Productivity Partners Industry Relevant Training Do it Right, Get it Right!

Project by:
Susan Ranes
Joyce Arntson

Productivity Partners Industry Relevant Training Do it Right, Get it Right!

Introduction

The California Community Colleges’ Chancellor’s Office has funded the Teachers, not Trainers grant for instructional excellence in Business and Computer Information. This project covers several major areas of instructional responsibility for instructional professionals. One area of focus of this curriculum development is to develop academic and corporate educational models that are standards-based and faculty/student success-ensured. Two model curricula have been developed – one academic and one corporate. The hypothesis was that these two efforts would be very different; practice has borne this out.

The Microsoft Office User Specialist (MOUS) skill set, which establishes internationally recognized standards for core and expert Microsoft Office users, is the heart of the standards-based model for both the academic and corporate curriculum. In addition to setting software skill standards, MOUS provides, on a global scale, live in-the-application core and expert software skill certification tests. Students in academic classes at the 108 California community colleges come with a variety of backgrounds and needs. Because of this variety, focus on all skill sets has been deemed appropriate. Therefore, in the development of the curriculum for these academic classes, all skill sets are covered.

However, the curriculum model for corporate training is considerably different. While an academic curriculum needs to be comprehensive and address the needs of a diverse student body, successful corporate curriculums must address specific corporate needs, incorporate corporate identity, focus on increased productivity and deliver true value and job applicability for attendees. The Productivity Partners Model Curriculum for Corporate Training that has evolved provides a standards-based and faculty/student success-ensured training vehicle for meeting a mandate that software training be industry relevant. This paper addresses the corporate model.

In designing curricula to provide industry relevant training, the underlying premise was that all curriculums needed to be standards based and that partnering was necessary for them to be effectively implemented. Effective delivery of the curriculum hinged on finding enthusiastic, committed, web-savvy partners in four critical areas: industry, publishing, testing, and software. Beyond that, the corporate and traditional academic models take different tracks. It was hoped implementation of the corporate model would lead to a minimum 10% average productivity skill increase on the part of participating employees.

Corporate Curriculum Development

For this model curriculum, the numbered points should be considered central to the curriculum model. The italicized text following the numbered points refers to decisions made with reference to the pilot corporate productivity partner, Ricoh Electronics, Inc.

Discuss perceived corporate need with training managers, department manages, and other involved individuals. Secure permission and execute whatever formal agreements may be needed to interview employees who will be prospective students. Since it is advantageous to work with company documents, a non‑disclosure agreement may be appropriate here.
Pilot Partner discussions established that Ricoh would best be served by a training model that included core training for all, as MOUS core skill sets lay the foundation for all successful software use. Core MOUS certification is the goal of all employees taking core training at Ricoh. However, MOUS expert skill sets do not meet Ricoh needs. A Best Practices approach was endorsed for the advanced training. Best Practices would include relevant expert skills but not all expert skills, and thus could not be considered a MOUS certification course. However, Ricoh students who would like to sit for the Expert examination would be assisted in a self-study program to accomplish this task.
Create a survey framework/instrument to use in talking with employees.
Sample survey attached
Schedule specific times for interviews, view or collect sample documents.
Ricoh interviews were approximately 30 minutes long. They were scheduled to take advantage of site locations. All employees were asked to show typical files produced in the relevant software. They were encouraged to share through print out or email non-confidential samples of these files so the software training could focus on Ricoh priorities.
Analyze and synthesize the survey results.
At Ricoh, 60 employees were surveyed. To analyze the surveys, a quantifiable approach (what was actually stated and specified as training needs/goals) was combined with qualifiable measures (expert opinion as to under utilization of software features). For instance, few employees surveyed mentioned a need to link data, yet information was repeatedly hand entered from one Excel worksheet to another. Also, the Ricoh survey showed no need for any MOUS expert web skill set training at the present time but they did show a big need for beefing up the tips and tricks that enhance productivity.
Pre-assess employees to document a starting point to measure productivity increases, to quantify perceived skills versus actual skills, to establish a student base and to shape curriculum development.
For Ricoh employees, Prentice Hall’s AssessIT, a web-based delivery of simulated Microsoft Office 2000 skills assessment, was used. This program was in final beta and students were heartened to learn that their testing experience was helping shape the final release. Ricoh was delighted to learn the assessment was web-delivered, which would give employees the option of not going off site to take the assessment, and thus, they would reduce time away from the job.
Develop a curriculum based on the established needs that has a branded focus. Integral components of the curriculum include:

