The PBET Website -or Solid Performance Solutions site- has been updated. All of the old material is still available but I think you can find things faster, most of it loads faster, and new material has been added.
If you had bookmarked any pages in the past, they might not work now as I have made web page names a bit more Google-friendly. Here are a few pages of interest … (the rest you can explore for yourself!):
I always thought that at some point the name of my blog would become a liability. An anachronism. At some point the high tech equipment industry would recover to the point that it would no longer be trying to survive a recession, and my blog title would be… be obsolete! Yahoo!
Is it Time to Take “Recession-Proof” Out of My Blog Title?
In other words, is the recession over for American high tech companies?
One American company has told me they are very, very busy. They have orders. Service engineers are busy with installations and training. There is hardly any time to get engineers up to speed on PBET. I don’t think their positive story is the only one.
Apart from anecdotal reports from various semiconductor suppliers, there are statistics that say things are improving this year… but still not as good as last year. And last year had a pretty bad ending! For example, one measure reported by SEMI has been total square inches of raw silicon wafers shipped to end users for processing. What we see is an improvement during Q3-2009 from Q2-2009; yet the picture is not as good as one year ago:
Q3-2008: 2,243 sq. in. shipped
Q2-2009: 1,686 sq. in. shipped
Q3-2009: 1,972 sq. in. shipped
And then there is the book-to-bill ratio stats (BTBR) for North American headquartered semiconductor equipment producers. A little review: a BTBR above 1.0 is considered positive. We went for 29 straight months with a BTBR under 1.0 (Feb 07 to Jun 09). Nothing like that has occurred during the available data (starting 1991). Altogether the BTBR hit 1.2 or above 33 times (14%) since 1991, but the last time was way back in December of 2003. Along such lines:
Clearly, the last 6 years have been painful compared to previous years (except for the big bad 2001, of course). According to Stanley T. Myers, president and CEO of SEMI:
The SEMI book-to-bill number has been above 1.0 for four months now, reflecting small and generally steady increases as the semiconductor industry continues a slow recovery. Bookings in October 2009 have flattened, and we will continue to watch this number. SEMI maintains our forecast of a slowly improving capital spending outlook for the remainder of 2009 and into next year.
This is what the last four months has looked like in contrast to the last three years:
So is the Recession Over?
Keep in mind that the BTBR figures above are for North American headquartered equipment suppliers. As we all know, many of these companies have moved manufacturing to Asia - including the one mentioned in my opening anecdotal report. The worst of the layoffs were a year ago, but downsizing continues here and there (Sun Microsystems announced 3000 cuts in October).
This blog was created at the beginning of 2009 and is intended to be of help to high tech equipment trainers. When I use the word recession, I think of people (jobs, homes, food), not the corporate entities (BTBR, stock indexes, corporate profits).
I am not aware of much hiring in the equipment supplier training organizations. There are still many trainers out of work. For those trainers (instructional designers, e-learning experts, and related staff) still at work, the pressure to produce-more-with-less has never been more demanding.
The “official rates” (U3) that you hear in the news all the time refer only to people who: “do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.” However the BLS also gathers information in 6 groups, with U6 being the most comprehensive: “Total unemployed [U3], plus those who are ‘Marginally attached workers’ — those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past.”
A subgroup of “marginally attached workers” are the “discouraged workers” - those who are no longer looking because of one of four reasons: (1) They believe no job is available to them in their line of work or area; (2) They had previously been unable to find work; (3) They lack the necessary schooling, training, skills, or experience; (4) Employers think they are too young or too old, or they face some other type of discrimination.
It is a bit harder to extract figures for the semiconductor equipment industry. But again, here is some additional nation-wide statistics.
So despite the uptick, the recession continues to impact those currently employed by or formerly employed by high tech equipment suppliers such as those in the semiconductor industry. The recession may be over for high tech companies, but certainly the recession is not over for high tech workers.
I plan to continue the multiple points of focus in this blog.
ideas for unemployed colleagues to start their own small or home business.
ideas for unemployed colleagues to find employment.
ideas for trainers to improve their training skills and contributions to their company.
I guess it’s a bit premature to change the name of this blog.
First of all, I consider myself a real trainer. And I have a Twitter account.
But most real trainers do not do Twitter. There are a lot of people interested in e-learning that Twitter, some of whom are real trainers but most are folks into the software or the buzz. There are a lot of people into “social learning” with active Twitter accounts. Well, of course. Unfortunately, many of those “social learning” advocates (should I say zealots in some cases) are not real trainers.
