Virtual Reality 5th Dimension

Getting my feet wet, the question was how could VR be commercialized?

I came across a supplier of VR equipment and software in Irvine, CA. Fifth Dimension Technology is found: . This company develops, produces and distributes VR hardware, sofware and systems. They currently have a number of training programs and various fields.

They discuss a couple methods of providing the 3D effect, a) use of three computer monitors, desktop VR, b) use of head-mounted display, immersive VR. The monitors would be least costly, but will not reflect the lifelike qualities as the head-mounted display, nor as portable. The head-mounted unit provides greater immersion than the monitors. If objects need to be touched, or moved, this may be accomplished by a data glove.

Affordability. The 3-D head-mounted display is about $3,000 to $5,000 each. The software product is another matter, and some examples showed prices up to $40,000, maybe more. However, the displays may be shipped within regional sales organizations; shipped directly to the salespersons residence when training is needed.

Fifth Dimension Technology Links

3D Multiple monitors
http://www.5dt.com/products/images/avi_eatb_001.jpg

Head mounted display
http://www.5dt.com/products/headerimages/hhmd.jpg

Data Glove:
http://www.5dt.com/products/headerimages/hdatagloveultra5.jpg

In summary, there is a probably method to provide training to the salesforce.

Larry

Visit with Chris DeDe, Harvard University

Chris discussed his Multi-User Virtual Environment (MUVE), in particular, River City.

This ties with the visit with Marc Pensky as it promotes engagement, and learning. The MUVE is in its third generation, and has been demonstrated at a number of middle schools. The question was how to engage the lower third learners that have given up on school.

My question, how to engage the sales team (including the service engineers)?

Chris says there has been a convergence of MUVEs
+ Chat & IM, include artifact sharing
+ Groupware
+ Distributed Learning (military)
+ MUDS, MOOS
+ Video games
+ Massively multi-player online games => this is one direction

River City MUVE experience
+ Artifacts were used
+ Team made up of different talents - this is applicable to the sales team (including engineers) + expert + customer service?
+ Avatars used
+ Teachers were trained - the experts are the facilitators? More thought needed on this.
+ High fidelity, such as video game quality, was found not to be necessary. How much for training the sales team has yet to be determined

The MUVE requires about 2 person months per set (640 manhours). Changes requires about 20% to be changed. The program used is Active World.

Putting this together for sales team training. The best possible training would incorporate the entire sales process. The sales team would be extended to include the internal sales, or those that provide quotes, and samples. The salesperson must be the "quarterback" to give guidance as to his or her expectations. Thus in the end, a well coordinated group is formed. The heart of the training is the salesperson, and then others will come into the picture.

The scenario starts out with salesperson learning how to present the new products, which customer applications are best suited, and close the deal. Internal sales aids in the process by providing the marketing collateral needed, such as samples, and quotations (if applicable). The salesperson is on hand while the engineer makes the installation, and then learns from that experience. At the wrap-up, there should be a lessons learned. The lessons learned could carry through to the next scenario if there are more than one primary application. As a note, in practice, a lessons learned process would be good, and could provide input into the corporate knowledge bank.

As a note, this appears to be one-on-one training. Further thoughts need to evaluate this for larger numbers of participants.

Visit with Marc Pensky

12 Nov 04
Probably the most practical thought on training from Marc is to engage the learner. His concept was engagement before content. Engagement can be obtained by having a great teacher, one-to-one, community of practice, activities, and/or relating to student's interest.

Relating this to training salespersons. Because of the numbers, and variety in the teaching techniques, the first two could not be ensured. However, self-interest, activities, and community of practice are very good possibilities. The communities of practice are already in place, although learning about a new product launch would not be effective through this channel.

