Induction Delegates Spreadsheet - PDF

Document Sample
Induction Delegates Spreadsheet - PDF Powered By Docstoc
					    PROJECT TO DEVELOP A TRAINING PRIORITISATION GUIDE – FINAL REPORT


                                  CONTENTS


                                                                     Page

1                        Background                                    2
2                        Project Objectives                            2
3                        Project Methodology                          2
4                        Workshop Objective                            3
5                        Summary of the Workshop                       3
6                        Post-Workshop                                 3
7                        The Process                                   4
                   a)    Introduction                                  4
                   b)    Strategic Priority                            4
                   c)    Weightings                                    4
                   d)    Influencers                                   4
                   e)    Identifying Individual Needs                  5
                   f)    Making Decisions                              5
                   g)    Evaluation                                    5
8                        The Model                                     5
9                        Recommendations                              5
Appendix 1               Project Definition                           6
Appendix 2               Workshop Letter                               8
Appendix 3               List of Delegates                            10
Appendix 4               The Training Prioritisation Process          11
Appendix 6               Training Prioritisation Guidance Notes       12

Appendix 5               Training Prioritisation Model            Attached




                                                                             1
BACKGROUND

In September 2001 the ACPO/APA national project for Best Value in Police Training
published its Service Wide Assessment Report. The report was designed to provide baseline
data from which options for change could be generated.

The Service Wide Assessment provided evidence to show that there are a number of key
areas that are in need of strengthening across the service generally. In the main these relate
to strategic management, performance management and the management of information.

The Service Wide Assessment reported:

‘Training delivery is essentially made up of the following components:

    •   the nature of the training to be delivered
    •   the means by which it is to be delivered
    •   the sequence or priority in which training is to be delivered.

Each of the above elements comprises numerous factors to be considered including cost,
trainee selection, availability of venue etc. Training managers currently approach decisions
on these issues in different ways depending on local factors and the performance problem
identified. Some forces prioritise the delivery of their training by using clear criteria and
guidelines. The more structured approach typically utilises a weighting scale to award points
to the importance etc. of the training to see where it sits in terms of priority over everything
else. However, the more general approach was to use professional judgement, when the
annual training plan was drafted. In the main, those forces with a dedicated training design
facility appeared to approach this area with more structure and rigour.’

A number of recommendations for action to be taken by key partners within the Police Sector
were made. Recommendation 17 in the Summary of Recommendations (Appendix 2 of the
Service Wide Assessment) stated that ‘a Training Prioritisation Guide is developed and made
available to all forces and NPT.’ The PSSO agreed to undertake this piece of work as it has
close links with other work currently being undertaken.

This work will inform the Skills Foresight report and Sector Workforce Development plan
whilst being a stand-alone guide for practical use in police forces.

1. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of the project were to:

   •    identify a methodology for training prioritisation
   •    develop a Training Prioritisation Guide that meets users needs
   •    pilot the Training Prioritisation Guide.

2. PROJECT METHODOLOGY

The PSSO felt that the most appropriate means of identifying the essential components of a
Training Prioritisation Guide was to involve practitioners from the sector. The PSSO Director
of Development identified a number of individuals whom he felt could make a significant
contribution and they were then approached for attendance at a workshop. At the point of
first approach the identified people were given a copy of the project definition (see Appendix
1) for consideration. Prior to the workshop, delegates were sent the information at Appendix
2 giving the purpose of the workshop and an outline of the day.

The workshop was held on Wednesday 13 March 2002. The list of invitees and attendees is
at Appendix 3.




                                                                                              2
3. WORKSHOP OBJECTIVE

The objective of the workshop was to present some models on training prioritisation as used
by other organisations and identify criteria that could be appropriate for such a model to be
developed for police forces.

4. SUMMARY OF THE WORKSHOP

Delegates were from forces across Great Britain and Northern Ireland and were a mix of
serving officers and HR professionals. They were also mixed in terms of seniority and
experience. They provided a cross section of the police community and its understanding
and expectations of Training Prioritisation.

Delegates’ expectations were very varied. In terms of Training Prioritisation they ranged from
a tool to take away and use through to one delegate bringing along their system to share with
others.

There was a strong appetite for talking about other subjects, some of which were unrelated to
the theme of the day. Induction training, probationer training, equal opportunities, National
Occupational Standards, inequalities of standards between forces were all discussed during
the day. Some delegates found this a necessary part of the day whilst other delegates found
it frustrating. Part of the reason that discussions during the day were so wide-ranging was
that the delegates do not have many opportunities to meet and share their experiences and
views.

