Often, during the process of initiating new projects, it seems that agreed budgets come under pressure, particularly when the newly appointed project manager and client are reviewing where the monies are to be spent, one of the the first thing to be questioned and, often subsequently removed, is the cost of training, which, while an easy target for cost cutting on many projects, can become a false economy to the overall project objectives.
The review process goes something like this; as the budget comes under scrutiny, the project team tries to push training costs onto their parent organization, arguing that the project is only temporary, but the parent organisation is permanent and as such will get long term benefits from the training, the parent company usually then pushes back on this attempt, saying that the project delivery group, whether internal or external, should bear costs of training since the training is for their project… The next target for the costs is then the client, who again will usually advise the project team that the costs should be in their budget since the project team and their parent organisation will reap the long term benefits… and so the cycle continues until either one party accepts the costs, a compromise is reached to share them somehow, or the bulk of the proposed training is removed from the project.
However, I would argue that the benefits of the training are so tangible for all parties that the real question should not be how to minimise the volume and associated cost of training, but how much training can the combined group provide to get the best trained and efficient project team possible.
In survey after survey, the item listed as the biggest incentive for many personnel, in both project and corporate roles, is the access to training and personal development, so spending on training will make employees happier and more committed to the project. For the parent organization, a more highly trained project team will be more efficient and deliver the project to a higher level of satisfaction for the client, reducing delivery risk and enhancing the parent company bottom line and reputation as a forward looking organisation that employees want to work for. Finally, for the client, a more effective project team, on both their and their contractors sides, will deliver their project with less risk, more reliability and a better chance of improved benefits being realised from the project.
So, if the parties can agree on paying more for training to obtain these benefits, the next question is where to spend the money. For most technical projects, the team will be inclined to spend the money exclusively on technical development such as more technology tools, specific technical design skills and training in the use of the new tools etc. Communication skills are usually therefore put at the bottom of the list and clasiffied as “soft skills” that everyone already has, yet training in just these skills can deliver quick and easy benefits that will enhance all aspects of the overall delivery of the project. A team which is better equiped to communicate with one another, both internally and externally, will be a more efficicent team; meetings will become more productive, there will be less repetition of work since everyone will be more aligned to the project goals, error rates should reduce since personnel will be more aware of what their colleagues are doing, and as such will be more inclined to work on tasks which benefit the work or the others rather than tasks which may conflict or compete with other members of the project team’s work.
In essence then, I would argue that interpersonal communications training is a low hanging fruit as far as benefits realised relative to cost expended for any project whether undertaken by a co-located or virtual team, something to think about the next time you are in a project budget cutting meeting and the cost of training comes up for discussion.
If you have any thoughts or comments on this or any other posts here, please feel free to leave a comment.
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2010 Francis Norman
Twitter
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
G’day Francis –
Being a trainer whose field overlaps communication, I can’t help but agree with you.
Yep, since everyone benefits, everyone pays. So the next step should be to decide how to split up the investment from each party. I would also argue that this should include both the initial “cost” and a plan to realise (or at least articulate) the benefits all round. This starts to look like peer learning, where folks make meaning together.
I suspect that the “logic” with communications (and other behavioural & contextual skills) goes soft = fuzzy = hard to define = hard to learn = too hard. In reality communication does have a large competency base. As such, it can be learned through a combination of skills training & practise, self-reflection and ongoing application.
Go well!
David
Thanks for the thoughts David, some very good insights there.
Francis
Communication is essential to virtual teams. If you have the right team, you don’t need to train them how to communicate. You just need to make sure that you have the right people working together. I use self assessments and 13+ years of interviewing skills to put virtual teams together. Taking the time to HIRE properly will ensure that your communication budget is little to none.
Thank you for your thoughts Rebecca, I agree completely that it is always best to hire people from the get go with the communication skills you and your business require, however, where it become necessary to blend pre existing, internationally distributed teams of people, people who are often hired for a different skill set, such as technical specialists or local knowledge experts, and where in some instances, these people may have been in position for many years prior to the need for internationalisation, the requirements for an appropriate training regime and the right sized budget becomes much more pressing. Without a clear understanding of the source of this budget and the benefits to each of the involved stakeholders, the training can often become a casualty of cost cuts, yet the cuts themselves may result in inefficiencies in later stages that are more expensive than the initial investment would have been.