[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: training question



I have run spray painting workshops with vendors as speakers and found them to
be an invaluable resource.  They spoke about specific technical use of
equipment and application techniques in spray painting such as transfer
efficiency and were not hawking their product.  They also provided a lot of
valuable technical literature to assist customers on painting techniques,
safety concerns etc. that didn't hawk their product.  I have no problem with
vendors participating.  I think you need to know from references (talking to
other people) how the vendor is as a speaker and you make it clear they are not
to hawk their product during their talk.  Also if various solutions from
different vendors are presented, I don't see why this would be a problem.
Other wise how is industry to know what options are out there?  I am certainly
not an expert in the industry and rely on tapping into other experts.  There is
a different rapore between vendors and clients which may  be more beneficial
since there is still industry fear of  P2 Programs since some are regulatory or
perceived as regulatory.

I also made a point of getting literature from numerous vendors to have out for
attendees to go away with knowing where they could get products and other
information.  I feel strongly it is a mistake not to tap into vendors as a
technical resource.

I also feel the vendors can be a valuable resource to help get information out
to their clients on your P2 Program by providing them with program brochures
when they visit with companies -- so it can be a two way street.

Well enough said

Judy Jakobsen
SCWA P2 Program

Burton Hamner wrote:

> Hi all.  A recent P2 training event leads to this question:
>
> Considering that P2 programs have reputations to protect, is it appropriate
> to have vendors with specific technical solutions participate in an
> industry-specific P2 course?
>
> I ask because I heard that the recent event sponsor refused to allow such
> vendor participation because it would be "too commercial", although there
> was a person ready to help who was not going to do a company sales pitch
> but a presentation on the specific applications of specific hardware.  As a
> result, the participants left with some ideas about basic technologies but
> no idea about who sells them, "inside" tips about how they work, what it is
> like to install and use them, what they cost, etc.
>
> How can this tension between "commercialism" and the real need for specific
> solutions be resolved in training in P2 training?  My own feeling is that
> P2 training should be "pure" as advertised, but that an OPTIONAL vendor
> presentation the next day, or after lunch, would be ok and useful as long
> as it was clearly advertised as complementary but not necessary.
>
> I hope this stimulates some good discussion.  The US govt and some states
> are sending people all over the place doing P2 training, and the local
> vendors of appropriate tech are asking to participate, and now often have
> the door shut on them.  This does not seem to be very helpful all around.
> How to balance these interests?  Any thoughts?
>
> Burt Hamner
> ********************************************************************
> Burton Hamner
> President, Hamner and Associates LLC
> Adjunct Professor, Asian Institute of Management
> 4343 4th Avenue NW, Seattle Washington USA 91807
> Tel/fax: 206-789-5499 (call before sending a fax)
> Email:  bhamner@mindspring.com
> Web:  The Sustainable Business Webspace, www.mindspring.com/~bhamner
> ********************************************************************