Most of the delegates had some knowledge of Training Prioritisation. Although there is no
national model or framework to operate they were still aware of the principles and practices of
prioritising training. The issues identified were:

    •   being confident that their system is right
    •   getting senior management ownership at ACPO level
    •   implementing the system in their force in ways that would work.

There was a strong sense amongst the delegates that Training Prioritisation can be easily
undermined as priorities change rapidly, being overtaken by other events. The feeling was
that this could damage a systematic approach to prioritising training. Nevertheless, all those
present wanted to have a system available in order to raise credibility.

The objective of the day was achieved, although not without some considerable difficulties
brought about by variance in expectations and the desire to discuss other training-related
issues.

5. POST-WORKSHOP

The Training Exchange, consultants working with the PSSO, undertook face-to-face
interviews with delegates with a view to designing a basic tool to be made available from 31
March 2002.




                                                                                             3
6. THE PROCESS

a) Introduction

A training prioritisation process has been produced (see appendix 4) but a note of caution
must be stated inasmuch as any process must be broad enough to meet different
organisational structures and local needs. In reality this means that it can only cover a
flexible framework and not a detailed step-by-step procedure. This became apparent in the
workshop where some forces had developed a sophisticated model that met their needs and
others had little or nothing and expected a ‘tool’ to enable them to prioritise training in their
force.

b) Strategic Priority

The strategic need for training has been split into 4 categories so that it can be allocated a
proportion of the training budget:

    •   mandatory – as determined by national policy
    •   necessary – to provide a baseline of skills needed to fulfil the job function
    •   preferable – to expand the range of skills, making deployment more flexible
    •   optional – to enhance existing skills.

c) Weightings

A further weighting can be given to each category by the timely need for its completion:

    •   has a fixed timetable and priority
    •   must address issues within a time frame
    •   needs to fit in with operational and budgetary requirements
    •   is not time dependant and can fit around other needs.

d) Influencers

There are various groups who influence the prioritisation of training:

    •   Chief officers
    •   Police Authorities
    •   Local police plans
    •   ACPO
    •   APA
    •   Government
    •   Requirements of legislation
    •   Training departments and divisions
    •   Crime and disorder partnerships.

In setting budgetary needs the bulk of funds (circa 80%) will go to fund category 1 priorities
whilst the remainder will fund the remaining categories in decreasing amounts.




                                                                                               4
e) Identifying Individual Needs

Training needs analysis (TNA) should be occurring in all forces. Whatever method is used it
should allow individuals to meet their development requirements. It should:

    •   identify potential learning objectives
    •   agree objectives
    •   identify appropriate solutions
    •   prioritise solutions against time and budgets.

In this process all possible options can be explored and should bring in solutions that do not
require a training input and have best value in mind.

f) Making Decisions

Where possible the person making the decision should be the person nearest to the problem.
This can be achieved with the support and guidance of training and development
departments.

Budget and priority within categories could be disseminated down to division with a
percentage built in to take account of specific local needs.

Decisions need to be well made and timely.

g) Evaluation

Evaluation of training completes the cycle back into future planning and prioritising. It can be
back to:

    •   the deliverer
    •   divisional training
    •   training and development
    •   senior officers
    •   the learner.

It must be borne in mind that each group or individual has a different need for training
evaluation.

7. THE MODEL

Following face-to-face interviews a training prioritisation model has been developed in the
format of an Excel spreadsheet (see Appendix 5) with accompanying guidance notes (see
Appendix 6). This has been sent to one of the forces involved in the workshop for testing and
evaluation.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

Feedback from the force testing the model will be used to amend the model as necessary.
Those forces that participated in the one-day workshop should then pilot the model for a
period of not less than six months, after which time a full assessment of the model should be
undertaken to establish if it is adaptable enough to cope with unexpected situations occurring
which necessitate a shift in priorities.




                                                                                              5
                                                                                      Appendix 1




                            To Develop a Training Prioritisation Guide
                                      Prioritisation Guide

                                          Project Definition

Background

In September 2001 the ACPO/APA project Best Value in Police Training published its Service
Wide Assessment Report. This report was designed to provide baseline data from which
‘options for change’ could be generated. The report has identified that there are a number of
key areas that need strengthening across the police sector generally.

As a result of the Service Wide Assessment of Training the report makes 23
recommendations for action to be undertaken by key partners within the Police Sector,
including the PSSO. The Service Wide Assessment identified that training prioritisation was
approached in different ways by forces using different criteria, some objective others less
objective. It is important that all forces use the same criteria for assessing training priorities
that are based on objective rather than subjective measures.

