[TWControls]

So I was checking out new links HERE and noticed a link had been added to Ron Beauforts Work page. Has anyone looked at the training courses? As soon as things calm down here at work I'm going to look into sending a few of my guys to his Guerrilla Boot Camp.

Think about it as excellent as his lessons are here at MrPlc can you imagine how informative his class would be?

[Ken Moore]

I'm sure his classes are great.
Plus, you get your money back if you don't like it.

[geniusintraining]

I've check into it for myself, once I finish the merger/buyout…I plan on attending myself, I like the fact that you can customize the classes to your needs (boy if Ron only new my needs…he may have second thoughts), I have attended a few Rockwell classes, they were good but they wasted some time covering some stuff that I know I will never use.



If he can answer the question there in his class like he can on the web then it would be money well spent for any company.

[Bob O]

I went to Ron’s class and it is well worth the money. I have never had any formal training on PLC and just his method of predicting program flow with 1’s and 0’s made the class worth while. Some may already know this stuff but to me it was well worth it and this was just the first day of class.

Every night I left class I was mentally drained more so then normal.

I highly recommend his class.



Hope this helps,

Bob O

[Ron Beaufort]

Greetings to all,

and thank you for the kind compliments ...

This post has been edited by Ron Beaufort: 11 July 2006 - 05:24 PM

[ssommers]

Ron - I hope you're not the last of a dying breed.

I've spent about 15 yrs informally schooling electricians in PLCs so I can stay off the floor & into designing new machines. Management will never have time to get these guys into a formal class, so I turn every PLC installation/upgrade into a mini class. Teaching thru doing just makes sense to me. After all, we've got a problem to solve (wiring, sensor, process, etc) and a machine to get back on-line. I love it when they have that AHA moment! I know I remember better if I do it than if someone tells me how to do it. Besides, it keeps those 3am emergency calls to a minimum.

Keep it up Ron!

[TWControls]

Bob O, on Jul 2 2006, 07:45 PM, said:

I went to Ron's class and it is well worth the money. I have never had any formal training on PLC and just his method of predicting program flow with 1's and 0's made the class worth while. Some may already know this stuff but to me it was well worth it and this was just the first day of class.

Every night I left class I was mentally drained more so then normal.

I highly recommend his class.

Hope this helps,

Bob O

What was your experience level before Ron's class? I have some guys with enough computer experience to get around and no PLC experience.

[Bob O]

TWControls,

I still think of myself as a novice but I have taught myself [ No one to turn to at work] with a lot of help from this site and Phil’s about RSView32 and have placed 35 plus ML1500 on our network, weight control applications using a 5/03 with the Hardy Waver Saver along with reporting in MS Access for our external customers. I have also done a number of small things around the plant and the vision systems that I am currently installing more of and trying to work with VB.


I have been attempting to learn all this since 2003.


If my ramblings haven’t answered your question please let me know and I will try again.


Hope this helps,Bob

[Ron Beaufort]

Greetings to all ...



first let me explain my "now you see it – now you don't" edits to post #5 ...



I always make it a point to read this excellent MrPLC forum at least once or twice a day, so naturally I came across this thread concerning my classes which had been started by TWControls ... I appreciated the compliments and comments from TWControls, Ken Moore, geniusintraining, and Bob O, so I posted a "thank you" note ... and then I went on to continue the general topic of the thread – which, of course, was a discussion of the PLC training classes that I teach ... a day or so later, I got to thinking that perhaps my additional comments could be interpreted as nothing more than self-serving "advertising" ... that was definitely NOT my intention ... throughout all of my postings on this (and on other forums) I've never tried to hide the fact that I do PLC training for a living ... but I've also tried to keep "advertising" in its proper place ... so although no one had said anything to me (either in public or in private) I decided to edit my rather lengthy post and remove everything except the "thank you" note ... since making that edit, I've received a very nice PM from one of the forum administrators who has assured me that my original comments were not really "over-the-advertising-line" but were considered to be just an informational continuation of the topic being discussed ... I sincerely appreciate that ... and with all of that in mind, I'd like to add the following to the discussion ...



let's consider designing a PLC training class from the ground up ...



for our students, we might decide to target engineers (who specify the PLC equipment to match the requirements of a certain job) ... we might target programmers (who write the ladder logic code for specific applications) ... or we might target all of the maintenance technicians who will eventually work on the machinery controlled by the PLC ... now since we're obviously trying to make a profit by selling this training, where should we concentrate our efforts? ... consider that once the equipment has been specified and installed – and once the program has been written and debugged – then the engineers and the programmers are pretty well out of the picture ... they move on to other projects ... but the maintenance technicians are generally always around ... and from a purely profit-motivated standpoint, consider this: for each single engineer – and for each single programmer – there are several times as many maintenance technicians working in this field ... so by targeting the technicians, we can instantly multiply our pool of potential customers ... and certainly those technicians will need training in order to understand the PLC ... so let's target the technicians as our "mainstream" students ... of course we won't chase the engineers and the programmers away if they happen to show up on our doorstep, but let's design the core material of our training for the maintenance technicians ...



now let's set the "broad-brush" objectives of the course ... specifically, what benefit would a student hope to gain by taking this course? ... since we're dealing with maintenance technicians, I'd suggest this:



"The primary objective is to minimize equipment downtime by improving each student's knowledge of PLCs and by developing effective troubleshooting and problem-solving skills."



and yes, that's "right out of the book" – but frankly I couldn't come up with any other way to say it and still get the same point across ...



next let's decide what skills our students will need once they finish the class and return to the plant ... in other words, what specific topics should we teach in order to meet our stated objectives? ... here's a partial (a very partial) list just to continue the discussion ... and this is listed in no particular "priority" order:



(1) how to go online with the PLC ...

(2) how to interpret the "true" and "false" indications on the ladder display screen ...

(3) how to track input signals and output signals through the ladder logic program ...

(4) how to force inputs and outputs ... and more importantly, WHEN (and when NOT) to force inputs and outputs ...

(5) how to confirm the addresses of field devices when the online documentation is either missing or incorrect ...

(6) how to wire inputs and outputs to the PLC – and how to troubleshoot problems in the existing wiring ...

(7) how to access fault codes and reset processor faults ...

(8) how to download and upload PLC programs ...

(9) how to interpret both indirect and indexed addressing ...

(10) safety concerns when using latches vs. seal-in techniques ...



personally, I'd feel very uncomfortable in deleting any one of these "basic" skills - and this sample list is obviously by NO means complete ... but let's use these for our discussion and move on ... all of these topics that I've just listed are what I personally consider to be "Level 1" skills ... now here are a couple of skills from what I consider to be "Level 2" ...



(11) how to process analog signals such as 4 to 20 milliamp inputs and outputs ...

(12) how to use math functions to scale those analog signals ...



and other topics along the same lines ... now some people might consider these "Level 2" skills to be "advanced" material ... maybe so ... but in some cases the word "advanced" is taken to imply "optional" ... personally, I've got a problem with that ... consider that if a technician is ever required to work with analog signals, then these "advanced/optional" topics quickly - and definitely - become "advanced/required" material for his education ...



and now we come to a critical point in our "design-a-course" discussion ...



it's tempting to just keep listing more and more "topics" until we feel that we've nailed down all of the basics ... and then we might start gathering up the material that we'd need to present to the students in order to cover all of those topics ... in other words, we could proceed to merely "transfer information" and consider that to be "providing training" ... in my carefully considered opinion, that approach would leave a critical element out of the picture ... take a quick look back at our "course objectives" statement ... what about those "troubleshooting and problem-solving" skills? ...



in most (ALL?) of my discussions with plant maintenance managers over the years, this one topic has come up repeatedly (EVERY time?) ... "problem-solving" appears to be a nearly universal short-coming ... now yes, there ARE technicians out there who are GOOD at solving problems ... but for every GOOD problem-solver, there are many, many more technicians who have little or no natural talent for this critical job skill ... managers and supervisors have told me over and over:



"Even my workers who KNOW the material can't seem to use it for troubleshooting – simply because they can't THINK their way through a problem by themselves. Can you please teach my people how to THINK?"



