It was Carl Binder

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.

Share and Enjoy: