructional design field as a starting point for clarifying the types of learning that typically occur.  While it would be easy to write an entire dissertation-length paper on these categories, it would be overwhelming and not really all that useful for most people!  However, if you are considering a new training program for your contact center, it is helpful to have a general understanding, since this will help you better select when, where, and how your training should be delivered.

The categories are really broken down into three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor.  Given the contact center environment, it is unlikely that you would have training that relates to the psychomotor domain, which focuses on physical skills.  Also, unless you are facing challenges with employee motivation or are rolling out a diversity training program, you will likely not be working much within the affective domain, which includes attitudes and feelings.  Contact center training will focus largely on the cognitive domain of knowledge and understanding.

The cognitive domain is broken down into the six categories of learning, progressing from the most basic (knowledge) to the most complex (evaluation); these categories are briefly reviewed below with a few examples from contact center training.

Even just this rudimentary understanding of learning categories can help you avoid common mistakes made when rolling out training.  For example, if CSRs are expected to act as decision makers in response to customer complaints, it is unlikely that solely training them on recalling a corporate policy (knowledge) will help them effectively make decisions about applying that policy to the vast variety of customer complaints.  Once you have a better understanding of the learning category that your training will likely encompass, you will be better able to determine the details of your training program including the delivery method, training location, course objectives, evaluation criteria, etc.

Previously, I discussed the three options for call center training:  in-house development, commercial-off-the-shelf, and custom development.  After you have determined that you need to rollout new training (the analysis phase, which is a decision worthy of at least one other post!), then you will need to evaluate your different implementation options.  There are several key areas to evaluate when trying to choose a training program; one way to look at these areas would be to consider the who, what, when, where, and why of the start-to-finish training program.  In this case, the who would be the people who will actually be developing, delivering, and evaluating your training.

• Who are the training developers? Many people assume that the people who develop the training must be subject matter experts (SMEs) as well.  This is often not the case!  Well-qualified training developers should have a solid understanding of adult education and instructional system design.  A good training developer is adept at working with SMEs to create the actual training materials.  If you are considering in-house training development, do you have someone who has education or past experience in training development?  If you’re considering COTS or custom development, are you comfortable with the experience of the training developers?

• Who will deliver the training? While a training developer might not need subject matter expertise, it is often helpful for the actual trainer to be well-versed in the content.  Adult students have a knack for asking tough questions of trainers, who should be ready to answer and to provide a variety of real-world examples.  In an ideal world, the trainer would have a combination of experience both as an educator as well as with the content itself.  In reality, most training developers become so familiar with the content during the development process that they are, in reality, just as much a SME as the technical wizard with whom they were originally working.

• Who will evaluate the training? Will the program involve evaluation throughout the training itself and, if so, who will be evaluating the learners’ understanding?  Who developed the evaluation criteria and methods.  It’s probably unrealistic to “test” the trainees in a call center, but a realistic picture of comprehension and transfer of new material by a qualified evaluator can help identify areas for remediation.  Again, ideally this evaluator should have a thorough knowledge of the subject matter so that, during any evaluation, he/she can understand any mistakes that learners might make and help to correct misunderstandings.

Of course the qualifications of the people involved in the training is only one area to evaluate when choosing a training program, but a clear understanding of who it is that will be developing, delivering, and evaluating any training program will help you to identify whether it is likely to be successful.

Training is a necessity in nearly all workplaces, but often especially so in the call center environment.  Whether it be training for new agents, about a hard- or software upgrade, or about new policies or procedures, educating call center employees is a critical piece of a successful center.  Once a training need has been identified, there are three very different options for developing and implementing the training program:  in house development, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS), or customized design.  Each of these options offers some benefits, but you must also consider the downsides for each!

In-house training development allows you to create a training program specifically designed to meet the needs of your call center and employees.  The program can include company branding, reflect company priorities, and include specific examples or case studies pulled directly from your call center.  These are all benefits that you can find through customized design as well, but often creating the training in house offers you significant savings.  Don’t consider this your “easy” answer though!  Developing an effective training program requires a significant time investment; doing it well often requires someone with an understanding of adult education, educational principles, or instructional design.

Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) training programs may be the most cost-effective option for training.  These programs are often produced to meet the needs of a wide audience.  If the training goals, objectives, timeframe, and delivery method of a COTS program align with your needs then this is the way to go.  However, if there is a large gap in any of those areas, you will likely find that either your training needs will not be met or that you spend more time and money trying to reverse engineer the program to meet your needs.