well, since this seems to be a VERY common need, let's see if we can design our new PLC training course to address it ... how would we go about teaching "problem-solving skills" in a classroom? ... first let's look at how we can NOT do it ... in my carefully considered opinion, you can NOT teach "problem-solving" skills without exposing the students to "problems" ... and going further, you can NOT simply expose the students to problems and expect them to miraculously learn problem-solving skills ... specifically, you've GOT to coach them through a systematic approach to tackling the problem – and then through the steps required to work out a solution ...



here's a quick overview of just one method (one out of many) that I personally use for teaching "problem-solving" skills ...



first, I present a situation which I've carefully designed to introduce a specific problem ... I make sure that each and every student sees and comprehends the problem ... then I coach the students into recognizing how this particular problem is SIMILAR to other problems that they're already familiar with ... and I also coach them into recognizing how this specific problem is DIFFERENT from other problems ... in other words, I insist that the students "relate" this new problem to concepts with which they are already familiar ... the main objective here is to avoid providing little "stand-alone" pieces of random information ... instead, I want the student to recognize the relationship of one problem to another ... this not only helps with solving the problem at hand, but it also builds and extends a mental framework which helps the student remember the problem – and its solution ... and most importantly, having this "relational framework" will help the student solve additional problems in the future ...



after the problem has been fully presented, I start coaching the students through a systematic approach to a solution ... I discourage "hunches" even when they're correct – unless the student has some specific reason for making that particular guess ... in cases where an answer has a 50-50 chance of being correct, I ask pointed "why?" or "why not?" questions to weed out the element of "lucky breaks" ... if this particular exercise involves all of the students in the class, I often go to the classroom whiteboard and sketch a "scoreboard" with each student's name - and I mark down each student's answer for all to see ... students are encouraged (in some cases, forced) to discuss why they think their particular answers are correct ... changing the final "scoreboard" answer is perfectly acceptable (but only right up to the last moment, of course) – and some students can be quite persuasive in talking others into joining their personal point of view ... at times I'll even take a shot at coming up with an answer myself ... in these cases I'm usually playing the "devil's advocate" - and no matter how much "common sense" my arguments might make, the students quickly learn to be very suspicious of my answers ... in this classroom, the instructor is quite frequently "wrong" ...



naturally it takes quite a lot of "personality guidance" to keep this part of the proceedings from getting out of hand ... the best classes are those in which all of the students accept the challenge as a type of "game" and join in the friendly competition of seeing "who's-right-and-who's-wrong" ... the class I just finished teaching last week was a common example ... my boss and the guys who work down the hall kept coming over and closing the classroom door ... they said that it sounded more like my students and I were watching the Super Bowl than learning PLCs ...



during this "find a solution" phase, it's important to let the students experiment – but only up to a point ... one or two steps in the wrong direction is fine ... anything more means that I have to start coaching the students back "on track" ... once in awhile a student with a strong "I'd-rather-do-it-all-by-myself" personality will consider this "coaching" to be more of an "annoyance" than a help ... the objective though, of course, is to have the student develop a SYSTEMATIC approach to solving the problem – and not allow him to simply "hunt-and-peck" until a solution finally presents itself ... I'll often ask questions such as "why did you go there?" ... the obvious "for-no-particular-reason" answer will usually encourage the student to put more thought into deciding his next logical step toward a solution ...



with some "gung-ho" students it becomes a constant challenge to slow them down and force them to concentrate on the "system" of finding a problem ... in many cases, the student just wants to skip ahead and nail down the "answer" ... but in my classes, the "ANSWER" is always secondary to the "SYSTEM" of finding the solution ... here's a quick example:



suppose that we're trying to find the reason why the output in the top rung shown below won't turn on ...







the answer probably has something to do with the timer T4:0 ... now the student KNOWS for a fact that the TON for T4:0 is located on the very next rung up in his program listing ... he knows this because he entered the program himself yesterday ... so as I watch over his shoulder, the student naturally starts to scroll the screen upward to check on the timer ... STOP ... that's not allowed in this particular exercise ... instead, I make the student right-click and do a "Find All" search on the address T4:0/DN ... this "first step" in the search operation doesn't find the TON for T4:0 (because the search is too restrictive) ... so now I make the student edit the "Quick Search" text box at the top of the screen – and remove the "/DN" bit designator from the original address ... the next "Find All" search finds everything associated with T4:0 – including the TON that we want to check on ...



now some students naturally get caught up in the task of "fixing" the problem ... they often find these "extra steps" truly frustrating and consider them to be a big waste of time ... but the point of the exercise is that we won't always be lucky enough to know exactly where the timer is located ... by learning the "system" now, we're making sure that we'll be able to quickly locate the timer in the future – no matter how large and complicated the program listing might be ... so in this exercise – like all of the others – the student is forced to put some "thought" into each step of the process ...



this simple little exercise is an important one to a technician who needs to quickly find his way through a complicated program ... but even though the step-by-step "search" procedure is important, it's the "thought" that goes into finding the solution that really makes the exercise worthwhile ...



and that "THOUGHT" idea brings us to the single most important concept in the teaching method that I use ... specifically, everything that I do – from start to finish – is intended to keep each and every student constantly THINKING! ... the students aren't just "DOING" – they're being forced to "THINK" about what they're doing ... that one idea marks the major difference between the classes that I teach and many other technical training classes ...

Quote

side trip: I'm certainly not self-centered enough to suggest that I am the only instructor on the face of the planet who uses this "keep-the-students-thinking" approach ... and quite probably there are other instructors out there who do a better job of this than I do ... if so, I'd really like to know who they are ... I'd love to be able to shoot the breeze with them for awhile and just compare notes ...

and now, just for this discussion, here's a brief preview of how my five-day PLC classes begin ... I spend the first ten minutes of Monday morning explaining where the restrooms are located and other such necessary "logistical" items ... I also nail down one cardinal rule for the rest of the class: when the instructor is wrong, the students are required to correct him ... most instructors don't like to be corrected ... I demand it ...



once the logistics are out of the way, each student immediately starts copying the "walk-through" program from his lab book into the PLC at his workstation ... the "walk-through" is just a "getting started" sample program which contains about fifteen rungs of timers, counters, seal-ins, comparisons, and most of the other "common" instructions that make up a PLC program ... now realize that some of the students in this class might already have quite a bit of previous hands-on experience ... but other students might have absolutely NONE ... and notice that there have been no prior lectures or PowerPoint slide shows to tell these "green-recruit" students how to proceed with this "program entry" exercise ... so what do they do if they're completely lost? ... they wait and they listen ... I quickly make the rounds of the room and look over each shoulder ... the students who are clicking away continue to click ... those that are stalled get a quick word or two of instruction ... something like this:



there's the "new rung" icon ... click it and drag it down to the target ... make the target turn green and drop the rung into place ... next you need one of these "open contact" things ... click it and drag it down and drop it onto the target ... now type in the address and hit the "Enter" key ... now do the "output" ... now add the next rung ...



it's always amazing how quickly they see the recurring pattern and start working "on-their-own" ... where many instructors spend an hour or more of "lecture" time "teaching" the students how to enter the ladder program, I've spent only a few minutes of "lab" time and gotten the same (if not better) results ... the fastest students will usually have the program entered within about ten or fifteen minutes ... then they get to experiment (and PLAY) with their program's operation while the rest catch up ... even the slowest student will be done in about twenty or thirty minutes ... any typographical errors which the students have made in their programs are left in place ... we'll come back to troubleshoot and correct those later in the class ...



once the "walk-through" has been entered, I start explaining how the program actually functions ... this is done using straightforward nuts-and-bolts terms ... nothing is "watered down" or simplified to a "beginner-level" ... from the very beginning, I incorporate the concepts of the processor's "scan sequence" into the discussion ... I nail down a simple "1-2-3-step" method of analyzing how the program will execute ... the first two rungs of the "walk-through" are designed to illustrate how the XIC, XIO, and OTE instructions function ... once those basic concepts have been covered, it's time for our first "curve ball" lesson ... the timer and counter rungs will just have to wait ... I've got a "light-box" demo connected to the PLC on my instructor's station ... basically it's just four toggle switches and two lamp bulbs ... I enter the following program and fully demonstrate its operation ...




