Recently, a client hired us to build a workshop on interviewing skills. The client had three objectives.
1. Conduct an interview.
2. Don’t get sued for asking inappropriate or illegal questions when interviewing.
3. Make better hiring decisions based on the interview.
The client had identified that just one bad hiring decision would cost them 1.5x the position’s annual salary. This figure has been validated by multiple outside sources, as well. So, if better interviewing could be correlated to better hires for them, then hundreds of thousands of dollars could be saved.
The company is an extremely large multi-conglomerate with thousands of hiring managers. Live workshops would take too much time and because of the hiring timelines, people might attend a workshop, but not actually hire until months later. They decided eLearning was the best method to provide just-in-time instruction.
We were hired because they liked the 4Door approach and they liked our interactive format. It turned out, we were over ten thousand dollars cheaper than even the next custom design shop, and tens of thousands cheaper than the next cheapest. A consultant using Articulate submitted a proposal for over $25k. A simulation house $80. Another one was for over $100k. We bid our design project for $12K. The reason we could bid so low was our focus is on developing activities the participants work on both the computer and away from the computer. We also can design the training games in minutes versus hours and hours. The only part of the development that really takes time is formatting the Library. Video, of course takes time, but even that is hours versus days using templates. We focus on substance rather than aesthetics. We should add, that what you see in this course is similar in the aesthetic format to what we delivered for the interviewing program.
We did have a challenge with the client. They wanted to track the learners’ progress using SCORM for every activity in the course. This was a very difficult conversation. They strongly believed that if participants were going to take a course, they should participate in every part of it. Our argument was we only cared if the participants completed the deliverables in the Assessment Center. How they got there wasn’t relevant to evaluating their performance. After long debate, they resolved to try it our way. If they hadn’t agreed, then the basic premise of the 4Door would have been violated and the project would no longer have been a 4Door initiative.
Another issue: The client’s employees had a poor user completion rate. Learners were used to more linear and traditional type programs. They would start, but not finish. The client certainly could have implemented external incentives to get completion, but they didn’t. For our program, completion in just the first three deliveries was 87%. Smile sheets for all questions averaged 4.5 (or higher) out of 5.0. Comments were universally positive, such as, “I liked being able to jump around.” “It was helpful to be able to refer back to resources nicely arranged in the Library.” “The activities in the Café and the Assessment Center were really applicable to my job.”
More importantly, when asked three months after completing the course, participants attributed their improved interviewing skills to the program. HR stated that of the 52 out 60 people hired by the managers who completed the eLearning course were still with the company six months later. This was a significant improvement from before.
The real question is were we successful because of the 4Door design or would the interview program delivered using any other design have worked. We have no data to report other than our program was the third one they tried in four years. Perhaps it is the 4Door design that made it work, or perhaps it is our content or, a combination of both. Regardless, we know this course had a positive impact and that financially, it cost a fraction of the alternatives.