Customized training design may initially appear to be the most costly training option; for this option, you are hiring an outside company or designer to develop a training program specifically to meet your training needs.  The delivery method, objectives, timeframe, and content should all suit you exactly and the designer should be able to integrate company values and real examples or case studies into the materials.  While the cost may appear to be the highest for this option, it may be the best investment if you or someone in your company does not have the time or expertise to develop in house training or if there is not a COTS program that meets your needs.

In house development, COTS programs, and customized design each have their place in the training world and each offers benefits and drawbacks in regards to cost, applicability, and time.  If you have an identified training need in your call center, it is critical that you choose a training program that will effectively and efficiently meet that need.

As both a student and a high school teacher, I was often frustrated by the seeming pointlessness of much of the content I was expected to teach or learn.  If I didn’t understand the real world application or benefit of information, it was hard for me to be motivated to find ways to retain it, or to teach it to even more unmotivated ninth graders. I was thrilled, then, when I stumbled upon a graduate program that essentially taught me a more scientific approach to education.

The field of Instructional Systems Design (ISD) is a relatively new discipline, having developed during World War II when it became obvious in the military that learning needed to be systematic to guarantee ultimate efficiency.  Military training had specific learning objectives, and the training needed to be engineered so that trainees could be evaluated on their understanding and performance of those stated objectives.  Research, theory, and practical application led to the creation of an orderly process with measurable outcomes; the basic model for this approach is called the ADDIE model of instructional design.

The ADDIE model consists of the analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation of instruction.  While there is obviously more detail to each step than can be covered in one post, the ADDIE phases allow for careful analysis of learning needs, the design and development of course content to best meet those needs, implementation of the course itself and, finally, evaluation carefully calibrated to test the stated objectives.

Consider the positive impact that ISD can have on workplace training:

• Often, the first phase of analysis may indicate that training may not even be the best solution.  This eliminates time wasted on unnecessary training and allows supervisors to identify the best way to address a performance gap.  (More on needs analysis some other time!)
• The actual needs of the learners are the first consideration, so the course material and objectives are not randomly selected.  Content relevance is virtually guaranteed; both the instructor and the students understand the specific end goal of the learning.
  • A precise understanding of the learning objective focuses the training material to save valuable time in the training session.  The materials can also be carefully developed to guarantee relevance for the learners.
  • Retention and motivation are increased because the course material should be directly relevant for the learners.
  • Evaluation clearly pinpoints the success of the training and learner comprehension so additional measures can be taken as necessary to address specific gaps in understanding.

Now that I understand it, ISD seems to be the only way to approach any educational goals.  Many typical K-12, post-secondary, or corporate educational environments teach material rather arbitrarily, sometimes only because that’s always what has been taught.  However, the processes inherent in ISD ensure that there is a defined learning objective, that the course is designed with that end goal in mind, and that evaluation truly determines the learners’ understanding of the content.

As the lead trainer here at Inova Solutions, I’ve had the opportunity to work directly with many of our customers to familiarize them with our products. I’ve experienced varying degrees of success in organizing and delivering both on-site and remote training sessions, and find that applying the principles of adult learning that were developed by Malcolm Knowles can prove beneficial for the group. Everyone learns differently, and it is widely believed that adults learn differently from children and adolescents. While it is the duty of the instructor to deliver the content in a manner that engages and motivates students, there is no substitute for a student’s desire to learn.

Adult learners come into the classroom with life experience and prior knowledge that they want to continue to develop. As a result, it is important that the instructor facilitate a connection between prior knowledge and the course’s curriculum. With that experience, adults tend to want the new content to be relevant, and allow for goals to be set with newly acquired information. This allows them to place value on the learning experience. The most important element of the adult learning experience is in establishing a learning environment that fosters respect between the instructor and the student, as well as the respect that students have for one another.

When I deliver training, I often apply these principles by setting goals to motivate the group. I let the class know that they will walk away from the training with a series of messages and/or displays that they can immediately use. It demonstrates that their time is valued and respected, as attending training can be a burden for those whose daily responsibilities cannot be put on hold while they attend. This also allows for autonomy, and the ability to utilize prior knowledge. Students also tend to collaborate with colleagues throughout the process of developing a series of displays, motivating the learners by fostering social networking and welfare throughout the design process.

If you are tasked with the job of organizing training on your Inova products for your company, please feel free to address any concerns with your trainer. We can work with you on concerns that may range from a lack of motivation, ways to optimize the learning environment, or in identifying the special needs of a learner in the group.