Cirrus Learning--with all its warts and wins

In taking it to work, I would like to first provide some background on the learning that occurs at Cirrus Design in that that has a bearing on the answers I will provide. A large amount of the learning that occurs is skills-based type of learning. Technical production workers are taught tangible ways of performing certain tasks in building the aircraft often times by their peers or a supervisor. Pilot training, on the other hand, can take many forms either with interactive software, hands-on instruction with a flight instructor, or in a simulator. Corporate learning for the “general population” can include mandatory compliance classes like Preventing Sexual Harassment or soft skill classes like communication and teamwork or leadership development. And finally, we provide training to the field, domestically and internationally, for the mechanics abroad who maintain our aircraft. The learning that occurs and originates from Cirrus and in Cirrus is varied and diverse.

Leading the Learning & Development team at Cirrus, I would put learning, training, and education in two categories—proactive and reactionary. In many cases, for example, a new product launch, we are proactive in our approach of the learning that must precede the product’s introduction. Key people and functions know early how the product has changed, how it works and how to sell it. With respect to changing work functions on the floor, trainers are out informing entire build teams as to the new way of doing things. If the plane has changed significantly in the way that it is maintained, service centers around the world are given the knowledge to adapt to the new way of maintenance.

Unfortunately however, far too much of “training” at Cirrus is reactionary as in response to some activity or event. At Cirrus, we tend to use training as a remedy for some observed deficiency versus a preemptive option. Often departmental entities will come to me stating that they have a “training problem,” looking for solutions when in fact they have a leadership issue where expected results do not occur due to poor communication, follow-up or both.

A current example: Common to many manufacturing organizations, Cirrus is undergoing some difficult economic times now with dramatically slowed production. Although we have already restructured and reduced the workforce with two lay-off’s, low-to-no production means employees with time on their hands. The organization’s response to that is to “roll out some training” during this time of inactivity—much of which I am responsible for delivery. I would argue what is the real benefit of the learning? What’s the desired outcome? Can we measure its retention, transference or application? The answer is no. I’ve been packing classes up to 90 people in an effort to fill their day to what end? Orr would question the process when content is delivered via an instructor-led class and PowerPoint slides in one hour blocks and little interaction due to the class sizes. Orr would also question in the process of this learning, the development of the individual. What real impact are we having? I think we are delivering training for training sake. The reality however is that in a corporate setting, learning and training are viewed, not as equal partners with production, but as support functions.

Culture is a word one often hears in corporate settings as defining one’s “corporate culture.” How does the organization operate? What defines its ideals, principles, and core values? Cirrus’ culture is one of innovation, tactical responsive to the market with its “hair on fire” mentality. One must be able to adapt and change priorities in a moment’s notice. Like McLaren (2003) I would suggest that Cirrus has a dominant and a subordinate culture. Maybe not in the truest sense that McLaren meant but one could consider management as the dominant culture and the production technicians as the subordinate culture. Learning is dictated by the dominant culture at Cirrus in content and periodicity. People on the floor have minimal input as to what is delivered and when. In addition the message must be the “corporate message” and cannot stray from the organization’s core beliefs. Hegemony exists primarily due to the hierarchal structure of the organization. A company isn’t a democracy or totally open forum for learning. It is a “for profit” organization that intends to exercise its control over every facet of the company.

In reviewing Hughes (2006) RAT framework and the implementation of technology at Cirrus, we again have a mixed response. In many ways, we are immature and rudimentary in our corporate learning thinking and delivery. We still rely in many cases in instructor-led content and PowerPoint slides. Our manufacturing environment has minimal opportunities for CBT applications due to limited IT resources and the manufacturing environment. Where I do see technology working with Cirrus as application and even transformation is in the realm of pilot training. From providing initial familiarization flight instruction to new owners to interactive software sent to perspective owners concerning flying in known icing conditions, technology meets and exceeds the need and can be distributed to a far-flung audience in short order. Field Service learning too (Cirrus maintenance knowledge performed domestically and abroad) benefits from technology with interactive systems software teaching certified technicians in Indonesia. Although not as effective as hands-on instruction, the technology can bridge the gap in comprehension with its quick deployment and thorough delivery. The downsides however is the technology and content can become quickly outdated and obsolete with product updates.

In closing, it is not my intention to bash Cirrus with respect to its learning priorities. It’s fairly common for the “training” to be relegated to a subservient role and often is the first area cut during tough economic times. We have felt the cuts but Cirrus still values learning. The challenge for me however is to work to convince the leadership to view education and learning differently—as a means to an end and to “see the wood by means of the trees.”

Orr, McLaren, & Hughes

As I've been thinking about our assignment of taking it to work, I look to really use, apply, and reflect on these principles in my day-to-day activities. Having been here nearly four years, I started by brainstorming as to how I would describe the learning that occurs here at Cirrus-- with all its flaws wishful outcomes, and real results. At looking at What is Education for? I am going to review and reflect on Orr's comment, "the way learning occurs is as important as the content of the particular courses (1991). Process, I feel, is everything to the learning. I intend to examine where we are now as an organization and how this time is impacting our learning and training.
From a critical pedagogy perspective, I will be revisiting McLaren (2003) and the concept of culture. Culture is term used often, probably too often, in corporate settings as we work to describe why we do the things we do and how we react. I will look to see of there are parallels in what we as an organization feels describes culture as compared to McLaren (2003) and how these perceptions impact, if at all, learning and training.
And finally, I would like to examine how Cirrus uses technology when compared to Hughes' (2006) RAT framework. Where is the organization in its technological evolution? How does it utilize technology and in what instances and applications? Are we employing technology as a tool or as a means to transform? Is it effective or detracting from the end goal?

Overseen in today's Duluth News Tribune

Did you see this today (11/12/08) in today's paper-- local section, "Math gets practical"-- Higher education: Students in a remedial class at UWS are using the skills they're learning to take on an erosion problem in an African nation. Hmmmm...what do you think? Sound familiar? Sounds like Orr's (1991) What is Education for? doesn't it? Orr speaks in that article of the social responsibility of knowledge when he states, "that knowledge carries with it the responsibility to see that is well used in the world (Orr, 1991). The article goes on to say, "The majority of students don't want to be there [in the class], but after....they seem to change their mind. The hope is for students to see how math is used in real life." (Hollingsworth, 2008)

Making learning meaningful with real application, real example, and real context.

Work, work, work

I'm not too far behind but work has me up to my earballs. I don't intend to be "out of the game" but my "early in the week" submission may be later in the week. Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans. John Lennon.