The PSSO has agreed to undertake the development of a training prioritisation guide to be
made available to all forces and NPT (/CPTDA).

Scope:

This project will:

•       Develop a Training Prioritisation Guide for use by all forces and NPT
•       Use the principles of risk assessment in the development of the guide
•       Allow for local needs and priorities and will not be focused at purely a national level
•       Use expertise and best practice already used within the sector
•       Form the basis for identifying and prioritising issues with the Sector Workforce
        Development Plan
•       Produce a Development Guide in both an IT format and paper based that meets users
        requirements

It is important to note that this project will not:

•       Prioritise training currently in place or under consideration
•       Evaluate the current training within or for forces

Project Aim

To develop a Training Prioritisation Guide for all forces and NPT.

Project Objectives

The specific objectives of this project are to:

    •      Identify a methodology for training prioritisation
    •      Develop a Training Prioritisation Guide that meets users needs
    •      Pilot the Training Prioritisation Guide



                                                                                                6
Project Methodology

This project will be conducted by the PSSO using a working group of Training Managers who
are currently believed to be following best practice. The working group will meet for a two-day
workshop to define the needs of the guide. Following the identification of the needs of the
user group the workshop will assess the methodology required to implement the Training
Prioritisation Guide.

Following the workshop the PSSO will develop a draft Training Prioritisation Guide that will be
distributed to the working group. After working group approval the training guide will be
piloted in a selection of forces to ascertain its:
         •    Rigour
         •    Robustness
         •    User friendliness

Upon completion of the pilot and after amendments the guide will be produced in a final
publishable format.

This project will proceed in four distinct phases:

    1. 2 Day Workshop – to develop user requirements and methodology
    2. Development of draft guide – the development of the tool and associated guidance
    3. Pilot – The tool and guidance will be sent to a number of forces and NPT.
    4. Final Product – Following the pilot amendments will be made to the guide and tool as
       required by users and the final tool and guide will be developed.

Project Management

This project will be managed by Adrian Jackson on a day-to-day basis and will be undertaken
by a staff of the PSSO.

Project Milestones and Outcomes

The following are the project milestones and deliverables for this project along with specified
achievement dates.

 Milestone                                                                 Date
 2 Day Workshop                                                            14 February 2002
 Development of Draft Guide                                                21 February 2002
 Pilot of tool and guide completed                                         14 March 2002
 Final Tool and Guide completed                                            31 March 2002

Risk Assessment

The following table assesses the possible risks to the project’s success and identifies an
individual or group who are responsible for managing that risk. Whilst this is an initial risk
assessment further risks will be identified as the project progresses.

 Identified Risk                                     Assessment          Threat        Risk Manager
                                                     (probability)   (seriousness)
 Guide does not meet user requirements                   Low              High         Adrian Jackson
 Forces not willing to pilot the guide                 Medium             High         Adrian Jackson
 Guide not implemented by forces                       Medium             High             ACPO




                                                                                              7
                                                                                       Appendix 2




«Title» «FirstName» «Surname»
«JobTitle»
«Address1»
«Address2»
«Address3»
«Town»
«County» «Postcode»



Friday 1 March 2002



Dear «FirstName»


   Training Prioritisation Workshop to be held on Wednesday 13 March at the Hilton
                                   Hotel, Sheffield


At long last, I am writing to give you details of our rearranged workshop on training
prioritisation. The day will commence with a 10.00 a.m. for 10.30 a.m. start and will finish no
later than 3.30 p.m. The Training Exchange, a management and training consultancy with
whom we are currently working, will facilitate the day.

Please find below an outline of the day:

Overall Purpose

To present some models on training prioritisation as used by other organisations and identify
criteria that could be appropriate for such a model to be developed for police forces.

Introduction

Welcome and introductions
Provide a brief overview of the project
Identify the contents and sequence of the workshop

Perceptions and Understanding

You are invited to contribute your own views and interpretations of training prioritisation. It will
be useful if you could provide insights into how training prioritisation is currently undertaken in
your respective role.

Comparative Analysis

Examples of training prioritisation as undertaken in a cross-section of ‘benchmarked’
organisations.




                                                                                                  8
Interpretations

You are invited to reflect upon, question and discuss the contents and potential implications of
the model.

Action Planning

We will construct an action plan to reflect how the workshop activities can be implemented.


