Several other issues and factors related to the training context are important for understanding the case.Class availability. As noted, the course duration was 2 full weeks. However,
because the simulator needed to be re calibrated and reset for each new class, it
was not possible to conduct a class every 2 weeks. Further, the simulator system was also in demand by research and development that needed to use it to test new
versions of Maxidata equipment. These factors, and other field service demand
and operational cycles, conspired to allow only 16 classes to be conducted each
year. Thus, there was always a waiting list for the class, and it was not unusual
for a technician who needed the training to wait several months.
Participant enrollment. Participants for the course were nominated by their
territory manager. Admission was accomplished on a first-come, first-served
basis, except that course administrators would defer admission to any second
applicant from the same service territory because of the space limitation
. The rationale was that no single territory could use up two seats in the course if there were others waiting to participate from other territories. Territory service managers were allocated only a limited training budget and limited access to this and
other courses.Political tensions. The client for the evaluation was the training department in the field services area, the business division that was responsible for
providing support services to customers who had purchased the SimPak servers. This
department paid for the training. If there were problems with the training, they
were the first to receive complaints. If a customer was not satisfied with service,
field sales were at risk, as unhappy customers were unlikely to stay as future customers. Typically, customer expressions of dissatisfaction were blamed
on the other division. If service received a complaint, they invariably said it w
as the fault of sales that made unrealistic promises for installation and service or over sold system capabilities. If sales received a complaint, they always said
it was service’s fault. Wherever a problem really was because of a failure of service,
the training department was quick to get the blame, as they were accused of providing inadequate training, inadequate access to training, wrong information,and so on.
Divided ownership. The training program was“owned” by a separately
administered technical support division that had been a part of a previously
acquired organization and reported to a different part of the complex SimPak
organization. This division designed the training, hired and managed the training staff, and maintained the simulator. They felt over managed and micro-
managed by the training department that owned the budget. On the other hand,the training department, being in the same division as the field sales and field
support functions, felt all the pressure of making the course successful and
delivering results. But they really had no control over the program and could not
influence it other than to manipulate the budget.