attachment


based on what the students have already learned, this program gives us no surprises ... obviously when "SWITCH_A" is turned on, "LAMP_E" and "LAMP_F" will both come on ... even the students with ZERO previous experience get this one right ... and now we enter the middle rung shown below – and things start getting a little bit confusing ... and in many cases, the students who have the most prior experience are the ones who become the most confused ...



attachment


that new rung in the middle gives us something serious to talk about ... first of all, it's VERY uncommon to see an "input" like "SWITCH_A" being controlled as an "output" ... and some students will call "foul-and-poor-form" when they see me enter it this way ... but the point of the exercise is this: if you can explain – in simple nuts-and-bolts terms - exactly how these three rungs work, then you've demonstrated that you have a pretty good grasp on how the processor executes its program ... and conversely, if you CAN'T explain this, then it becomes rather obvious that your understanding of the processor's scan sequence is faulty ... so YES, this is "weird" ... and NO, we are NOT going to see programs written this way in the field very often ... (actually – probably NEVER) ... but most people will agree that an understanding of the processor's scan sequence is highly useful information ... and most students just can't wait to see what's going to happen when I finally start flipping those two switches on and off ...



and here's our first question ... suppose that I leave "SWITCH_B" OFF, but I turn "SWITCH_A" ON ... what will happen to the two lamps? ... as the instructor, I start the discussion out this way:



we've already discussed – and demonstrated - the first rung which controls "LAMP_E" ... it worked perfectly before we added the middle rung ... we haven't touched it or changed it in any way ... so I expect it to continue to control "LAMP_E" just like it did before ...



also ... we've already discussed – and demonstrated - the last rung which controls "LAMP_F" ... it worked perfectly before we added the middle rung ... we haven't touched it or changed it in any way ... so I expect it to continue to control "LAMP_F" just like it did before ...



now I'm not sure about that "weirdness" on the middle rung – but I do know a "good" rung when I see one ... and the rung for "LAMP_E" is a "good" rung ... and the rung for "LAMP_F" is a "good" rung ... in fact, those two "good" rungs are IDENTICAL except for the addresses of the two lamps ... so whatever the processor does with "LAMP_E" on the top rung, it will have to do exactly the same thing with "LAMP_F" on the last rung ... therefore, when I turn on "SWITCH_A", I think that "LAMP_E" and "LAMP_F" will both turn on ...



having started the discussion, I now start asking the students – one at a time – for their opinion on what's going to happen when I finally get around to turning on "SWITCH_A" ... most will jump on board with the instructor ... once in awhile someone might guess that the processor will fault ... very few (if any) will come up with the correct answer ...



by this time I've got the rungs – and the inputs – and the outputs - all sketched on the whiteboard ... and now I select a "volunteer" to go up to the board and "analyze" the program using the "1-2-3-step" method that we covered a few minutes ago during the "walk-through" ... usually the volunteer I select is the student who has made the biggest error in forecasting the results ... as he works through the process, the analysis shows that "LAMP_E" will come on – but "LAMP_F" will stay off ... (note: this works for the PLC-5 and SLC-500 classes ... the results are different in the ControlLogix class ... but that's another story) ...



and so the analysis shows that the instructor is wrong ... by now they REALLY want me to go ahead and flip that switch and just put them out of their misery ... but instead I use another way of describing the expected outcome ...



first I point to the OTE for "SWITCH_A" on the middle rung and say: it makes absolutely no sense to try to "control" an INPUT address with an OUTPUT instruction ... and so this middle rung will have no effect on the operation of the program ... specifically, this rung is a "dud" – and that leaves us with only the other two rungs to worry about ...



then I point to the XIC for "SWITCH_A" on the first rung and say something along these lines: this "Examine If Closed" instruction examines a switch for an ON condition ... "SWITCH_A" will clearly be ON – so the XIC will test TRUE ... and the "Output Energize" instruction for "LAMP_E" will turn on the output ... so "LAMP_E" will definitely come on ...



next I point to the XIC for "SWITCH_A" on the last rung and say: this "Examine If Closed" instruction examines a switch for an ON condition ... and again, "SWITCH_A" will clearly be ON – so the XIC will test TRUE ... and the Output Energize instruction for "LAMP_F" will turn on the output ... and so "LAMP_F" will definitely come on ...



and so once again, regardless of the "analysis" the students have just worked through, the instructor is telling them in very convincing terms that "LAMP_E" and "LAMP_F" will BOTH light up when "SWITCH_A" is turned on ... and both methods that I've used to describe the outcome seem to make PERFECT sense ...



and now with all the bets placed, we finally flip "SWITCH_A" to the on position ... "LAMP_E" lights up ... "LAMP_F" stays off ...



this completely boggles the minds of some of the students – particularly those who came into the class with the most previous experience ... what they've just discovered in the very first hour of a five-day class is that their customary way of interpreting the program execution is WRONG ... specifically, the "examines-a-switch-for-an-on-condition" explanation for an XIC that other people have taught them is WRONG ... the "controls-an-output" explanation for an OTE that other people have taught them is also WRONG ... some students have been taught that "an XIC works just like a switch" – and that "an OTE works just like a coil" ... WRONG and WRONG again ... some students have been taught "since all of the rungs in the program get executed before the outputs are finally controlled, the top-to-bottom order of the rungs doesn't really matter" ... this is also WRONG ...



the results of this simple three-rung experiment can be used to PROVE conclusively that all of those commonly taught "explanations" are definitely WRONG – and that the "1-2-3-step" analysis that I've offered is indeed CORRECT ... I teach this simple method of analysis in every class, and I'm sure that this is what Bob O was talking about when he said:

Quote

... just his method of predicting program flow with 1's and 0's made the class worthwhile ... and this was just the first day ...

over the years I've seen many people who have hit something like a "brick wall" in their efforts to fully master PLCs ... they're "good" – but they can't seem to get any "better" ... in most cases this limitation is caused by their failure to completely understand the core concepts of how the processor actually scans and executes its ladder logic program ... the truth is that many PLC training classes try to simplify and "water down" these fundamental concepts to such a degree that the material being taught is actually incorrect ... but let's move on ...



next we continue our "light box" exercise by turning "SWITCH_B" on ... then we turn "SWITCH_A" off ... then we turn "SWITCH_B" back off again ... at each and every step I insist on a full "on-the-board" analysis to forecast how the program is going to execute – before we flip the switch ... and over-and-over again, the students prove to themselves that the "1-2-3-step" analysis is always correct – regardless of what I (the instructor) or anybody else has to say about the expected outcome ... specifically, common sense does NOT always work – until (and unless) you fully understand the underlying principles ...



and now the most important part of all of this ... at this point, just one hour into the five-day class, I now have the FULL UNDIVIDED ATTENTION of each and every student in the classroom ... instead of the dreary lecture on PLCs that they expected, I'm giving them a GAME – a competition – a challenge – to see who can be the first student to nail down the next "weird" idea to come along ... and I've got a lot more "curve ball" programs to keep things interesting ... the students aren't just "listening" – they're "THINKING" ... and they already understand that they've got to keep right on thinking in order to make it through this class ... just sitting back and listening won't cut it here ...



Bob O obviously had this "constant thinking" requirement in mind when he wrote his first post above ...

