Timing of workplace
training is important

Bill was the president of a company that sold office supplies. To differentiate his company from his competitors, Bill wanted to introduce a delivery system direct from his warehouse to the desks of people who purchased from him. This innovation meant that all members of his staff would have to be trained in an information management system that would track orders from customers.

The system would allow Bill to tell customers the status of orders, when they would be delivered, and when it was necessary to restock the warehouse.

Bill signed a contract with an organization that offered training programs in information technology management. He felt it would be most efficient if a large percentage of his workers took the 16-hour program over two days. He would keep a skeleton crew of recent college graduates, who had previously taken courses in information technology and so had less need for the training, to handle orders during the two days.

The training program seemed to go well. Workers were enthusiastic and seemed to be learning a great deal. When Bill stopped by to see how the program was going, he was pleased to see that his workers had animated facial expressions and were studying hard.

At the end of the program, workers rated the program highly, saying that the trainers were well prepared and were able to answer specific questions.

The trainers reported back to Bill that they thought that participants learned the material and that the goals of the program were accomplished.

However, a month later, the company was making little progress in its efforts to introduce the new technology. Workers made a lot of mistakes that caused orders to go to the wrong customer. People frequently complained that they had forgotten important material covered during the program. In fact, the workers who were able to use the technology most efficiently were the recent college graduates who did not attend the training program.

Bill's company is the victim of a problem with training programs that are squeezed into a full day or more. People's memories are fallible, and they simply forget a great deal of material that is crammed into an eight-hour day. They also can become fatigued, and this affects their memories.

Training is much more effective, with long-term retention of material, when it is spaced over more days. If Bill could have scheduled the program so that workers could attend two hours for each of eight days, participants would not forget as much material.

One reason why the college graduates were able to use the technology is that they learned their skills over a longer period of time. Typically, college students spend three hours a week in class for fifteen weeks. With this schedule, they have time to think about their new learning and to ask questions about material covered in earlier sessions. Such a schedule also allows them to do homework assignments that reinforce their classroom learning.

Training programs that cram material into long sessions are more popular than programs spread over many days. One reason is that scheduling is easier. If employees leave their offices to attend a training program, their regular work needs to be covered by others. It is easier to do this for long programs that consume a few days than it is for programs spread over many days.

In addition, there is a great deal of enthusiasm during full day programs. Participants think they are learning a great deal and report this at the end-of-session evaluations. Only later does the fallibility of memory take its toll as workers find they have forgotten a great deal of material from the program.