Share thisIn tough economic times, everyone is offering advice on how to save money and get the most out of your budget. This article will be no different, but the way in which institutions potentially could improve their economic performance may be surprising. In a disastrous economic climate and in a situation where many lending institutions’ money wells have significantly dried up, every penny that is spent is precious. That does not mean that no pennies are spent; they are just spent much more carefully. In business, it is true that you have to spend money to make money. A profitable area to spend money is that of innovation, and innovation frequently requires training.
In order to thrive financially or provide excellent training, institutions need to spend more wisely than ever before. One of the challenges the laboratory animal science sector faces is that of training staff members and scientists in proper animal procedures and protocol driven techniques. During hard economic times, institutions may feel the urge to eliminate training personnel, decrease time devoted to training, lower the number of training sessions, or halt improvements to training programs. This is true for other fields as well. For example within the banking industry where the most important asset is people, often provision of training and development of staff is seen as an expense rather than an investment. This is a major factor that frequently places personnel training and development at risk; especially in tough economic times.1 An analysis performed by the American Bankers Association found a strong positive relationship between the human capital variables and the institutions’ financial performance, and concluded that institutions that make a greater commitment to human capital also perform better financially.2 A similar analysis by the American Society for Training and Development showed that for every investment of around $700 for training per employee increased shareholder return by six percent.3 Investment in employee training versus cutting training was a major factor in Motorola’s turnaround leading to their financial boom during the late 1990s.4 Measurement of the return in training investment for the Laboratory Animal Science community is challenging, because its outcome cannot be with dollar figures like shareholder return or increased sales. Nonetheless, the LAS community should at least consider translating what has been shown to be successful in other fields; understanding that devoting resources in a strong training program is worth the investment.5
Prior to staff cut decisions, institutions should consider how a lack of a (or a weak) training program will impact that institution’s future earnings, and consider alternate methods of delivering training in a cost effective manner. Training the staff and scientists is costly in terms of time expenditure and actual dollars spent. Financial pressures in a field that changes rapidly, like biomedical research, may cause management to resent being forced to pay a high price. But while cutting training programs appears to be a quick, easy way to save money, not properly training staff and scientists will ultimately negatively impact the institution’s compliance, public relations, research as well as the organization’s bottom line. Continuous and consistent training are essential in the LAS field, due to the fact that animals are used, and the proper care and use of these animals is tantamount.
Neglecting of Training the Staff and Scientist Can Have Many Negative Consequences
Without training, staff and scientists will generally take longer to become productive.6 Institutions will likely see overall dissatisfaction spread as a result of a lack of or poorly provided training, which can in turn lead to a negative impact in research outcomes. This can delay subsequent funding. Unfortunately, the cost benefit analysis of training efforts and write-offs are not easily identifiable on a balance sheet. Thus, institutions look for the “immediate fix” by curtailing key aspects of their training programs instead of viewing them as critical, long-term investments that can be amortized over years.
While it may seem counterintuitive, during difficult economic times, investing in training programs may be more important than ever. The care and nurturing of the organization’s most valuable asset—its trainers and scientists—is likely to have a profound influence on the overall health and productivity of the research institution. Smart institutions will seize the opportunity to develop meaningful training paradigms to give their organizations a competitive edge.
Additionally, trimming training might not be the best option from a public relations standpoint. It is difficult enough to justify the use of animals in experiments, but to then cut training budgets that prompted high standards of animal care is inviting unwelcomed scrutiny not only by animal activist groups but also by federal and funding agencies.