Quote

... every night I left the class I was mentally drained ...

that's the part that makes my courses so "intense" and "demanding" ... almost every student mentions this – but no one actually complains about it ... compared to many other training classes that they've attended, they actually enjoy the mental stimulation that they get from this teaching method ...



so that's a somewhat simplified example of our first real "problem/solution" exercise ... going forward, most of the problems that we'll run into during the rest of the week will be much more "practical" in nature ... why won't this output come on when we push the button? ... why won't this timer function? ... why won't this output stay "sealed-in" when we release the start button? ... from simple examples like these, we'll develop a systematic approach that will help in solving much more complex problems back in the field ... and throughout the week we'll keep coming back and making use of that same "1-2-3-step" analysis of the processor's scan sequence that we covered Monday morning before lunch ...



when we started out with this discussion, we were designing a PLC training course from the ground up ... let's get back to that exercise for one last consideration: scheduling ...



if you look back at that partial list of topics that we mentioned earlier, you'll quickly realize that we're going to have to include a LOT of material in this course ... so how much time do we actually have available? ... when you get right down to it, one week – Monday through Friday – is pretty much the "engraved-in-stone" limit ... since many of my customers have to travel from out of town, anything more than one week would involve an extra over-the-weekend stay in a hotel ... most employers won't go for that ... in addition, giving up an employee's time away from the plant for more than one week at a stretch is usually out of the question ... so – one week is the limit – and we're lucky to get that much time ...



so can we cover it all in just one week? ... not usually ... regardless of what we'd like to believe, all students are NOT created equal ... some have more previous experience before they show up for the class ... some have more "bad habits" to "unlearn" than others ... some are just better suited mentally for this type of work than others ... some are more motivated ... some just don't sleep well in a hotel room and they show up groggy each morning ... and so on and so on ... we're dealing with people here - and not with machines ... but regardless of how well each individual student does in the class, in one full week we should be able to send every single one of them away a LOT better off than they were when they first showed up ...



the key to accomplishing this "better-than-they-were" objective is to keep each and every student fully challenged and actively thinking throughout the entire class ... there are a couple of items that can help with this ... first, keep the class size small ... six students is my maximum limit ... second, have plenty of extra troubleshooting and problem-solving exercises available for any students who are able to "finish early" ... they shouldn't be forced to sit around waiting on the slower students to catch up before moving on to another exercise ...



notice that in a traditional "lecture/lab" class, this "keep-every-student-busy" approach is usually impossible to accomplish ... invariably the instructor is forced to lecture at a level suitable for the lowest common denominator ... specifically, the lecture material must be geared to the needs of the slowest students – or else they'll be left behind ... consequently, the faster students are penalized – and they quickly become bored and inattentive ... on the other hand, my "problem/solution" teaching method allows me to keep each individual student working – and thinking – and learning – at his optimum level ...



and now a word to ssommers ... I appreciate your reply – and I'm completely in agreement with everything you said ... and in particular, with your statement:

Quote

After all, we've got a problem to solve (wiring, sensor, process, etc.) and a machine to get back on-line.

and that's precisely my point ... having that on-the-job "problem to solve" in front of them forces your "students" to become actively involved in learning the material ... my biggest concern is that many "off-site" PLC training classes don't seem to incorporate any "problem-solving" skills at all ... instead they seem to concentrate solely on the transfer of raw "here's-how-everything-is-SUPPOSED-to-work" information which the students are expected to somehow miraculously retain – and then instinctively apply to the problems they encounter in the future ... I've run across the satirical phrases "talking-is-teaching" and "listening-is-learning" somewhere in my research ... my experience has shown that this traditional approach to technical training doesn't work very well for most students – particularly for the maintenance technician types who invariably prefer to "learn-by-doing" ...



in closing, I'd like to mention that my boss takes care of all of the advertising and marketing issues for my PLC classes ... he's the one who comes up with descriptions like "Guerilla Boot Camp" and other things along those lines ... frankly, I don't have that type of imagination ... if you're anything like me, then you generally don't enjoy being "advertised to" ... but from a realistic viewpoint, if the salesmen don't "sell" then the workers don't "work" – and no one gets paid ...



in a way, I have been very hesitant to join the discussion in this particular thread – since any remarks that I make here are likely to appear "close to" - if not "completely over" - the advertising line ... on the other hand, it seems that I should contribute something to the discussion since I obviously have the inside track on what my classes have been designed to accomplish ... I sincerely hope that I've provided enough useful information here - and enough detail – to prevent this post from coming off as simply an effort at empty "advertising" ... if anyone feels that this post is "out-of-line" then please let me know ... I'll be glad to remove it ...

Attached image(s)

• 
• 

[PdL]

....



Congratulations, you have just been awarded the -longest post on MrPLC.com ever award!-

When I find the time I will read it through and be happy to reply. In about a week or so... (whuhaha)

Serious now, by the way you write I can tell you have good teaching skills. It reads away just as easy as a good book and I can imagine your courses being very interesting and practical. Too bad my boss won't be happy with an Atlantic ticket under the "expenses" column...

I wish this was SPAM!

[TWControls]

Wow, I thought the post 5 was thorough

I will have to agree with PDL . I think that is the longest post I have ever seen on any forum, but it is great information.

Now just give me to the end of the week to read it and another few days for it to sink in , then I will be back with questions

Thanks for elaborating again Ron

[ToddM]

WOW!!!....I wish Ron would write a book, I'd buy it,steal it, borrow it or whatever. Great job as usual Ron.

Later...Todd

[panic mode]

you mean he didn't write any book yet? after so many long posts here?
in time somebody is going to compile his existing posts...

[gravitar]

Forget books, someone needs to perfect the cloning process and sell Ron clones. Of course, all the rest of us would be out of a job the next day!

[Sleepy Wombat]

Ron, firstly thank-you for your numerous contributions to the forum. I enjoy the reading and the education from them.

I read your original posting #5 and this one, as always it is clear that that you have a passion for educating others and more importantly teaching one to think and do. The ability to teach a student self reliance and the thinking process is unfortuanatley rare in a mentor.

I am seeing a lot of the old guard retirring from the old school of thought and I fear for the next generation in that I beleive that todays guys are probably more technically smart, however they lack the pratical smarts.

As was mentioned where is the cloning tool for another Ron...so we can have one in Oz as well !

A special mention to chako who also takes on the role of mentoring robotic students...

[TWControls]

So I have now had time to read your post about 5 times and I believe that it is beginning to sink in.


I have came up with a few questions and I know with some of them you may feel I am asking you to look into a crystal ball. I am not looking for a positive answer on these, just what you may have found in the past. I am going to have to find training classes to send people to on everything from controls to hydraulics to machining and just wanted your opinion on these things. Obviously from a Plc training point of view since that is what you teach.


1. Who makes a better student (who leaves with a better understanding)? A person who knows just a little about computers but is excellent at troubleshooting machines or a person who is knowledgeable in computers but knows little about troubleshooting machines?


2. Will a student be able to take what he or she has learned in your class and bring it back and share the methods with others or is this something that is not going to click without your personal instruction? Now I am not asking this one to save money, this is more of an issue that we are very strapped for manpower right now. Like I said I am working on several training programs and I am hoping to send different people to different classes to strengthen them in certain areas but I also wish for them to be able to share what they have learned with the others. We are very lean here, we don't have individual mechanical, electrical, and controls departments. We must all work together and be capable of doing all task.


Actually I am going to stop here for now. It's late, I'm tired, and if I ask too many questions at one time it will take another 4 days to fully comprehend your reply.

Thanks
TW

[Ron Beaufort]

Greetings TWControls ...



you asked a couple of questions ... I'll do my best to answer them ...

