Cigars And Scenarios

The linguistically challenged might suspect that a coroner and a panatella could be somehow related.  Close, but no cigar (unless the coroner is actually smoking a panatella).

For those who suspect that training and learning are quite similar things - again, close, but no cigar.

I spend more time than is probably healthy creating and delivering workshops that are intended to be educational.  That is, with the end objective of learning for the participants.  In the course of these ventures, we occasionally encounter corporate "training" types, who don't seem to be able to distinguish that learning is directed to the development of capabilities, especially in thinking, while training is generally directed toward processes, or how to do things, and do them consistently.

The trainers believe that tests and quizzes are vital indicators of whether (or not) learning has taken place.  Wrong again, multiple-choice breath, as Ed McMahon might have said.  Quizzes only assess recall, which, while useful, is not at all the same as learning.  I'm in the camp that believes that the case method (even in limited, simplistic application) is a far superior means of determining if students have grasped, and can apply, the concepts being taught to real-world situations.  Or, scenarios, if you must use bigger words.

In sum, training is an event.  Learning is an experience.

Is it possible that we are short-changing the rising generation of supply chain professionals by training them instead of teaching them?  By "certifying" them based on their ability to remember key phrases and titles, rather than making them figure out how to metaphorically swim in a supply chain sea filled with eddy currents, rip tides, and shifting winds?  Does this help to explain why we struggle so with the human interactions - individual and organizational - that make supply chains successful?

You can guess where I stand on the questions.  What are your thoughts?