A real trainer I define as someone who uses sound theory to determine the best path to human performance improvement. Sound theory has been detailed by individuals like Tom Gilbert (Human Competence, 1978), Bob Mager & Peter Pipe (Analyzing Performance Problems, 1983 and other books in the Mager “6-Pack”), Ruth Clark (Building Expertise, 1998 - and other Clark books), Allison Rossett (Training Needs Assessment, 1987), and others. What others? Check out the bios in Performance Improvement Pathfinders by Dean and Ripley for starters.
In addition, a real trainer cares about research. I am the first to admit that I often find my actions as a trainer at odds with the research. However, I make serious attempts to bring myself into line with what the research shows, when I learn about it. When looking at change in his field, a real trainer gives greater credence to what the research proves than what is popular at conventions, especially convention exhibit halls.
A real trainer knows that there are many kinds of media, and that media is always changing rapidly. Media should not dictate learning theory. Learning and performance theory however serves as a guide to best media selection for specific performance challenges. A real trainer knows that collaboration can be powerful in the right situation, but not all situations. A real trainer knows that training is often the wrong solution to a performance challenge (gap) and is not afraid to say so.
The title of this post is deliberately provocative. It can be taken in two ways. I do not in any way suggest that real trainers should or should not tweet. The meaning of the title is simply that, apparently, not many real trainers do tweet. There are many training and performance gurus that I admire - few seem to have Twitter accounts. Those that do, do not tweet often; or gave up after one month. On the other hand, many “social learning” advocates are very active of Twitter.
This is not unusual, by the way. There are many social and professional groups that are only lightly represented on Twitter. The problem is that “social learning” advocates dominate the training world in the Twitterverse. They talk to one another readily enough, indeed, they reinforce each others’ thinking. (Note a recent comment on that social reality.) Real trainers are less likely to contradict them there than in more academic or professional environments. [Still, the impact on mainline professional associations like ASTD is fairly powerful. See a critique here.] So many on the fringes of the performance world are highly influenced - there are many HR people on Twitter, for example.
So why am I using Twitter? Marketing. I am a training consultant and have other “home based businesses” for which I have been looking into Twitter as part of a marketing tool. To meet others, and spread the word. But few of the “corporate equipment trainers” that are my customers have that need. So they are not present for the discourse, the party, the collaboration, … or whatever you might want to call the Twitterverse.
I follow many training and performance bloggers. Only some are on Twitter. I will highlight some of these useful resources in some other posts.
As for “social learning” - well, I’ll save that for another discussion!
Incredible! Only one person commented for my contest, “Guess my favorite performance and training guru.” (Thanks Mike!) Well, Gloria Gery certainly contributed a lot to my thinking over the years, no question. But the third person on my list, after Bob Mager and Ruth Clark, was Carl Binder.
Binder has written a number of articles on performance fluency. Another word might be automaticity. It’s the kind of performance where one acts without having to reflect. It’s the kind of performance involved speaking any language when we say that one speaks fluently. Over the years, I am frequently asked about what differentiates the expected performance of a senior service engineer on a given tool compared with that of a competent service engineer. It is not too different than what some people are looking at right now on the SEMI Training Task Force. The question they are asking is, What should characterize the different levels of training given by a supplier company of a given tool?
I have two responses to that. 1) Follow the PBET Process - begin with analysis and a listing of every single known task that would ever have to be done on that tool by someone - anyone. Continue that an analysis process by task analysis (and by derivation, knowledge required for the task), the writing of performance objectives, and finally the creation of a learning hierarchy. To a great extent, the hierarchy (map) of tasks to be learned will answer the question. At the bottom are tasks that anyone with access to the machine will need to perform (for example, operate it). At the top will be rarely occurring tasks that may likely be performed only by that “expert senior service engineer.”
2) The second part of the answer brings me back to Carl Binder - fluency. Ironically, the better I understand the nature of fluency and what it takes to gain fluency, the easier it is for me to see that it is typically not really required. Huh? Here’s what I mean: Often we look at these “expert senior FSEs” and describe them as people who instinctively know what to do. They don’t even have to look it up! Well, sure! The solutions to common problems, not to mention rare problems, eventually get memorized after a number of years. But to think that “training” should produce such a performer right out of the course gate, is expecting a lot.
Here are some examples where Binder and others describe the application of fluency: children learning math facts, keyboarding (I’m old enough to remember when we called it “typing”), and playing a musical instrument. What is required to attain performance objectives in those areas? Much, much much more practice than for performances that do not require memorization! In addition, forcing the performer to meet a certain “speed” of performance; hence, timed math facts tests.