Quote

1. Who makes a better student (who leaves with a better understanding)? A person who knows just a little about computers but is excellent at troubleshooting machines or a person who is knowledgeable in computers but knows little about troubleshooting machines?

all other things being equal, I'd say that the person who starts out as an "excellent troubleshooter" is going to come out on top ...



of course computer skills are helpful – but still it's quite possible to handle my classes with just the basics such as double-click, right-click, click-and-drag, and things like that ... specifically, touch-typing is NOT required ... but then again, too much time spent hunting around for the "I" and the "O" keys is going to present a serious problem when it comes to typing in addresses ... luckily most people these days work with computers enough to know where most of the keys are located on the keyboard ...



but as long as we're on the "who-makes-the-best-student?" subject, here's one way to help a lot of them get much more from the class ... get their eyes checked before they come down ... to be honest with you, one of the biggest problems that I've been running into lately is "poor eyesight" ... it seems that more and more of my students are having a hard time just reading their computer screens ... have you noticed how small the text is on some of the RSLogix icons? ... the people who really (choose one) amuse/annoy/entertain/frustrate me the most are the ones who bring their "reading glasses" to class – and then can't decide whether it's better to keep them on – or to leave them off – while they continuously squint at the screen ...



here's something "eyesight related" that I keep a constant lookout for ... I call it the "fuzzy mouse" condition ...



attachment




when you see a student continuously position the mouse like the picture on the right, it USUALLY means that the mouse looks more like a "fuzzy white blob" on the screen – rather than like a sharp little pointy thing ... smart money says that the student really needs a new pair of glasses ... now that might not seem like a big issue in the picture above – because as long as the "target" box is green, then the mouse is "close enough" to work ...



but here's just one place where the "fuzzy mouse" could possibly turn into a safety issue ...



attachment


notice that the highlighted bit on the "Force Table" has the address O:003/12 ... but suppose that the student doesn't click the bit and then read the address (the way he's been told to do) ... instead, he floats the mouse over the bit and just reads the address from the handy little popup "Tool Tip" ... oops! ... since the "bad eyesight" student has the mouse pointer positioned just ONE PIXEL too high, the "Tool Tip" is showing the address of the bit in the next row up ... depending on what the student is going to do with that address, we just might have some safety issues to talk about ...



but let's get back to your first question ... it sounds like you might be asking yourself "should I send Tom?" who can touch-type 60 words a minute ... or "should I send Jeff?" who can barely handle the "hunt-and-peck-one-finger" approach ...



consider this: wouldn't each one of them benefit from knowing things like the "nuts and bolts" type items that I listed in post #9 of this thread? ... if so, then make sure that "One-Finger-Jeff" can handle the "check list" of basic computer skills in the following F1008 course description before you send him to me ...

attachment

it's been several years now since I've had to sell anyone this "one-day-computer-crash-course" – but there used to be quite a market for it ... for an employer who had a plant full of computer-illiterate maintenance technicians, this was often the "first step" answer to bringing them up to speed on their PLC skills ...



hopefully I've answered your first question ... now for the next one ...

Quote

2. Will a student be able to take what he or she has learned in your class and bring it back and share the methods with others or is this something that is not going to click without your personal instruction?

now there's a "TEE BALL" question just begging to be knocked out of the park ...



I'd LOVE to be able to say "no ... without my own secret, special, personal, patented, magical, mystical approach to training, all of your people are doomed to a life of PLC ignorance" ...



but we all know better than that ...



let me just say this ... we start the class as soon after 8:00 A.M. as the rush-hour traffic will allow ... the only scheduled break is one hour (or less) for lunch ... we go as close to "non-stop" as possible until 5:00 P.M. – or later if we're on a roll ... at the end of each day, I ask the following question: "did we cover anything today that was trivial, useless, or not worth our time?" ... the answer has always been "no, it was ALL good stuff" ... so the point is that the class covers pretty close to 40 hours of continuous "learning-important-things-about-PLCs" material ...



now let's just suppose that the first student that you send me happens to be a human "sponge" who can soak up and retain every single nugget of knowledge that we cover throughout the entire five-day class ... my next question is this:



how quickly do you think Student-Number-One is going to be able to convey that same amount of useful information to all of your other technicians? ... even with a strong tailwind and a full bowl of Wheaties, the answer can't possibly be anything less than 40 hours ...



my point is that even if you COULD use the "one-student-brings-it-all-home" approach, that still might not be the most efficient, economical, and successful way to get all of your people trained ... but ... do NOT simply accept my opinion on this ... (obviously I have plenty of motive for convincing you to send every Tom, Dick, and Harry you have on hand) ... put me to the test ... send me just ONE student to try it out ... make it your hardest-to-impress "Top Gun" ... and if possible, send someone who's already been to other PLC training classes so that he can make a head-to-head comparison ... then have him (or her) come back and give you an unbiased opinion of whether this PLC training is really "DIFFERENT" enough to warrant sending the rest of your crew to take the course or not ...



and just in case you were pondering this – but were afraid to ask: I don't have any problem with students using tape recorders in the classroom ... just don't ask me to "slow down" while they change the tape ...



or consider this suggestion ...



my boss has used the following approach for one or two "I've-got-to-see-it-to-believe-it" customers in the past ... basically you get to send the first student "on approval" ... if you're not impressed, you won't have to ask for your money back – because the boss won't even invoice you ... at least not until you call up to schedule the rest of your people ... then if you want to send more, he'll bill you for the first one - and continue on from there ...



finally ... in my opinion this post does not come "close to the advertising line" ... actually it goes far over it ... but since TWControls is a forum administrator - and he's asked these questions on the open forum, I feel duty-bound to answer them in the same way ... but if anyone has any problem with this particular discourse, please rest assured that I would not be offended by having my comments removed ...

Attached image(s)

• 
• 

Attached File(s)

•  F1008_CS.pdf (108.99K)
  Number of downloads: 120

[TWControls]

Question 1 - I think our excellent troubleshooter would be the one. I will just have to make sure that he knows our alphabet (O,I,S,B,T,C,R,N,F - The other letters aren't important)

Question 2 - Point taken. I only have time for one right now but nothing says I can't send others later

And finally you are correct Ron. We started out as me just observing your link and commenting on it. But since then I have given serious thought to your courses and my last two question probably came very close if they did not push this over the line. It is still generalized questions since I must do training in a broad matter of subjects but you are one of the people in consideration now. We will continue this in private as soon as time permits.

Thanks
TW

[TWControls]

After a PM and some thinking I decided to open this topic back up. It was not right to close the topic since there is good information in it and others may wish to get in on the discussion and as Ron some questions.

But it is a service that Ron sells so I moved it to the "For Sale or Services Offered"

[PdL]

TWControls, on Jul 25 2006, 10:56 PM, said:

After a PM and some thinking I decided to open this topic back up. It was not right to close the topic since there is good information in it and others may wish to get in on the discussion and as Ron some questions.

But it is a service that Ron sells so I moved it to the "For Sale or Services Offered"

Happy to see this topic continued. Although I have only glanced at some AB programs - that doesn't matter, not really the subject IMHO. I have some colleagues also entering the PLC world and although I am also still learning every day, I have to teach them sometimes as well on a job. Not always because I have to, but I noticed I like to teach, and sometimes it even helps me put things in perspective.
Before I started doing jobs on my own and slowy becoming more independant I learned for a few years, have done some courses but the most I learned is by looking over the shoulder of our own company guru - glad I got the chance. He took me to jobs and I never asked everything at the spot, but observed everything he was doing and let it sink in for a moment. Saved things I didn't understand for future times. Connected field hardware and after wards monitoring along in the ladder.
Every once in a while I would ask small details. Never tried to understand all what I saw, just small things at a time. Later after I saw something several times these pieces started falling together. This learned me to observe, and to accept you can't understand things immediately. As a matter of fact, wanting to do so only works against you and destroys the concentration.

When teaching/explaining things to my colleagues, I notice myself how difficult it is to teach someone a particular thing, although you fully comprehend it yourself. Interpretation is one of many differences in persons.
Thinking I am explaining myself clearly and obviously but then I catch myself taking for granted someone else grasps something with the same ease/difficulty I do or did.

Ron, sounds to me your courses are priceless. Hope to attend one someday... In the mean time I will read the contributions in this topic with great interest!

Happy teaching

[JRoss]

Better late than never...

Ron, thank you so much for your openness and your willingness to share your methods. I work for a small distributor as Inside Applications Engineer. In a company of six, this means I do a lot of different things. But one of the duties is training.

We haven't done anything formal as of yet. Again, as a small company, we almost don't have a customer base big enough to fill classes, even small ones. And as a distributor, we aren't intending to make money on the training. We want the training to be more of a resource for our customers.

I am in the process of thinking through our training, and found your post very informative. Having attended many training sessions, I can comprehend the value of your methods, and I want to emulate that in my meager way. Though we sell Mitsubishi products, I think it would be worthwhile to attend your training, simply to see the approach in action, and get ideas for my curriculum. Not that I think my boss would want to send me... And I could use that approach on other products! Not just PLCs, but servo systems, VFDs, vision systems...

