Friday 8 January 2016

How soon do I need tool-specific vs non-tool training/consulting?

The adage that “tool-training is not necessary” is sometimes aligned to the propensity to believe that "the production of diagrams is more important than the engineering content behind them". The reality is that the sooner you get you engineers focused on the latter, the better. It's my experience that this naturally happens if you remove questions about how to use the language and the tools by delivering tool-specific SysML training.

It’s not uncommon to go into companies who have been trying to use Rhapsody and SysML for 1-2 years without training. They think they don’t need it. They believe they are doing OK but you see immediately that they are exploiting only a fraction of the tool and languages’ capability.

Contrast this with those who do the training at the start of their journey. If you do training at the start, you start with relative expertise and understanding of what can be achieved. Empowered with knowledge you make better choices sooner. By unlocking the potential from the start this helps to show to everybody what can be achieved with a few clever choices. People will bow to your superior knowledge. Everybody will want to be part of it. Because you’ve done the training, you now understand that training is valuable. You ensure that training is included in tool deployment. People naturally end up focusing on the engineering issues and problems, not on how to use the tool or exploit the language, and the circle is complete. Well, at least, that's the hope ;-)