This project was the design and development of computer-based training (CBT) for the usage of Pfizer's change management workflow systems. When Pfizer Incorporated acquired Wyeth, there were many employees who needed to learn how to use the complex computer systems that make Pfizer work. This project was the design and development of that computer-based training.
Tasks, tasks, tasks. Everyday at Pfizer, employees are expected to perform many tasks attributed to their job. The role of each person's position is responsible for a custom number of tasks performed in the workflow system. No two roles are alike. If one person is unable to perform a task, or if they skip a task, then a product may not move through the approval process in a timely manner.
 |
 |
| System 1 - Pfizer |
System 2 - Wyeth |
 |
| Example of various roles & the tasks they perform |
This is how Pfizer is set up with their online computer workflow systems. The systems they have in place are extremely complex and not intuitive or easy to use. When Wyeth was acquired, thousands of new employees would be expected to learn how to use these complex computer systems to do their job--without mistakes. The need for training was very great, and the amount of time for our team to create it was extremely limited.
There were many constraints in the problem space that our team begain to realize, and that affected the overall design and development of this project: |
For example:
- Culture: The average age of the learner audience was about 35 and over. In the pharmaceutical manufacturing field, there was little room for mistakes. All employees at the organization had the utmost respect for absolutely knowing the right answers at the right times. There was no room for mistakes.
- Context: Our team was overwhelmed with information deeply embedded in a pharmaceutical context, and with complex and unusable computer systems. Pulling out context from the hundreds of technical documents that we were provided was no easy task. Even the computer systems that each role would need to use to perform tasks on a daily basis was incomplete. Finding out the needs and responsibilities of each employee's role in the process took many hours of our team interviewing and asking the right questions to Pfizer employees. Gathering context was no easy task.
|
|
- Content: Our team needed to learn a lot of unfamiliar information and content in a very short amount of time. I, myself, was completely unfamiliar with content in the pharmaceutical field. Luckily, I had fantastic teammates who had extensive experience working with and designing for other pharmaceutical organizations.
- People: Using time to find the right people with the right information wasn't always an easy task. At times we were assigned to speak with a SME only to find out that the person we were talking to didn't have the right information we needed.
- Time: Deadlines were fast and furious. Some parts of the training had already started, and we were being looked to by our client to hit deadlines that we had agreed upon.
- Technology: Our technological constraints were: 1.) we needed to design for the PC 2.) the courses need to be .html based 3.) any time of animations or linear videos must be created in Adobe Captivate 4.) interactive animations should utilize .html or Adobe Flash.
There were two primary user groups: veteran Pfizer employees who were familiar with Pfizer's computer systems, but not Wyeth's, and new Wyeth employees who were familiar with their own computer systems but not Pfizer's. The age range, work experience, and technology knowledge of both sets of employees varied greatly.
The problem space ultimately was rather simple. New employees faced with two complex computer workflow systems--each person needed to know WHERE on the screen to click in the system and on the interface.
Since it ultimately came down to that we needed to show learners where they needed to click to perfrom each type of task in the system, the emphasis for the learning focused on memory. The e-learning design became two types of interactions: 1.) there was a learning course customized to show the system tasks requried of each role specific job 2.) we created a learning database where if an employee forgot HOW to perform a certain task in the system by following a procedure, they could at any time look back at this training and refresh themselves on how to do this. We also created job-aids for printable use that the employees could print out and keep nearby for reference.
Thinking back on this project I do wonder though...when do user's need instruction or training, and when do they just need a better designed, easier to use product? I wonder which would have been more expensive for Pfizer; paying someone to design easier to understand and easier to use interfaces and workflow sytems, or the route they took, paying someone to design instruction and training for complex un-intuitive computer systems? Such a strain they put on their employees to expect them to learn how to use such ergonomically unsound interfaces in such a short period of time. |
