multiskilling
Jul 14 2006
We are going through restructuring at work and one of the ideas cropping up from management is that of staff learning to do jobs of others.
This is an IT dept so varying levels of skill involved.
I have done a bit of research on the net but suprisingly little information available. I think this sort of thing is called multiskilling or cross training.
Is this just an attempt to undermine jobs or does this actually benefit
workers?
Jul 15 2006
#2
Basically there are four things they can do to your job-
1. keep it the same
2. De-skill it
3. Up-skill it (job enrichment)
4. Broaden the skills (eg multi skilling)
The extent they can change things will depend on-
1. Your job description/terms of employment (-what does it say about taking on additional duties)
2. Any collective reorgainsation policy your company may have (probably doesn't)
3. Legal test of 'reasonableness'
You should check for 1 and 2.
Generally I agree with LR and would say-
1. What are the implications of you multi skilling on other staff?
2. What are the implications of multi skilling on your work load?
3. Will you be paid appropriately for the extra work that you are doing?
4. Will you be properly trained in the additional duties?
Jul 18 2006
#3
If you are to multi skill then you need to be:
paid for any time spent training
have your work covered while you train
get a qualification of some kind. A company did this at my old school, offered kids money to study IT stuff. part of the reason was to get money out of the government, the other reason was that if you train people to do stuff but give them no qualifications then it's harder for them to move and use the skills elsewhere.
either paid extra or have some existing work taken off you.
I've pretty much repeated RPG here.
Jul 18 2006
#4
Sounds a bit similar to 'cell-based manufacturing' on factory floors e.g. for car manufacture which has been around for several decades. The theory goes, rather than use a mass-production line model, which can be held up if any of the parts of the line 'fails', the production process is divided up into 'autonomous' cells which can manufacture anything from a complex component up to an entire product. Each worker in the cell has a core skill but can do any job within in. If any part of a cell 'fails' e.g. worker is absent, other workers within the cell take over temporarily, or alternatively other cells that can do a similar job are brought into cover shortfall.
Another more general trendy term for this is Agile manufacturing, which is in turn linked to 'lean thinking' (lean what, you might ask) and this is all about getting employees to work in 'teams'.
You are definitely being thought of as an IT 'team'.
Cell-based ref: http://www.sme.org/gmn/BK/chapters/BK02PUB2.pdf
Lean ref: http://www.poppendieck.com/papers/LeanThinking.pdf
If you can be bothered to follow up on the refs, the second one has advice to managers "Center On The People Who Add Value" - are you one of those? 
Jul 19 2006
#5
Thanks for the replies.
Some good points.
Hi
I’ve seen a few of these programmes. My impression is overwhelmingly negative. It allows members of the team to be placed under enormous schedule pressure as they have to spread themselves thinly across a range of disciplines. Also, it inevitably serves as way of training staff in boring technologies with declining market share that would be better off being “sunsetted” rather than maintained.
It is usually used as a method of undermining the expertise of highly skilled staff, largely through the wilful ignorance of management who have little to no understanding of the levels of experience and effort required to maintain an existing specialism. I remember sitting in board meetings where they were discussing this, skills matrix planning blahdy blah, and pointing out that it was bit like expecting surgeons, already struggling to fit the demands of their existing job into the working day, to take on the duties of the receptionist and the beds officer. The response was “well we’re not dealing with “surgeons” are we, these people can’t afford to loose their jobs, so they’ll do what we tell ‘em, one way or the other.”
I suggest you press to ensure that any cross training you receive is in disciplines that enhance your marketability and if they tell you to train in something you don’t think will serve your best interests explain that you don’t see much of a future in that technology and advise them to groom you for senior management instead.
It sounds like the sort of thing they do in a business transformation, capability building or an “Investor In People” programme. If you’re in the private sector, that’s normally a forerunner to acquisition or floatation, so if you can pick up some cheap shares in a management buyout you stand a good chance of making a little cash there.
Love
LR CEng