Are there equipment training tasks that require fluency at the time of the completion of training? Sure. Decision-making involving safety would apply. Certain select tasks that will be performed on a regular (daily) basis. Location of common assemblies. Surprisingly, perhaps, these are not advanced tasks, but you may be able to think of some that would apply.
Well there is a third factor in training competent performers to become “advanced” performers, but it has already been alluded to. The advanced (expert, senior) performers are able to perform “more” in two ways: (a) They perform the same tasks as competent performers, but to more stringent standards and/or under broader conditions. Hence, such tasks can be differentiated by additional objectives that broaden or deepen previous objectives. (b) They perform additional tasks altogether. Both of these should be uncovered during the analysis stage, when investigating all of the tasks associated with the equipment.
Again, strange as it may sound, “fluency” as described by Binder has helped me make sense of what we truly require and do not require when throwing around phrases like “master FSE” or “seasoned expert.”
Well anyway. Mike, you are absolutely right in mentioning the whole impact of “built in job aids” (or “online diagnostics” or “Electronic Performance Support Systems”). The implementation of such in our industry over the last 15 years has had a huge impact on training.
As for myself, I am reflecting on what might have brought such a low response to this first “contest” - despite the Newsletter and Twitter. Well.
A chunk of certified PBET instructors are no longer at Asyst Technologies; the company declared bankruptcy in April. On June 10 it was Aviza Technology, also based in hard-hit California, that declared bankruptcy.
In May, Axcelis Technologies, a company at which I used to work, sidelined about 235 workers, or about 20 percent of its global workforce. The company said the decision, which came after a series of other cost-cutting moves, would save it $25 million in the coming year. “This is a difficult but necessary decision due to the continued weakness in the semiconductor industry,” said Axcelis CEO Mary Puma in a statement. That’s now over 12,000 lost jobs in the Boston area technology sector since last summer.
ASM International announced, for the second time in six months, that it would speed up restructuring. This restructuring includes an overall reduction in force together with the move of manufacturing to Singapore.
In late June, a Gartner analyst indicated that sales of stepper units in 2009 would drop by 54% to 118 units for 2009. Compare that with 604 units in 2007. I know of a few people in at least one stepper company no longer employed. I have conducted PBET Workshops for all of the stepper companies. I have many friends throughout this industry and they are frequently on my mind.
So the recession rains continue to fall on all of us. We keep hearing that the sun will be out soon. For example, in June, SEMI provided a forecast that fab spending would double in 2010. They said that “19 fab facilities closed in 2008, and about 35 facilities will close in 2009, though the number of closures should decline in 2010 as only 14 facilities are expected to close. Nine fabs are expected to launch operations in 2009. Overall the trend of new facilities commencing operations has slowed since 1995, due to the fact that most new fabs are 300mm Megafabs for memory production, meaning fewer but larger fabs are needed. Worldwide installed capacity for 2009 is expected to decline by about three percent, mainly due to fab closures, however data from the World Fab Forecast show that installed capacity for 2010 could increase by about six percent.”
Despite this forecast and others, I remain worried that the many closed fabs will provide a glut of used equipment, depressing the market for new equipment purchases. Of course those companies that have tools providing technologies for advanced processes will be ahead of the game, but the abundance of used equipment makes me less convinced about the future. Companies in the used equipment market may have a number of opportunities.
Starting Your Own Business - An Alternative
As for me, PBET Workshop enrollments are down to a trickle. I don’t expect the industry on the whole to be hiring a slew of new technical trainers in the near future! Providing PBET consulting has been rewarding and fun, but there are other work from home solutions for people with a training background.
I have been working on some of my other home business activities. I have begun to actively provide training/mentoring to others who are looking at the idea of a home business. I brought together a lot of home business resource information into a web site I call RG Consulting Partners. Whether you are a boomer, or younger, you are invited to check my resources for starting and growing your own business.
How about you? Have you had to step out of high tech training for a while? What are you doing now to deal with the recession? Are you starting your own business to recession-proof yourself? Please tell us in the comments below!
If you are in the PBET Workshop for about 5 minutes, you probably will find out that Robert Mager is my favorite training guru. By the end of the Workshop you’ll also hear me mention concepts for which I credit Ruth Clark. Clark has written in a number of areas and always strives to ensure that what she recommends to trainers is based in research. I like the balance I get between the behaviorist and cognitive views when I blend my understanding of learning with what I have learned from both of these leaders.
