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

Re: training question

                      RE>>training question                        8/5/99

I echo Dale's experience using vendors for presenting technical information at
P2 workshops we have conducted.  We have depended heavily on pro bono
participation of  technical experts of both product vendors and consultants. 
In developing the outline for a particular workshop we work very closely with
the technical people of the participating vendors and consultants about our
expectations and demands.  We also always have representatives from the target
industry (the credible spokesperson) that have already installed some of the
P2 technologies that are the subject matter of the workshop talk about their
experience with the technologies.  We have had tremendous success with our
workshops.  In some cases they were so popular that we had to turn people away
at the door.  Our local industry has come to trust the merit of the workshops
we put on because they know our workshops are technically and reality
oriented.  No pie in the sky claims about how any particularly P2 technology. 
This is primarily a result of the fact that we "government types" (I'm from
the government and I'm here to help you) do not actually provide any of the
technical content of the workshops.  Our roll is to do all the planning,
resource gathering, etc to pull together a successful P2 workshop drawing from
the actual technical expertise and experience of those who work in or provide
services to the target industry.

We did have one situation where at the last minute one equipment vendor sent
their sales rep rather than the technical rep that was supposed to present on
one topic at a P2 workshop we put on.  The sales rep and his company wound up
looking very foolish in comparison to the other presenters all of whom were
highly technically qualified.  This situation has never happened again.

I guess this is a long way of saying that vendors and consultants can be very
effective technical presenters at P2 workshops.  Particularly when coupled
with representatives of firms that have already installed some of the P2
technologies that are the subject of the workshop.  Our experience is that the
we government types can be most "helpful" by doing all the necessary planning
activities to make highly credible P2 technology training available to our
local industry.

Gary Nolan
Santa Clara County Pollution Prevention Program

Date: 8/5/99 3:40 AM
To: Gary Nolan
From: Francke, Dale H.


Your question is a good one.  The P2 Coalition of Palm Beach County (FL) has
put on numerous P2 events/workshops for various industry/business groups
over the last four years.  During these events vendors who deal in the area
of business being discussed were normally present as exhibitors.   Access to
them was prior to the event, during any breaks, and after the event.  This
put the in perspective as a commercial entity and talking with them was
voluntary for everyone.  When a vendor, one exhibiting or not, had a
technical representative (not just a sales person) who was an expert or very
knowledgeable in the area of P2 which their product was used, they have also
been asked to speak but on a subject matter not a product line.  This has
been very successful as technical experts have easily eliminated the product
side for the technical side of the discussions. 

I think you need to be sure that the speaker has the technical background,
training, experience so that they can talk on a subject.  This eliminates
the need for them to be product specific in order to have something to
discuss.  While most sales reps have a good understanding about their
product and how it works within a specific area of P2, they may or may not
understand the total area of P2 their product represents (I hope that last
sentence was clear).  

Our experience (P2 Coalition) has been that technically competent vendor
reps can speak to a group in their area of competence without having to use
specific product references.  Specifics to products can successfully be
provided by company exhibits to be viewed before, during, and after the

Dale H. Francke
Pratt & Whitney   M/S 717-03
P.O. Box 109600
W. Palm Beach,  FL  33410-9600
e-mail:   frncked@pwfl.com
561.796.3733   FAX  561.796.2787

> ----------
> From: 	Burton Hamner[SMTP:bhamner@mindspring.com]
> Sent: 	Thursday, August 05, 1999 1:30 AM
> To: 	p2tech@great-lakes.net
> Subject: 	training question
> 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
> ********************************************************************

------------------ MIME Information follows ------------------

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

Content-Type: text/plain;

<<<<<< See above "Message Body" >>>>>>

Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

<<<<<< See Enclosure named "application" >>>>>>


------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by qmgate.pln.co.santa-clara.ca.us with SMTP;5 Aug 1999 03:40:29
Received: from inet-gateway.CO.Santa-Clara.CA.US by
dns-cvc.CO.Santa-Clara.CA.US (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id DAA25636; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 03:37:23 -0700
Received: by inet-gateway.CO.Santa-Clara.CA.US; id DAA11957; Thu, 5 Aug 1999
03:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from superior.great-lakes.net( by
inet-gateway.co.santa-clara.ca.us via smap (V4.2)
	id xma011909; Thu, 5 Aug 99 03:38:38 -0700
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by superior.great-lakes.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA02685
	for p2tech-outgoing; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:13:58 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: superior.great-lakes.net: majordom set sender to
owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net using -f
Message-ID: <E9A04DEF59CBD111896100805F31F88102AB20AE@pwflml08.pwfl.com>
From: "Francke, Dale H." <frncked@pwfl.com>
To: "'Burton Hamner'" <bhamner@mindspring.com>,
Subject: RE: training question
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 06:11:52 -0400 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
Sender: owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Francke, Dale H." <frncked@pwfl.com>
List-Name: P2Tech
X-Loop: P2Tech