Defining "Substance"
My thoughts on substance come from a few different directions.
1) Substantive content (most meaningful, yet hardest for me to reduce to words):
My experience with distributive training products like videos and online training modules, etc is that there is rarely any linkage between the training and why the learner needs the training information that is delivered. The videos, etc can often be entertaining, and also meet the requirements of an OSHA or EPA regulation simply by “saying key words”, but not have any real “substance.” That’s to say that they cop-out on attempting to truly deliver a specific capability in any measurable way. What is the point?
SafetySkills starts with a defined “competency.” What is it specifically that we need the learner to be able to do be: aware of; familiar with; knowledgeable about; adept at; - Competent such that some identified risk is avoided, mitigated, and/or eliminated. Then our training content is designed specifically to ensure that the employee gains that competency in a way that can be verified or validated.
This is important in a lot of ways: First, it’s important because it means that the training program is then “meaningful” in that it is specifically designed to address those risks that the organization has identified. Furthermore the organization is able to measure the performance of the training by observing changes in incident rates or non-compliance findings.
This concept is born out of a couple of places. The first comes from my experience with implementation and auditing of Environmental Management Systems. Whether it is an EMS (ISO 14001); Health & Safety Management System (OHSAS 18001) or even a Quality Management System (ISO 9001) there is always a criterial element requiring that organizations identify the activities that are associated with significant fill in the blank (environmental impacts; safety risks; whatever) and then ensure that there is training for those identified activities. Then they have to document the association; they have to document the procedure to deliver the training; they have to create and manage records of the training and the they have to audit the program to make sure they are doing it, and when they’re found not doing any of the above they have to make a record of the corrective action taken. In otherwords they have to have a “system” that can be verified.
The second comes from my experience with EPA as an instructor in their HMIRO 165.5 program. I’ve trained, or at least, overseen the training of over 4000 people in the EPA-certified training of LVL III Hazmat Technicians (the specialists who put on the moon-suits and enter into toxic, explosive, infectious, etc areas). I have always been a little reticent about my years with that program mainly because I’m not sure very many of those individuals who successfully completed the course were given the knowledge, skill, and abilities to safely respond to hazmat events. The course was fascinating, the course was comprehensive, the course was fun, but did it actually produce competent responders? - I'm not sure, in fact, I don't think so.
Five or six years ago had the unique opportunity to develop a curriculum for the International Fire Service Accreditation Congress intended to meet a new NFPA standard NFPA 471 which was a "performance standard" for hazmat responders. The standard is a comprehensive "list" of things that NFPA says that an individual needs: to know; be aware of; be able to do; etc - you know, competencies. In this case the training had to enable the learner to successfully demonstrate (in the presense of a certified 3rd-party evaluator). In this case I had to build learning content specifically to address each competency. A formative exercise, in the training wasn't simply an "essay" or "survey" of a subject, but purposed content designed to achieve an intended outcome.
THIS IS WHAT SafetySkills™ IS ABOUT! Our training has substance in that each Active Learning Element is related to a specific competency in a deliberate, purposeful manner.
2) Substance can also be used to describe how large or extensive or substantial the "knowledge-base" of learning content is. Where the "other guys" list 200 or 300 EHS "titles" we can boast an unlimited number of "courses" because of the nature of our product. There are thousands of permutations of our ALE's. Not sure how to put this in an accurate, yet compelling way. However, we have (or will have) content ranging from pollution prevention to WMD response.
3) We could also refer to "substance" as our Substantial Experience as our content:
has been deployed in over 16 countries in 5 continents;
has been delivered in 7 languages;
over 400 EHS training projects deployed; and
we've delivered millions of hours of EHS training.
4) Finally, "substance" could include a statement that our in-house subject matter experts are board-certified EHS professionals. I think this is kind of a weak point, but to be comprehensive I included it.
Posted on Thursday, June 5, 2008
by Chief Egg Noodle (Trey Greene)
filed under