Marc goes on to say, to make e-learning more game-like. There are five ways to help ensure the games will be effective:
1) Focus on engagement
2) Increase the rate of decision-making. This is not found in simulations very often.
3) Provide clear goals
4) Allow user customization
5) Adaptable to increased levels of difficulty

My thoughts move towards the construction of the training. Conceptually thinking, there could be multi-user (synchrounous) scenarios (below game quality), and each scenario involve a number of salespersons, and a facilitator expert. In one company that also includes service engineers for the installation, there could be teams, thus the salesperson is not only learning about the new product, but is also getting feedback from the engineer on installation issues. This ties with Dave's blog in October, and with flight simulators as far as the visuals. The trainer (expert) could notch up the scenario with additional detail, or other applications that the sales team (including the engineer) could experience. A side thought. Similar training could be given to existing products and only training the sales team in their use in different applications.

How to develop training for a new product? To develop the simulation will require observing an actual installation. Thus, several beta sites would be established, and the learnings recorded. The salesperson and the engineer would be observed, and lessons learned come from this experience. This should be done for each primary application.

In closing, Marc provided two quotations:
James Gee: "Without motivation, there's no learning"
Will Wright: "If a learner is motivated, there's no stopping him"

Salespersons' Distance Learning - Good or Bust?

This research was conducted in 1997, using six methods. These methods were: on-site instructor, written manual, a manual + video tape, video-conferencing, audio-graphics, and computer tutorial. Not used was asynchronous distance learning.

Two factors for choosing the six methods: a) training-on-demand capability, b) relative costs.

Statistics to suggest the value of distance learning: salespersons receives about 37 hours/year of training per year. The costs avoided by distance learning: vehicle travel, meals, lodging, time out of office, and loss of income.

Sample size: 550 sales personnel of one insurance company, nation-wide. A pre- and post-tests were taken.

Results:
Content (ANOVA of pre- and post-tests: a) showed significant improvement, b) there were insignificant differences between treatment groups.

Deliver method: a) training duration - minimum on manual and computer tutorial; b) work day disruption - manual, manual + video tape, and computer tutorial were least; c) media interface interference with learning - on-site rated best while manual was rated worse; d) Active learning - computer tutorial rated highest. The top three methods were computer tutorial, manual + video tape, and video conferencing.

Evaluation of long-term retention was not measured.

Cost of Delivery: a) material preparation time - significant are computer tutorial, manual, and manual + videotape; b) instructor preparation to be competent - above normal are computer tutorial, audio-graphics, and video conferencing; c) instructor/student interface - highest during on-site, audio graphics, and video conferencing; d) material reliability - manuals, manuals + video tape, and computer tutorial not dependent on instructor; e) time to effect training - widest coverage in minimum time is manuals and manuals + video tape. This also has the greatest ability to provide training on demand; f) ease of revision - easiest is on-site, video conferencing and audio-graphics; g) cost - highest investment is video conferencing and on-site trainer.

That's the gist. The documentation will aid further research.

Reference

Erffmeryer, R.C. & Johnson, D.A. (1997). The future of sales training: making choices among six distance education methods. The journal of business & industrial marketing. 12. 3/4.

In the beginning... a starting place

To appreciate where we are going helps to know where we are.

Currently, like many organizations that have global employees, there is tons of travel to getting to the place where ground training is held. When this occurs, sales and service staff are displaced from their "profit center" for a week, thus not earning revenues. While in the formal class, whiteboard and all, it is difficult to field business calls, and focus on instruction. Secondly, often the instruction is presented in a manner that we have had in grade school, without a tremendous amount of participation. The content of the material tends to be factual, and is presented by the "experts," but lacks sufficient real-life stories or scenarios to give much substance.

When the sales and service staff are now f2f with a customer, often the material in the class has been forgotten. The material made sense then, but in reality it didn't give enough to make it "second nature.' Although there were hands-on with the actual equipment, that was in a lab.

There has to be a better way...

Just getting my feet wet...

I will be exploring methods of training sales and technical service personnel.

Ideally, this in could be accomplished by using virtual reality. But how can this be commercialized in a personal size and yet be economical? In lieu of dismissing the thought, I find it worthy of some exploration to understand what hurdles would have to be overcome. So, I will leave this blog tonight by saying, what if...