preassessment,
standards-based training,
boot camps,
postassessment and
MOUS certification.
If the components of the curriculum are followed by participants, a standards-based learning success will be ensured.
Ricoh’s basic fundamentals core MOUS training for Word, Excel and PowerPoint would be initiated followed by Best Practices training in each of those areas, without a specific MOUS certification focus at the Best Practices level. Wherever possible, the training would be Ricoh specific and particular attention would be paid to productivity improvement.

Deliver training in a flexible, hybrid, compressed manner that offers opportunity for individualized customization.
With Prentice Hall as publishing partner, a 6 session training module was developed for Ricoh employees to achieve core skills that were delivered over a 6 week time frame, per course. All assessment was done using Prentice Hall’s web-delivered simulated assessment material PHAssessIT. Training was delivered using Prentice Hall’s PH MOUS Test Prep series of books, the Prentice Hall PHTrainIT Web site, and custom classes. After boot camp and post assessment, MOUS testing was required for Core participants, but optional for Best Practices Participants.
1. week one 2 pre assessment sessions offered
2. week two pre assessment results reviewed and participants selected
3. week three 2 training sessions delivered
4. week four final training session and boot camp delivered
5. week five post assessment
6. week six MOUS certification exams scheduled
  All training sessions were corporate branded. A Ricoh theme was employed in delivery of all training. For example: Ricoh clip art was saved from the Web to use in PowerPoint presentations; Ricoh products were featured in PowerPoint Presentations; Ricoh financials were printed from the Web and recreated in Word tables; Ricoh newsletters were recreated with Word columns and graphics.
Individualized customization was offered through Prentice Hall’s TrainIT, a web based simulated Office 2000 training site. Class participants were registered at the site and could log in at any time, from any Internet based computer to explore learning modules for all skill sets for Office 2000. Participants were required to download Authorware to enable LearnIT. Ricoh made provision to ensure all attendees could download the software. LearnIT also offered employees the chance for quick topic refreshers if they grew rusty on skill implementation.
Testing was delivered by e-vouchers that Nivo, the corporation that develops and administers all MOUS certification, provides publishers at a significant discount.

Meeting Expert skill needs at Ricoh was addressed through a best practices approach. As a result of surveys, interviews and viewing documents, the training team devised the following schedule
1. week one 2 pre assessment sessions offered
2. week two pre assessment results reviewed and participants selected
3. week three 2 training sessions delivered
4. week four final training session and tips and tricks/boot camp delivered
5. week five post assessment
6. week six Email guided study available for those interested in pursuing MOUS expert certification

Conclusions – Do it Right, Get it Right!

Too often, due to time and money constraints, curriculum plans resemble preliminary artist’s sketches, rather than works of art with all brushstrokes in place. This corporate curriculum model has all the brushstrokes in place. Developing this model, which meets the California mandate to provide industry relevant software training, required a focus-based approach; one that provided accountability, shared responsibility and guaranteed success. If the curriculum is designed with input and consultation, if it provides for pre and post assessment, if it offers individualization and customization, if it can be delivered via the Web in a simulated environment, if the training can be branded, then, in short, if we, the educators, have done it right then they, the students, will get it right! And boy did we do it right!

As proof of the curriculum’s success, as of September 30, 2001^, Core training had been delivered to Ricoh Electronics, Inc for PowerPoint 2000, Word 2000 and Excel 2000 (2 sessions) as well as Best Practices training for Word 2000 and Excel 2000.

