I've been thinking a lot about this topic, and trying to put my brain power behind how to fix it. Whatever we are doing, isn't working. But here are a couple of things I think:

1. The best way to learn is the traditional way. In person, required reading, consequences for not grasping the subject matter.

2. On the Job training is central to the proper application of the rules and concepts that are taught in the traditional manner. It has to be prioritized inside each contracting shop.

Is it just that simple?

8 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

The best way to learn is the traditional way. In person, required reading, consequences for not grasping the subject matter.

I agree with this part: "In person, required reading..."

Add: and discussion among other readers of the same material.

Delete the part about "consequences for not grasping the subject matter". That's too high school.

8 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

The best way to learn is the traditional way

I think there is a missing link. The tradition of experiential learning where CO's/1102's actually got up from behind the desk and visited job sites of all kinds to see and understand their contracts and the relationships they did or did not form.

I know people want "maximum flexibilities" in all things work, but I am 100% on board with required in-person training. Gone are the days where after class we would get together and discuss homework. This usually led to further discussions and was fascinating to learn how offices work differently, even though we all have the same guiding laws and principles (for the most part). It forged relationships across Agencies and departments. Think of how many people still talk about a Vern Edwards led FAR Bootcamp course and how it set them up for success because of the way he challenged his students to grasp the basics. Now it's just crickets or the same two people answering everything because they just want the instructor to move the class forward since nobody else is talking. That's not meant to be a shot at DAU professors, but instead at where we are as a learning community.

We don't have leaders though who are willing to force a return to in-person training because of the costs. Instead we would rather waste money on new desks and chairs for the second time in five years.

In person training is already required depending where you're at. 10 weeks of classes in some cases.

In person training can't make up for poor processes (regulatory or artificial/institutional.) and you can only blame the individual rather than the system for so long ,especially when the quality of personnel will only likely decrease as the trend of anti-curiosity continues.

Sending instructors to the students, in locations where most of attending students would not require travel expenses, would be a superior option to distance training, in my opinion.

True, when students are homogeneous, there wouldn’t be the same amount of interaction and cross-talk between students from different organizations or localities.

However, the in-class interactions and synergies are much more effective for both instructors and those students who are serious about the training topics than isolated, on-line learning, with all of the distractions and reduced student accountability.

There should still be some opportunities made available for some students from out of town or different local organizations in Urban areas to fill the classes.

But travel costs could be greatly reduced and still provide the advantages of in-person, face to face training.

Of course, I’m a dinosaur who doesn’t believe that teleworking or “telelearning” improves organizational efficiency or promotes high performance.

---

After I retired, I was a rehired annuitant for a decade, mostly working from home, on a highly important National and International Army program I had been on when I retired. I didn’t have a mandated, regular work schedule. I was only paid for the actual hours worked.

I had to submit time sheets bi-weekly. Being conscientious, I kept detailed daily notes of those hours worked and what I worked on for my timesheets. I didn’t charge for breaks, distractions, other activities, etc. But I made myself available with in my waking hours to Corps of Engineers offices/persons across many time zones. Those are advantages of not having a prescribed telework schedule for an honest, experienced employee.

However, I could easily have falsified my timesheets, if I had been on a mandated work schedule. There are many distractions to a work life from home.

I also missed the synergies of in-person, face-to-face human contact.

9 minutes ago, Self Employed said:

In person training can't make up for poor processes (regulatory or artificial/institutional.) and you can only blame the individual rather than the system for so long ,especially when the quality of personnel will only likely decrease as the trend of anti-curiosity continues.

Emphasis added.

See: Madhu, et al., "Work Curiosity As An Indicator of Employee Innovation", Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (2018)

https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1810A45.pdf

Quote: "Success starts in the mind."

The archaic business processes that focus on procurement-related reviews and approvals tend to beat the curiosity out of even the most curious younger employees. I have found that when a curious employee points out an issue, the higher-ups either ignore it, or laugh it off. It could be a glaring problem, but rarely are these problems addressed. The curious employee then packs it up after 4 years and moved to the private sector, never to be a fed again.

On 11/13/2025 at 9:06 AM, Motorcity said:

The archaic business processes that focus on procurement-related reviews and approvals tend to beat the curiosity out of even the most curious younger employees. I have found that when a curious employee points out an issue, the higher-ups either ignore it, or laugh it off. It could be a glaring problem, but rarely are these problems addressed. The curious employee then packs it up after 4 years and moved to the private sector, never to be a fed again.

That or are demoralized when the “senior” person can’t explain or answer the question and just defaults to “that’s how we do it”

The problem today is that the professional 1102 is caught between an organizational culture that does not value his/her skillsets. On the one hand we get told to take risks, lean forward, use sound judgement and business acumen, but on the other we are reduced to clerks who are told to rinse and repeat. Go to GSA and buy off the schedule because thats what GSA is for. We’re in a world where we are in CRs for atleast the first 1/3 of the FY if we are lucky then it’s a mad scramble to get everything awarded and the measure is not did we meet the requirement and achieve a successful outcome, no the measure of success is did we meet PALT and by the time we figure out if the delivery was made or the service was executed to expectations we are already so focused on the next urgent action we have no time to figure out what worked well and what didn’t and do more of the good and less of the bad.