Award winning manufacturer of IT-based building automation.
Addressing The Skills Gap
Environmental Systems, Inc (ESI)
conversations in our industry focus on technology; new or old, doesn’t
matter, we like to talk about technology; even to the point where we
lose sight of the other things that make our industry work. The
most important of these non-technology issues is the skills gap.
most of the system integrators in this industry, they have only one
asset – people. Contractors may have trucks, tools and inventory,
but their number one asset is people. Let’s face it, integrators
and contractors don’t manufacture anything, they typically don’t have
any patents or licensable IP. They have one primary asset and it
goes home every night.
how do we manage the number one asset? What do we invest in it,
how do we attract it, how do we retain it? For most services
firms, their real point of differentiation is their people, not the
brand of product they represent or the geography they conduct business
have an abundance of technology with more coming at us every day and
yet we do little to equip our number one asset, our only asset in many
cases, to deal with this technology effectively. This leads to
the industry facing a significant skills gap. According to Forbes
magazine, more than 70% of organizations cite “capability gaps” as one
of their top five challenges, and many companies say that it takes 3-5
years to take a seasoned professional and make them fully
productive. This is an incredible statistic and one that as an
industry is frequently overlooked.
this skills gap exists in two key areas; within organizations such as
system integrators and services firms who provide the technology and
solutions, and the end users who use these solutions on a daily
basis. We are losing experienced building engineers and not
replacing them or attracting younger talent to fill their roles.
The result is powerful technology being delivered and not enough skill
to properly use it.
With so much riding on our people, what are we doing to attract, retain, and develop them? What are we doing to challenge them and keep them engaged so they continue to add value to their organizations and their customers?
answer lies in how businesses manage their talent; how they invest in
it. It’s not enough to simply hire an engineer and provide them
with basic factory training (a model that unfortunately happens all too
frequently). That’s training, which is not the same as learning
and too often it becomes a one-time event.
Businesses need to manage their investment in people as much or more as they manage their investment in technology, tools, business systems, etc.. To compete effectively in today’s market, they need to invest in developing a learning organization; one that promotes life-long learning and development and career development paths for its employees.
They need to ask questions such as:
Firms engaged in the business of providing solutions in our industry should understand that the value they bring to their customers is proportional to the knowledge and skills of their people; not the brand of the products they represent. And as history shows, if you’re not consistently adding value to your customers, you will be replaced.
At the recent IBCon Smart Building Integrator Summit, we had the opportunity to hear from several high-profile customers (end users) on what they look for in a systems integrator. They were unanimous in their response that they not only wanted, but expected the integrator to bring them ideas and to not just respond to a request for services. As an organization, if you’re not committed to continuous learning it will be very difficult to add this value; you may get lucky a few times but it won’t be consistent.
So what does it mean to be a learning organization? According to the Maturity Model for Corporate Learning by John Bersin, learning in an organization typically matures over time and companies tend to evolve their training in four phases:
Level 1, learning is
incidental – there is no formal training at all.
Managers and staff tend to coach each other to do their jobs more
effectively. As managers either tire of training people or
find that their efforts are ineffective, they call in the professional
Level 2, training is
developed through a needs analysis model –
trainers and HR staffs look at work functions and build
competency-based programming designed to elevate performance.
At Level 3, organizations realize that “learning” is more than training. Here companies bring all of their learning programs together (leadership development, technical training, compliance, etc.) and attempt to tie them to an overall talent strategy. Over time companies realize that specialized skills take years to develop, so Level 3 companies build long-term career paths and continuous learning programs that enable employees to develop deeper and richer skills in their chosen profession. This level of learning requires an integrated effort on the part of L&D, HR, and team leaders using a well-defined employee development model.
Few organizations achieve Level 4 status. At this level, companies focus on organizational effectiveness over skills and job needs. Companies conduct “after-action reviews” after projects to force teams to take time and learn what went well. One of the most experienced “capability development” organizations in the world in the US military. All US military services use structured reviews to analyze what happened, why it happened, and how it can be done better by the participants and those responsible for the project or event.
Skills and capability development have risen to the top issue on the minds of talent, HR, and business leaders. Spending on corporate learning went up 11% last year as companies look to develop their capabilities and find ways to improve organizational effectiveness. The bottom line is this: corporate learning is not just a program to improve productivity and reduce errors. When managed well, it can be one of your most important sources of competitive advantage.
any investment, businesses may ask what’s my return.
Organizations with strong learning cultures outperform their
competitors in several ways1:
1 Bersin and Associates, 2013
All things considered, when you look at these statistics and consider that the only real differentiator a services firm has is their people, the real question is how can you not be investing in this? Based on this here are some questions to consider:
have a very real skills gap in this industry and technology is not
going to solve this problem. It’s time we as industry begin to
focus our efforts on investing in the people necessary to properly
apply all the great technology we have in order to deliver quality
solutions that provide real value to end users.
About Environmental Systems
ESI is a professional services firm focused on making buildings run better. With multi-faceted expertise and best-in-class technology, ESI enables customers to reduce costs, minimize energy consumption and maximize their return on investment. For more information please visit www.thinkESI.com
About the Author
Paul Oswald is president of Environmental Systems, Inc (ESI). Paul has over 30 years of experience in building automation, system integration and energy management. His experience includes product strategy and development, business and channel development, and services.
[Click Banner To Learn More]
[Home Page] [The Automator] [About] [Subscribe ] [Contact Us]