Pre and post assessment scores for all classes are attached in Appendix B. In summary, overall assessments rose from an average pre assessment score of 47% correct to a post assessment average of 74% correct and an average 111% improvement.

Furthermore, in a self assessment as to how the training impacted their careers at Ricoh, over 30% felt the training was very beneficial and almost 50% felt the training had good benefit. Even more striking, the self assessment revealed that 64% felt their productivity skills had increased at least 50% while another 23% felt their productivity skills had increased at least 25%. These results exceeded our most optimistic expectations. The self assessment charts are attached in Appendix C.

Microsoft Office User Specialist Core testing was widely undertaken by Ricoh employees but, to everyone’s dismay, a computer virus destroyed the only testing statistics.

Appendix A
Productivity Partners

Industry Ricoh Electronics, Inc, U.S .Corporate headquarters, Orange County, California

Publishing Prentice Hall

Software Foundation for California Community Colleges

Testing Prentice Hall and Nivo Corporation

Grant Underwriters

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
Foundation for California Community Colleges

Training Material

Provided by Prentice Hall for this pilot corporate model curriculum development

Participant Survey Attached

Word and PowerPoint Assessments Attached

Ricoh MOUS Productivity Survey

Question	Response
Name of employee and department?
What percent of your job requires the use of software?
Name the software you use. Office? Lotus Notes Palm Pilot Act Draw Programs?
Which Office Software do you use and for what percent of the day? For example, Outlook Excel Word PowerPoint Access
List the software training you have received todate and for which software? Classes sponsored by Ricoh? Self Taught? Classes taken on own?
For which tasks do you do most frequently use which software for?
Do you feel you are doing these tasks as efficiently and productively as possible?
Examples of work.
Do you have any special projects going on that use Office software?
Do you know how to find and use the Ricoh logo?
Do you send email attachments? If so, what kind and how?
Describe the method you use to create documents such as letters, reports, and memos.
As a Word user, do you: Use autotext Use templates Create and use styles Use sections and if so for what Create tables of contents Create outlines or use them to rearrange document Track changes Insert the Ricoh logo on documents
If you are an Excel user do you: Use named ranges, if so for what Create instant charts Save and use custom chart formats Link worksheets Use autofill Use autofilter Lock cells Use templates Convert text to columns
If you are a PowerPoint user do you: Create slides in outline view Create and use speaker notes Use templates Use the presentation wizard Create Ricoh “logoed” handouts Use meeting minder Export meeting notes to Word Link to web sites Create summary slides Use action buttons Create multiple slide show viewing options from one presentation
Are you interested in MOUS certification

Appendix B

Overall Productivity Partner Ricoh Electronics, Inc results
Assessments are a mix of PH AssessIT for core classes and PinPoint for Best Practices classes
Only scores of students who took both pre and post assessments included