Two questions for you (or anybody listening):

1. Looking at it from a distributor's point of view, would it be better to provide training to the maintenance techs, or the engineers/programmers? We make our money by product sales, so which way would provide us with the best return on our investment?

2. Are there resources available that you have found valuable in developing your methods? If I am to build a curriculum from scratch, I need help!

Thanks again.

[Ron Beaufort]

Greetings Jeremy ...

first of all, I want to apologize for taking so long to answer your post ... most of that was beyond my control ... but one of the main reasons for the delay was trying to come up with a reasonable way to make my training methods work for the specific project that you outlined ... and, so far, I’m still not sure that my approach is going to do what you want ... it seems (please correct me if I’m wrong) that the intended audience for your new training program will be mostly the “engineering-type” people who originally specify, order, set up, program, and commission a new PLC system ... the students in my classes are invariably the “technician-type” people who come in later and then “maintain” the machinery controlled by the PLC ... there are MAJOR differences in the skills that those two categories of people need ...

I’m going to be perfectly honest and tell you “up front” that the training approach that I use for MY “technician-type” students might turn out to be totally unsuitable for YOUR “engineering-type” students ... but since you asked, I’m going to do my best to answer your questions ... naturally you’re free to pick and choose anything (or nothing) to use for your project ... and since this is being posted on a public forum, someone else might find something useful in this in the future ...

also ... this has been written “here-and-there” over a period of several days ... I’m sorry if some of it tends to “ramble” quite a bit ... with all of that in mind, here’s what I’ve come up with so far ...

Quote

... thank you so much for your openness and your willingness to share your methods ...

you’re welcome ... actually I’ll be 60 years old in another month or so ... I have no plans to ever retire – so someday I’ll probably just drop in my tracks ... if I had an ego, I’m sure that it would want to see someone else continue along with anything useful that I’ve come up with – so I’m always willing to share with anyone who’s interested ...

Quote

And as a distributor, we aren’t intending to make money on the training. We want the training to be more of a resource for our customers.

here are two quick thoughts about that “non-profit” idea ...

(1) if you’re not going to be making money, then who’s going to pay for the hands-on lab equipment? ... now if the company that you work for is willing to foot the bill, then the setup expense is no problem ... well - at least the problem isn’t in YOUR personal column ... in that case, don’t worry about it – take the “blank check” and have fun ... on the other hand, a “training program” can turn out to be a rather expensive thing to pull off ... once you take “making money” out of the PROS column, justifying the cost gets a lot more difficult ... especially when the CONS column still lists a hefty “equipment cost” entry ...

I’ll go one step further along these lines ... even though you might not intend to make money, you might still want to consider charging “something” (about $50 or so) for each student ... I used to work for a distributor and we found out that our “sure-I’ll-be-there” students had a MUCH better chance of actually showing up for the training session when they’d already forked over their company’s money for a ticket ... I’m sure that in many cases it worked something like: “Gee, boss, I’d really LOVE to be here for tomorrow’s staff meeting – but I’ve already spent the money for a PLC training class.” ... regardless, we always had a much more reliable turn-out when we charged “something” for the class ...

(2) I don’t know anything at all about how Mitsubishi distributorships are set up, but with Allen-Bradley, I know (from personal experience) that putting together a “distributor-level” training program could certainly bring up a number of “issues” ... basically if the “big company” has their very own “corporate-level” training programs already in place, any “distributor-level” training program might be viewed as a “conflict of interest” and possibly a violation of the “non-compete” clauses in the distributor’s contract - particularly if the training program becomes highly successful ... if I were you, I’d check with Mr. Bushy before I went too far with this plan ... you’re probably fine – but find out for sure before you jump into the deep end of the pool ...

Quote

Though we sell Mitsubishi products, I think it would be worthwhile to attend your training, simply to see the approach in action, and get ideas for my curriculum.

be careful what you ask for ... sometimes I’m able to catch my boss in a very generous mood ... in the past, he’s been known to let instructors from tech schools sit in for an entire week-long class for free ... I’m not sure how he’d feel about letting a Mitsubishi distributor do something like that – but if you’re really interested, and if you or your boss can pay your way down to Charleston, give me a call and let’s talk ... who knows what we can come up with? ...

now for the two specific questions that you asked ... I’m going to tackle the second one first ...

Quote

2. Are there resources available that you have found valuable in developing your methods? If I am to build a curriculum from scratch, I need help!

first of all, you’re probably going to need to hand the student something like a “book” to take home with him ... how much of Mitsubishi’s existing documentation can you assemble without running into copyright issues? ... according to my sources, in most cases, any publicly accessible material that you download from the internet can be given to students (but not sold) as long as the original author is credited – and the owner’s copyright notices are left intact ... it would be a good idea to check on that sort of “legal” stuff before you go too far ...

now let’s think about the “book” that you might be designing ... just how much “publicly accessible” material from the internet do you really need to download, print out, and include in the student’s “take home” book anyway? ... specifically, you might be able to just include links to the material and let the student download it (and print it out if desired) for himself ... and that approach might take care of a LOT of your “copyright” issues ...

now here’s what I consider to be the most important aspect of the “book” ... to follow my approach, the less classroom time that you spend with the book open – the better off the course will be ... if you’re like most people, you have vivid memories of training classes where the “order of the day” was just trying to stay awake while listening to the instructor read passage after passage directly from the “book” ... so let’s don’t go there ... most of the “book” that I use is made up of “board notes” (that’s “board” – not “bored”) ... the basic idea is this ... as the students work through their exercises, there are always (by design) certain “educational” issues that pop up along the way ... some of these issues can best be explained by pointing to the computer screen, or by drawing attention to the LEDs on the PLC’s input and output modules, or by coaching the student through a “find all” search demonstration ... but other issues really can’t be covered adequately without using the classroom whiteboard to sketch things out for discussion ...

quick question: what is the student doing while I’m sketching and discussing some tricky question on the whiteboard? ... if the student is busily sketching along too, and trying desperately to copy down everything from the board, then we’re wasting precious time – and losing educational ground too ...

I know from my own personal experience as a student, that whenever my mind is focused on “copying” the information from the board, then my mind isn’t adequately focused on “learning” the ideas that the instructor is trying to get across ...

and that’s why my “book” has MANY pages that I’ve drawn myself which are exactly the same information that I invariably draw on the whiteboard while I’m teaching ... I always leave plenty of space in the margins so that the students can scribble in their own personal notes, but the “big idea” material is already right there in the book ... this saves a LOT of time – but much more important, it allows the students to focus their full attention on following the discussion – without wasting their time by just “copying” the drawings from the board ...

now for two of my pet peeves: (1) PowerPoint slideshows ... and (2) overhead projectors ... personally I refuse to let either one of these traditional “teaching methods” into my classroom ... and I can always count on a favorable reaction any time that I mention this fact to a new “potential customer” – particularly if the person that I’m talking to happens to be a down-in-the-trenches kind of maintenance manager ... we all know (from bitter personal experience) that a “PowerPoint” show is never really all that “powerful” - and that the hypnotizing hum of an overhead projector’s cooling fan invariably tells the human brain: “naptime-naptime-naptime” ... here’s an experiment ... just dim the lights, fire up the projector, and then stand at the back of the room and watch the angle of the students’ heads ... the prosecution rests, your honor ...

summing up my answer to your question number 2 ... I’ve tried to say that (at least in my own personal opinion) most of the traditional “resources” that instructors commonly use for classroom instruction are not nearly as effective as we’d like for them to be ... so what works better? ... stop trying to give the students “information” ... instead give them “problems” ... then carefully monitor their progress – and coach them through a SYSTEMATIC process of coming up with a “solution” ... the trickiest part is recognizing when the student is heading too far in the wrong direction – and then guiding them (often against their will) back onto a SYSTEMATIC track ...

and so my answer to the question: “what book to use” is usually based on whatever material the student will need to see in order to systematically work through a “problem” to a “solution” ... sometimes that material is the wiring diagram for an input module (page 6-11) or an output module (page 6-13) ... sometimes it’s a sketch of the processor’s scan sequence (page 4-2) – just like the one that I’ve drawn on the whiteboard at least a zillion times in the last ten years ...

now let’s take a quick reality check before we continue ... most (if not everything) that I’ve just written about the “book” revolves around the “Problem/Solution” training method that I use for my “technician-type” students ... if I understand your project correctly, then you’ll be dealing with “engineering-type” students instead ... in that case, some of the things that I personally don’t like (PowerPoints, overhead projectors, etc.) might be EXACTLY the best way for you to handle your particular training program ... the main idea is to keep firmly in mind exactly what type of skills you’re trying to teach ...

this is IMPORTANT – so let’s nail it down with a couple of quick “after-the-training” examples ...