If you have any examples of training prioritisation models in current use that you feel may be
a useful contribution to the day please feel free to bring them along for discussion.

I have enclosed a map giving directions to the Hilton Hotel and I look forward to seeing you
on the day.


Yours sincerely




JANE KIRK
Development Officer




                                                                                              9
                                                                                 Appendix 3




                                   LIST OF DELEGATES

Attendees                                   Apologies
Inspector Phil Henderson                    Superintendent Tim Burgess
Head of Training Department                 Manchester Airport Police
Cleveland Police                            Greater Manchester Police

Mr Brendan O’Brien                          Superintendent Steve Leach
Performance Management Section              Training and Support Headquarters
Greater Manchester Police                   Hampshire Constabulary

Ms Lesleyann Freeman                        Mr Scottie Addison
HR Directorate                              Staff Officer to Robin Field-Smith
Leicestershire Constabulary                 HMIC

Mr Andy Smith                               Chief Inspector Steven Barrowclough
Foundation Training                         Head of Training and Development
National Police Training Ashford            Consultancy
                                            West Yorkshire Police
Superintendent Steve Redhall
Head of Performance Development             Ms Gillian Faulkner
South Yorkshire Police                      Head of TED Support and Development
                                            Police Service of Northern Ireland
Mr Geoff Godsell
Training Manager                            Mr Steve Crossley
Suffolk Constabulary                        Cheshire Constabulary

Mr Kim White BA (Hons) MBA MSc FCIPD
MIMgt DipTM
Head of Training and Development
West Mercia Constabulary

Chief Inspector Nigel Lloyd
Deputy Head of Training and Development
West Mercia Constabulary Headquarters

Mr Clive Lambert MEd DipTM FCIPD
Head of Training and Development
Nottinghamshire Police

Mr Andy Booth
Training and Development
West Yorkshire Police

Mr ???
TED Support and Development
Police Service of Northern Ireland




                                                                                        10
                                                 Appendix 4

        The Training Prioritisation Process



Identification of Needs
   Training Needs Analysis (TNA)
   Skills audit
   Training identified as a consequence of TNA
   following national guidelines




          Categories of Need
             Fatality
             Injury
             PR
             Negligible




     Application of Training Prioritisation
     Guide
        Time
        Investment
        Number
        Abstraction
        Individual need




     Priorities of Budget
        Mandatory
        Necessary
        Preferable
        Optional




     Implementation of T & D
        Identify solution
        Identify training method
        Chose provider
        Deliver training




     Evaluation
        Learning objectives
        Best value
        Course provider
        Delivery method
                                                        11
                                                                                       Appendix 6




TRAINING PRIORITISATION GUIDANCE NOTES


The attached spreadsheet shows a methodology to prioritise training at either force level or
Basic Command Unit/District Command Unit level. It may be used as is or adapted to suit
local needs.

The figure 1 (ONE) should be entered once into one box only in each group of four.


Column     Column Meaning             Guide on Use
A          Learning opportunities     Adapt this range to suit the availability of provision and/or
           available to your          identified needs peculiar to your force
           force/unit
B-H        Priorities set by the      If you do not think the options are appropriate for your
           groups who influence       needs then determine categories of need most
           training needs – see       appropriate to your needs
           the Prioritisation
           Model
J-P        Needs identified as        Some of these needs will be determined by policy or as a
           part of an on-going a      result of HMI audit as well as by the individual
           PDR process or part        themselves. These options may be altered to suit your
           of a TNA analysis          force
R-X        Availability of learning   Use these categories to determine flexibility when
           opportunity                arranging learning opportunities
Z-AF       Cost per head              Learning in whatever format has a cost that will influence
                                      if and when the learning is undertaken. Adapt these
                                      options to suit your requirements
AH-AN      Risk to the individual     There is a risk of some sort attached to neglecting any
           or the force               learning need. Adapt this range to reflect your own
                                      categorisation of risk
AP-AV      Number of learners         Enter the number of learners
AX-BD      Number of on-duty          Enter the number of days the learning opportunity will
           days that will be lost     take the officer away from duty
BF         Rating of priority         This gives the rating of priority in numerical form


There are a number of hidden columns on the spreadsheet where the weightings have been
entered. It is important that these weightings reflect accurately what should be absolute
priority and what should be of lesser priority. If, on working through this spreadsheet, you
wish to change the weightings then unhide the columns and adjust the weightings to those
most appropriate for your needs.




                                                                                                 12

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:23
posted:3/8/2011
language:English
pages:12
Description: Induction Delegates Spreadsheet document sample