Basic HTML Version
30
WORLD FOOTWEAR | MAY/JUNE 2012
of shoe, it might pay to look at the
problem in detail. It could be wrongly
stitch-marked or badly skived, the
patterns might be inaccurate or, even,
something as simple as the wrong
needle or thread is being used. If it
still appears that some operators
could do better, the skills and/or
knowledge they lack must be
identified and a method found to
provide effective help.
It is often taken for granted that
operators have a good overall
understanding of the shoemaking
process. It is not the case and they
will therefore find it helpful to
understand the reasons why each
operation needs to be done in a
particular way or to a specific
standard. An upper leather cutter may
be aware that the vamp must be cut
from the best part of the skin; if he
knows why, he can better judge how
far he can go in terms of quality.
Despite having a nesting system to
lay out the sections, understanding
why it has done so in a particular way
does no harm.
TAKE A SECOND LOOK
It is easy to be impressed by a new
approach to training but it does not
necessarily follow that what appears
impressive in a presentation will
deliver the desired results in practice.
For anybody to accept and apply new
knowledge and/or skills, they should
first understand why these are
needed and believe they will benefit
both themselves and the company.
The benefit to them does not have
to be immediate but lie in potential
future rewards such as promotion or
extra payment. It can even be as
simple as being able to perform better
and have more pride in what they do.
The importance of benefit to an
organisation
should
not
be
underestimated either. Nothing
undermines training programmes
faster than things done merely for
appearances rather than providing
real benefit.
The training of new recruits is
mainly a matter of bringing them up to
speed and quality so they can function
as a member of the workforce. This is
usually done most efficiently by
employing a systematic method;
raising performance levels of existing
workers is not so straightforward.
Just because subordinates carry out
instructions, it does not always mean
they believe in them. Recipients of
training can be very critical of new
ideas and, until they are convinced
that those ideas will deliver, it is
unlikely to yield its full potential. If
they ‘buy in’ to a training programme
beforehand, however, chances of
success are much greater. The best
way to do this is to involve them in
setting the objectives. If sceptical
employees have a say in what is
being done, they will feel they already
part-own the process.
REALISTIC TARGETS
While it is easy to set targets, what
will operators know or be able to do
afterwards that they could not do
previously? Nothing undermines
people faster than expectations they
regard as impossible. Equally,
training programmes are not magic
wands. They not only take time and
resources, but sometimes do not
work. Improving the performance of
people is never an exact science.
One way of reducing the risk is to
be as accurate as possible when
designing the training. A widely used
approach sets specific objectives such
as, ‘after the training programme,
rejects caused by roughing will be
below 0.4% rather the present 0.7%’
or ‘after training, the operator will be
able to explain the importance of
wearing ear protection when working
in the lasting team’. This not only
focuses the mind of the person
delivering the training, it also makes
it clear to the recipient what the
company expects from the process.
Setting targets in objective terms
such as these also provides a direct
basis for feedback.
MONITORING
Training systems and methods do
not stand still. Not only does
technology change and company
policies and systems move on, there
are also the expectations of the
workforce. To be effective, training
therefore also needs to be in a
constant
state
of
change.
Management must regularly look at
what it is doing in regard to the
provision of training and ask what
that training is contributing to the
organisation and whether it can be
improved. This not only includes
what is being done now, but must
include questions like ‘what else
should we be doing and what existing
aspects should we drop?’
Take for instance, a CAD/CAM
system that pattern cutters may have
started to use six months ago. Are
other factories seeing better, faster or
cheaper results from it and, if so,
why? Once again, it might not be just
a training problem. Perhaps patterns
do not always come off the cutter
accurately, the vacuum holding the
card down appears inadequate or the
software driver for the cutting table
may malfunction under a particular
combination of commands. On the
other hand, it can be argued that if
the pattern cutter has been properly
trained, he or she should be able to
diagnose the cause and find a
solution.
Examiners at the start of the lasting
process should spot uppers that have
not been assembled correctly. But do
they know if a particular style should
have a reinforcement tape on a
specific seam? While this can simply
be a case of not having up-to-date
paperwork to check against, should
they not also be trained to know
when such a tape might be critical
and when not?
SYSTEMATIC SELECTION
Training those who cannot or do
not want to learn is simply wasting
valuable resources. When allocating
training, it is not just a case of who
needs it most but also of whether they
also have the ability and will to use it
to best advantage.
If upper material cutters are being
moved on from cutting man-made
materials to through-dyed leather,
they will have to learn to distinguish
small variations in shades of colour.
They clearly need training in this—do
any of them have a colour blindness
problem? This is often thought of as
seeing without colour as in black and
white films. It can be far more
complex and perhaps it is an inability
to tell brown from red or even a
slightly darker brown. Simple colour
blindness test kits are available and
their use avoids raising expectations
that cannot be delivered.
Where training is an on-going
process, such as bringing sewing