EXAMPLE: Student A will go back to work at the plant Monday morning ... his first job assignment will be to find out why the PLC won’t turn on Pump_X like it’s supposed to ... this guy needs to track down the problem all the way from the pump’s output – back through the ladder logic – and finally to the bad contacts of Level_Switch_Y in the field ...

EXAMPLE: Student B will go back to work at the office Monday morning ... his first job assignment will be to list the proper I/O modules, chassis, power supply, and processor for the PLC system he’s designing for a new conveyor application ...

see what I mean? ... even though both students are involved with PLCs, they each need COMPLETELY different skills in order to do their jobs efficiently ...

the BIGGEST single mistake that most “money-people” make whenever they’re interested in getting “PLC Training” for their employees is to fail to realize that the skills that Technician Tom needs are completely DIFFERENT from the skills that Engineer Ed needs ... not knowing this, the “powers-that-be” often ship their employees off to the WRONG type of PLC training – and then they have a hard time understanding why Technician Tom STILL can’t get the pump running on Monday morning ...

here’s the main point in a nutshell ... WHATEVER type of training you finally come up with it, make SURE that ALL of your students are going to get the type of training which matches their specific NEEDS ... and if your particular training program does NOT match the needs of some potential students, then don’t let them register for the course ... it’s much better to turn them away “up front” than to let them walk out disappointed with the final results ... you’ll want ALL of your customers to be fully satisfied with your product ... that’s the only way to build a good reputation ...

next thought along these lines: if your company has “salesmen” out there beating the bushes to line up customers for your classes, TRY to make sure that the salesmen know the difference between “PLC-Skill-Set-A” and “PLC-Skill-Set-B” ... lots of luck with that ... my experience has always been that a “salesman” will SELL ... whether the product matches the needs or not, the job is to SELL ... what I’m saying here is that you’ll probably need to personally follow up on any outside sales to make sure that the students are actually signing up for the right course ... specifically, do NOT count on the “salesmen” to do that task for you ... it just ain’t natural for them to say “no” to any potential customer ... when ANY fish nibbles the bait, the salesman ALWAYS sets the hook ...

so now let’s suppose that we fully agree that the “PLC skills” that some people need are far different from the “PLC skills” that other people need ... from that viewpoint, it’s not a big step to say that teaching those different types of skills EFFECTIVELY requires different “training methods” too ...

let’s set my favorite “Problem/Solution” method aside for a few minutes and look at something that might work much better for your particular needs ... although I hate to say it, the old tried-and-true “Lecture/Lab” approach is probably what you’re looking for ... I’ve seen this approach used for exactly the type of “PLC training” that (I think) you’re trying to set up ... and it was successfully used too – just as long as the RIGHT students were in the class ...

probably you’re familiar with this approach too – most people are ... but here’s just a quick rundown to keep us all on the same page ...

(1) welcome the students ... point out the coffee and donut table ... tell how to get to the restrooms ... other similar logistics ...

(2) give the course title ... give the objectives of the course ...

(3) introduce the instructor ... briefly review his credentials to teach ... basically, tell why the students should trust what this guy has to say ...

(4) go around the room and let the students introduce themselves ... ask each one what they expect to get - and need to get - from the course ... ask them about their backgrounds and present knowledge level ...

(5) briefly introduce the students’ “take-home” manuals, etc. ... in your case, this will probably need to include a set of Mitsubishi catalogs ... tip: make sure that each student station has a pad of those little “Sticky Notes” handy ... these make excellent “bookmarks” that won’t shift or fall out of the manuals ... the ones that are about two inches square are the best – because there’s room to scribble a quick note on them ...

(6) now it’s “show time” ... dim the lights and fire up the old PowerPoint projector ... most “ed-u-cat-ors” agree that twenty minutes (tops) of this treatment is about all the human brain can take at one sitting ...

side trip: while you’re narrating through one slide after another, try asking yourself this little question: “How is this teaching approach any better than having these same students just read this same material out of a book?” ... in other words, just how much of this PowerPoint stuff will actually “stick” until the student needs to “know it” at some time in the future? ... when you’ve come up with an honest answer to that question then you’ll know exactly why I personally stopped teaching “technician-type” material this way many years ago ... but, on the other hand, maybe (and hopefully) this method will serve to at least introduce your “engineering-type” material to the students in your classes ...

(7) ok ... the show’s over - now it’s “lab time” ... and this is where I’m pretty lost on exactly what you have in mind – and what your budget will accommodate ... so to get us started, I’ll just throw out some ideas and see if anything sounds useful to you ... feel free to pick and choose (or ignore) anything that follows ...

suppose that you give your students a pre-printed I/O list (including voltage levels, etc.) for an “example” piece of machinery ... you could have them work through the catalogs and pick out the necessary hardware to build the PLC system from scratch ...

suppose that different approaches to the same system are possible ... if the price lists are available, the students could come up with a ballpark idea of what each approach to the system will cost ... make sure that everyone recognizes the advantages of the high-priced “Method A” over the bargain-basement “Method B” ... you’ll probably want to include a quick “how to” for the student to use when justifying the “best” method over the “cheapest” method to the “money-people” back at the office/plant ...

suppose that the “example” machinery consists of several I/O “islands” that need to be networked together (“remote I/O” or something along those lines) ... the students could work out the hardware and topology needed to implement the networked system ...

suppose that the “example” machinery’s step-by-step operation can be specified ... the students might try “programming” the PLC to handle the machine’s operation ... or did you want to go that far? ... be careful with this step ... depending on the students’ previous experience (or lack thereof), this could turn into a bummer - particularly if some of your students are relatively “advanced” when compared to some of the others ... worst case scenario: Top-Gun-Ted gets bored ... Beginner-Bob gets discouraged ... and if there’s no actual hardware/software available to test the programming on, the instructor goes nuts trying to figure out whether each programming approach would – or wouldn’t – actually make the machinery work ...

and so now we come to hardware/software issues ... what do you have available? ... if the answer is “nothing”, then any ideas that you come up with for your “lab” exercises are pretty much going to fall into the “on-paper-only” category ...

but ...

suppose that you can come up with enough hardware and software to put together one or two working “bench-top” systems for your “example” machinery ... now you’ll start to get a LOT more student interest in what’s going on ... and the more “hands-on” you can make it, the better the training will be ... if you want to continue the discussion along these lines, please give me some idea about the type of hardware and software you’ll have available ... I’ll be glad to help you come up with some imaginative ways to use it ... just remember that I’m totally unfamiliar with Mitsubishi gear - but we can work around that too ...

now back to the course layout ...

(8) the “lab time” is over ... now it’s time for “questions and answers” or “discussion” or whatever ...

(9) now go back and do another “lecture” or “slide show” or whatever you’ve got available ...