Now, just for fun, can you guess the name of my third favorite training and learning “guru”?It’s a contest! The first person with the correct guess of my third favorite training leader will win the following prize: one learning and training professional book of your choice from Amazon up to the value of $60. (Here’s a hint- This individual has helped me make sense of the question, What’s the difference between a competent field service engineer and the true expert? I have only met this person once, briefly. The individual has a number of interesting articles that have been published in professional journals.)
So here are the contest entry rules:
1) Where to put your entry: Below in the comments section to this post!
2) DEADLINE: July 31, 2009
2) Include two things:
Your guess about the NAME of MY third favorite training leader-guru-professional.
The NAME of one of YOUR favorite training leaders-gurus-professionals. (Someone who has influenced your thinking in the area of learning and performance.)
I am looking forward to a long list of authors, speakers, organization heads, or other influential people in the field of learning and performance in high tech training!
On August 1st, I will let you know the name of the first comment poster below who correctly guessed the name of my third favorite guru.
I am posting this for those who do not receive email from matec networks (maybe you should!)
Join Us for this FREE Webinar: Learning Objects: What are they? How do I use them? Date: This Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:00 a.m. PDT Presenter: Terry Bartelt, Instructor, Fox Valley Technical College Length: 90 minutes Description: Terry Bartelt of Fox Valley Technical College will answer the question, “What are learning objects, and how do I use them with my students?” Terry will give examples of these animated and interactive chunks of learning and show two websites, www.wisc-online.com and an electromechanical site where they can be accessed at no cost.
Two multimedia designers who work with Terry at FVTC in Appleton, Wisconsin, will demonstrate innovative digital applications recently added to Wisc-Online.com to reinforce learning. These include games in which students can test their knowledge, and engaging videos, avatars (animated characters), and scenarios in which learners solve real life problems.
The Wisc-Online digital library of 2,300 learning objects receives more than 6 million hits each month from users around the globe. Through a National Science Foundation grant, 300 learning objects on automation, robotics, mechanics, fluid power, and process control were recently added to the site.
In his presentation, Terry will explain how instructors from any field can use learning objects and author their own games to enhance learning. Register Now!
NetWorks webinars are free online seminars presented by subject matter experts. The audio and visual portions are conducted through Elluminate, an online web conferencing service free to attendees. For more details about this and other upcoming webinars, visit the NetWorks Webinar Calendar. Past Webinar Recordings: Did you happen to miss a NetWorks webinar? Search NetWorks Digital Library, Keyword Search: “Webinar” to listen, watch, and learn. For specific information, contact: Mark Viquesney Webinar Manager
480-731-8050
Several years ago, the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) -a group I truly respect and enjoy - came up with a plan to certify practitioners of performance improvement. After much planning the organization implemented a qualification process that led to the credential of Certified Performance Technologist. The explanation on the ISPI web site states:
For years, employers and clients have been asking for standards and criteria to help them distinguish practitioners who have proven they can produce results through a systematic process. Until the development of the CPT designation, anyone could claim that they are professionals in performance improvement and training. At the same time, practitioners have been asking for a credential that would help them assess their ability, better focus their professional development efforts, and recognize their capability. In response to this need, the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) developed a program through which individuals can apply to receive the designation of Certified Performance Technologist (CPT).
You can read more about the requirements to qualify on the ISPI web site.
Now Dudley D. Dawson gives us the view from outside the profession: It’s fine to get the credential but don’t feel compelled to put it after your name in your email signature. It’s looks ridiculous- Joe Shmoe, CPT. Is it really that important to clients or is it more a case of ego-enhancement. It’s not as if the certification is the same as being licensed, like an MD, says the columnist.
“HR ‘professionals’ take the cake on adding an unnecessary suffix after their name,” he says.
CPT is on the list of credentials that he claims look ridiculous. I don’t know. I’ll bet that when C-level managers see these certifications after someone’s name, they immediately take them off any lay-off list. Here’s Dawson’s list:
* PHR – Professional in Human Resources
* SPHR – Sr. Professional in Human Resources
* GPHR – Global Professional in Human Resources
* CCP – Certified Compensation Professional
* GRP – Global Remuneration Professional
* CPP – Certified Payroll Professional
* CBP – Certified Benefits Professional
* CEBS – Certified Employee Benefits Specialist
* CPLP – Certified Professional in Learning and Performance
* CPT – Certified Performance Technologist
* QKA – Qualified 401(k) Administrator
What do you think? Blistering attack or sensible critique?
Thanks for stopping by! Your comments on any post are appreciated. Let's keep connected. Sign up above for my Newsletter. Check a current issue here. And easily track my posts on your RSS feed...
Loading ...