Student	Pre Assessment	Post Assessment	Score Improvement	% Improvement
Core Word Student 1	27	57	30	111%
Core Word Student 2	36	49	13	36%
Core Word Student 3	40	70	30	75%
Core Word Student 4	55	70	15	27%
Core Word Student 5	69	93	24	35%
Core Word Student 6	69	85	16	23%
Core Word Student 7	56	93	37	66%
Core Word Student 8	56	85	29	52%
Core Word Student 9	25	54	29	116%
Core Word Student 10	67	85	18	27%
Core Word Student 11	69	78	9	13%
Core Word Student 12	51	74	23	45%
Core Word Student 13	31	41	10	32%
Core Word Student 14	51	67	16	31%
Core Word Student 15	51	76	25	49%
Core Word Student 16	51	93	42	82%
Core Word Student 17	22	37	15	68%
Core Word Student 18	11	74	63	573%
Core Word Student 19	75	94	19	25%
Core Word Student 20	35	67	32	91%
Core Word Student 21	29	52	23	79%
Core Word Student 22	51	63	12	24%
Core Word Student 23	69	89	20	29%
Core Word Student 24	20	52	32	160%
Core PowerPoint Student 1	4	41	37	925%
Core PowerPoint Student 2	20	33	13	65%
Core PowerPoint Student 3	47	67	20	43%
Core PowerPoint Student 4	51	76	25	49%
Core PowerPoint Student 5	80	87	7	9%
Core PowerPoint Student 6	27	52	25	93%
Core PowerPoint Student 7	80	85	5	6%
Core PowerPoint Student 8	41	72	31	76%
Core PowerPoint Student 9	53	72	19	36%
Core PowerPoint Student 10	14	24	10	71%
Core PowerPoint Student 11	67	87	20	30%
Core PowerPoint Student 12	39	63	24	62%
Core PowerPoint Student 13	30	59	29	97%
Core PowerPoint Student 14	55	76	21	38%
Core PowerPoint Student 15	49	85	36	73%
Core PowerPoint Student 16	39	65	26	67%
Core PowerPoint Student 17	78	91	13	17%
Core PowerPoint Student 18	51	74	23	45%
Core XL Track 1 Student 1	4	94	90	2250%
Core XL Track 1 Student 2	40	65	25	63%
Core XL Track 1 Student 3	56	88	32	57%
Core XL Track 1 Student 4	46	65	19	41%
Core XL Track 1 Student 5	60	98	38	63%
Core XL Track 1 Student 6	70	88	18	26%
Core XL Track 1 Student 7	30	51	21	70%
Core XL Track 1 Student 8	56	86	30	54%
Core XL Track 1 Student 9	76	90	14	18%
Core XL Track 1 Student 10	42	65	23	55%
Core XL Track 2 Student 1	32	96	64	200%
Core XL Track 2 Student 2	35	90	55	157%
Core XL Track 2 Student 3	56	76	20	36%
Core XL Track 2 Student 4	47	96	49	104%
Core XL Track 2 Student 5	43	67	24	56%
Core XL Track 2 Student 6	33	92	59	179%
Core XL Track 2 Student 8	68	92	24	35%
Core XL Track 2 Student 9	59	86	27	46%
Core XL Track 2 Student 10	55	86	31	56%
Core XL Track 2 Student 11	68	88	20	29%
Core XL Track 2 Student 12	72	96	24	33%
Core XL Track 2 Student 13	62	100	38	61%
Core XL Track 2 Student 14	62	92	30	48%
Core XL Track 2 Student 15	64	84	20	31%
Core XL Track 2 Student 16	36	80	44	122%
Core XL Track 2 Student 18	4	53	49	1225%
Core XL Track 2 Student 21	69	88	19	28%
Core XL Track 2 Student 23	63	94	31	49%
Core XL Track 2 Student 24	74	94	20	27%
Core XL Track 2 Student 25	63	80	17	27%
Best Practices Word Student 1	15	40	25	169%
Best Practices Word Student 2	3	2.4	-1	-30%
Best Practices Word Student 3	40	52	12	31%
Best Practices Word Student 4	37	55	17	46%
Best Practices Word Student 5	64	82	18	27%
Best Practices Word Student 6	49	65	17	34%
Best Practices Word Student 7	37	57	20	53%
Best Practices Word Student 8	44	60	17	39%
Best Practices XL Student 1	48	75	28	58%
Best Practices XL Student 2	41	72	31	77%
Best Practices XL Student 3	95	98	3	3%
Best Practices XL Student 4	71	84	13	18%
Best Practices XL Student 5	60	93	34	57%
Best Practices XL Student 6	46	71	25	55%
Best Practices XL Student 8	49	68	19	38%
Best Practices XL Student 9	34	67	34	99%
Best Practices XL Student 11	24	67	43	184%
Best Practices XL Student 13	41	75.5	35	84%
Best Practices XL Student 14	31	90	59	193%
Best Practices XL Student 15	28	51	23	81%
Best Practices XL Student 16	52	98	45	87%

average pre assessment score	47
average post assessment score	74
average score improvement	26
average % improvement	111%

maximum score improvement	90
minimum score improvement	-1

maximum % improvement	2250%
minimum % improvement	-30%

Appendix C