Maximizing the Impact of Reliability Training: Expert Insights from Bill Wilder

In this interview, Bill Wilder, M.Ed., director of the Life Cycle Institute, discusses adult education principles and how to maximize the return on your reliability training investment.

Question: Who are some of the thought leaders in the field of adult education that have shaped your approach to creating courses for the Life Cycle Institute?

Answer: First and foremost, Malcolm Knowles, author of The Adult Learner, is a foundational figure. Known as the father of adult learning theory, Knowles introduced andragogy—the science of teaching adults—as distinct from pedagogy. He highlighted that adults need to understand the relevance of learning, are self‑directed, bring rich life experience, and require experiential, individualized instruction that aligns with their developmental stage. For instance, teaching Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) to someone unfamiliar with availability is ineffective; the content must match the learner’s current knowledge and job context. Motivation for adults differs too—self‑esteem, career advancement, or new opportunities drive them. Other influential thinkers include Robert Gagne, who pioneered a systematic approach to instructional design that links learning events to specific outcomes, and Peter Senge, whose book The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization frames learning as a collective capacity to achieve desired results. Both Gagne’s design methodology and Senge’s organizational learning principles guide how the Institute crafts courses and applies coaching and focus‑team methods in Reliability Excellence programs.

Q: How do you go about developing courses that are successful?

A: We champion active learning. As the adage goes, “If I hear something, I’ll forget; if I see something, I’ll remember; if I do something, I’ll understand.” Our first question is always, “What do you want the learner to be able to do?” We then design activities that teach that capability. Our design methodology begins with a needs analysis and the creation of clear learning objectives. We craft targeted activities, assemble content, sequence the material, produce course materials, and evaluate the program to refine it. This expanded approach builds on the ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) and ensures that every step is purposefully linked to measurable outcomes.

Q: The Life Cycle Institute offers instructor‑led classroom training. Why have you chosen this method of instruction rather than, for example, computer‑based training?

A: Computer‑based training is valuable for specific objectives, but classroom training excels at engaging participants in hands‑on learning and tailoring the experience to individual learning styles and prior knowledge. In a typical Life Cycle Institute course, we start by clarifying objectives, assessing learning styles, and gauging prior knowledge. The rest of the session is adapted to the group’s needs. Unlike static online modules, a skilled instructor can adjust pace, techniques, and content in real time to maximize relevance and engagement.

Q: You’ve mentioned learning objectives a few times. Why are they so important?

A: Learning objectives set the stage for behavior change. Bloom’s taxonomy—a well‑established framework—maps cognitive levels from knowledge to evaluation. By crafting objectives that rise through these tiers—knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation—we move learners from rote recall to the ability to solve real problems. These objectives also guide how we assess the return on training investment.

Q: Tell me more about evaluation. How does one evaluate whether training is a good investment?

A: Evaluation is integral to measuring training effectiveness and aligns closely with the defined objectives. We use Donald Kirkpatrick’s four‑level model: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results. Most of our assessments occur at Levels 1 and 2. After every session, we administer questionnaires to capture participants’ reactions—a necessary, but not sufficient, indicator of learning. For Level 2, we design pre‑ and post‑tests tailored to each course. Knowledge is assessed with multiple‑choice items; higher‑order thinking—evaluation and synthesis—is measured through essay questions. While we cannot test application or results directly in the classroom, we collaborate with clients to develop Level 3 and Level 4 evaluation plans that capture on‑the‑job performance and organizational impact.

Q: Are there benchmarks when it comes to training?

A: Yes. The American Society for Training and Development annually honors “Best in Class” organizations that demonstrate enterprise‑wide learning success. In 2006, awardees spent 3 % of payroll on training, averaging $1,531 per employee, and 66 % of that investment went into instructor‑led, classroom instruction.

Q: Is there a difference between education and training?

A: Education is a lifelong, formal process—think tenure, experience, and degrees. For example, our Reliability Excellence for Managers course imparts foundational knowledge on achieving reliability. Training, in contrast, focuses on specific, actionable skills. Our Planning and Scheduling class teaches the concrete use of particular tools. Both are essential, but they serve different purposes.

Q: Are training and education always the solution to performance problems?

A: Not always. Training addresses skill or knowledge gaps, but motivation is equally critical. If an employee already possesses the necessary skills yet lacks drive, additional training alone will not change performance. Assessing the root cause—skills, motivation, environment—is essential before prescribing training.

Q: If a manager has a limited budget, how should he choose who should attend training?

A: First, verify that training is the appropriate intervention for the individual. When training is part of a broader organizational change, start with early adopters or innovators—often about 15 % of the workforce—who can champion new ideas. Influencers and late adopters will follow once the benefits are proven.

Q: How do you identify the early adopters or innovators?

A: They are respected role models, often optimistic and open to experimentation. They typically have a supportive network of peers, display initiative, and are willing to share personal insights. Their engagement can accelerate adoption across the organization.

Q: What do you think would be the best approach for someone who really wants to get more training, but has to justify the cost to his boss?

A: Frame training as an investment, not an expense. Begin by reviewing the course outline and learning objectives. Highlight testimonials from previous attendees and articulate the specific outcomes you anticipate—e.g., increased productivity, reduced downtime, or faster problem resolution. Present a clear, “wouldn’t it be great if I could…” scenario to your manager, linking the benefits directly to business metrics.

Q: Could an organization save money by investing in training?

A: In the long term, yes. Measurable, outcome‑driven objectives are key to demonstrating ROI. While many variables influence performance and culture, data from high‑performing organizations show that sustained investment in learning can lead to cost reductions, improved quality, and higher employee retention.

Q: In your experience, what is more effective, training done on‑site at a company or away at a non‑company site?

A: Context matters. At the Life Cycle Institute, we observe that public, off‑site classes often yield stronger Level‑1 reactions—participants report higher satisfaction—than on‑site sessions. Being removed from the everyday work environment reduces distractions, and interaction with peers from other organizations exposes participants to diverse perspectives and solutions. On‑site training can attract attendees who are not fully engaged, which can dampen group dynamics. Public classes typically attract early adopters, fostering a learning culture that can drive broader organizational change.

Q: How can reliability training help address critical business issues faced by asset‑intensive industries?

A: Asset‑intensive companies often confront workforce attrition, especially as Baby Boomers retire. Our courses—Materials Management, Root Cause Analysis, Planning and Scheduling—equip teams with processes that improve maintenance efficiency and facilitate knowledge transfer. Newer employees learn from seasoned colleagues, mitigating staffing gaps. In 2008, we launched a “Leading People” course to develop supervisory skills that elevate organizational performance.

To learn more about courses offered at the Life Cycle Institute, call 800‑556‑9589, e‑mail education@LCE.com or visit www.LCE.com.