(10) now do another “lab” ... and so on ... and so on ....

or at least that’s the way most “ed-u-cat-ors” do it ... and as I said earlier, I used to work for a PLC distributor and I’ve seen this same approach work SUCCESSFULLY on more than one occasion ... the secret to “success” here is to INVOLVE the students in the training effort ... INVOLVE them somehow (anyhow) so that they’re actively THINKING while they’re learning ... if all that they’re doing is just “listening” to the instructor lecture – or just “watching” the PowerPoint slides flip by – or just “following along” as the instructor reads from the book – then you can imagine just how little is going to actually “stick” with them after the class is over ...

consider that the human mind LEARNS best when it’s faced with a “problem” to solve ... yes, SOME people do have a knack for “storing away” raw information and then “retrieving” it when the need for it eventually arises ... (these people do VERY well on Jeopardy) ... but MOST people have little (if any) long-term recall of raw “facts” that their brains haven’t firmly associated with some type of “this-is-important-to-know” experience ...

to nail this part of the discussion down, let’s suppose that you’ve set up your new training program along the lines that I’ve just described ... the first class of students have now come – and gone ... what skills do we hope that they’ve gained from the class? ...

IF (big if) I understand your target audience correctly, then hopefully each student will now know which catalog to open, which page to turn to, and how to select the proper modules, processor, etc. to specify and put together a new PLC system ... if those are the types of skills that you’re trying to teach, then the approach that I’ve outlined above might be right on target for your needs ... as I’ve already said, I’ve seen it work before ...

on the other hand, if your students need to go back to the plant with enough problem-solving skills to troubleshoot a piece of PLC-controlled machinery, then I’ll stick firmly by my trusty “Problem/Solution” training method ...

let’s finish this idea up (at least for now) by returning to one specific part of your question number 2 ...

Quote

... to build a curriculum from scratch ...

in order to build a curriculum, the first thing that you need to do is decide EXACTLY what skills the students must take home with them ... in other words, nail down what they should be able to do AFTER the class is over ... once you’ve done that, then you’ll know what the END of the class has to look like ...

now consider what existing skills the students will bring INTO the class ... my advice is to “aim low” and assume that they will know NOTHING ... if that seems extreme, then ask yourself this “reality check” question:

suppose that the class has a REQUIREMENT (a “prerequisite”) that each student must already possess skills A and B before they attend ... now suppose that it’s day number one of a brand new class ... luckily most of the students do indeed already possess skills A and B ... but a couple of the students do NOT ... so what do you (as the instructor) do now? ... do you send those two “green” students home? ... or do you try to bring them up to speed – without penalizing the other students who are already primed and ready to go “full steam ahead”? ...

personally I always have enough projects handy to keep each student occupied – no matter how far along he’s able to go ... sure, it does get pretty tricky (for the instructor) moving back and forth between one station where a “fast” student is tackling “Problem #8” - and another station where a “not-so-fast” student is still sweating through “Problem #2” ... but the main idea is that each student is always working on a project that matches his present skill level ... the only real alternative is to try teaching everything in a “lock-step” fashion ... the best that you can do with that approach is to “shoot for the middle” and hope that the more-advanced students don’t get too bored – and that the less-advanced students don’t get left too far behind ... this is the way that most traditional classes are taught ... the only truly satisfied students are the ones that fit neatly into that “middle ground” category ... every other student goes home disappointed with the progress that he made ... personally I gave up on that “lock step” approach years ago ...

but anyway – back to the basic question ... in order to develop the curriculum, you’ve got to know where you’re starting from – and how far you’re trying to go ... specifically, nail down the “beginning” skills – and the “ending” skills ...

knowing the difference between the “beginning skills” and the “ending skills” will allow you to formalize the “objectives” of the class ... specifically, what skills the students are expected to have AFTER the class that they didn’t have BEFORE ...

reality check: many (most?) customers don’t even bother to read the “class objectives” when they’re shopping for training ... as soon as they read “PLC Training” class, that’s about as far as they go ... they assume (incorrectly) that “five-days-of-PLC-training” from vendor X is the equivalent of “five-days-of-PLC-training” from vendor Y ... then they look at the “bottom line” price – and well, you can guess the rest of the story ... the people from many “human resources” departments seem to be the worst for this type of reasoning ...

on the other hand, other customers (such as maintenance managers) who have been “bit-by-that-dog-before” will pay careful attention to exactly what skills the course is supposed to provide ... for customers in that category, you’ll need to be prepared to discuss exactly what material you’re going to cover – and exactly how you intend to cover it ...

this might not be too important to you – since you mentioned that you’re not going to try to make money with your training program ... but to others, it’s critical ... in some plants the Human Resources department has control of the personnel training scheduling – and they also control the training budget ...

in many cases it takes a truly “fired-up” maintenance manager to convince the HR watchdogs that there is indeed a difference in the training provided by vendor X – when compared to the training provided by vendor Y ...

suppose that you’re trying to use my “Problem/Solution” teaching method ...

once you’ve decided what specific skills the course is intended to teach, the next step is to decide what type of “problems” a student will need to be exposed to – and eventually “solve” - in order to advance from the “beginning” point to the “end” point ... just a few basic examples: hooking up the programming terminal to the PLC ... going online with the processor ... interpreting the ladder display ... following the input and output addressing scheme ... interpreting the LEDs on the input and output modules ... understanding how the processor’s scan sequence works ... “real-world” things like that ...

once you’ve got the specific “problems” listed, then collecting and developing the material for your course “book” should start falling into place ...

and one final thought along these lines: to a student, a “drawing” is ALWAYS much better than text ... now sometimes you really do NEED to put a certain amount of text in front of the student ... if at ALL possible, insert the necessary text into a picture or a drawing ... there’s just something about a picture that tells the human brain: “this is important to know” ... so even if the text is actually the most important thing on the page (and the picture itself is secondary), most students will remember the text (as part of a picture) much better than the very same text presented without the picture ...

now for your question number 1 ... side note: I realize that some of this is repetitious – but I’ve been writing this post over a period of days ... I really don’t have time to sort things out and collect the thoughts properly right now ... maybe someday I’ll come back and neaten things up ... in the meantime, just do the best you can ...

Quote

1. Looking at it from a distributor's point of view, would it be better to provide training to the maintenance techs, or the engineers/programmers? We make our money by product sales, so which way would provide us with the best return on our investment?

based on the way you’ve phrased your question, I’d have to go along with aiming for the “engineer and programmer” category ... there are very few (if any) cases where Technician Ted is going to overrule Engineer Ed when it comes time to select a new PLC system ... so if you’re trying to impress the “money people” and the “decision makers” with your product’s features, then aiming for the engineers and the programmers makes perfect sense ...

but be careful ... you need to make sure that any “technician type” students coming to your classes don’t have any misconceptions about the material that the class will cover ... suppose that Technician Ted comes back from one of your “PLC training” classes and complains to one and all about a solid week of nothing but “sales pitches” he had to endure ... in many distributor-level classes the “textbook” is actually the product catalog ... a common topic of conversation is: “Model ABC has 16K of memory – and Model XYZ has 32K” ... now “PLC training classes” like this DO have their place – but you have to make sure that a student who’s expecting to learn about troubleshooting the ladder logic in an existing PLC system doesn’t wander into a “how to select a new PLC” type class by mistake ...

incidentally, this is one of the biggest issues that my boss and I face when we’re trying to sell training to a brand new customer ... many (most?) maintenance managers have a whole list of horror stories about sending their technicians off to a distributor’s “PLC training” classes – and having their people return with absolutely ZERO useful knowledge ... when you get right down to it, is it REALLY important for Technician Ted to know how much memory his “Model XYZ” processor has – when the plant’s basic problem is that “Circulation_Pump_A” won’t come on? ...

obviously there are different categories of “PLC Training” classes – and one size does NOT “fit all” ... as with just about every other type of purchase, the buyer needs to make sure that he’s getting the appropriate “bang” for his “buck” ...

and now I’ll repeat my original disclaimer ... while I’m honored that you’ve found my training methods interesting enough to inquire about them, I’ve tried to be perfectly honest and tell you that my approach might not be suitable for some of the purposes that you’ve mentioned ... specifically, I doubt that a classroom full of engineers would genuinely appreciate my “problem/solution” teaching methods – IF (big IF) their main purpose in attending the class happened to be mastering the differences in memory capacity between “Model ABC” and “Model XYZ” ...

in the end, you’re going to have to be the one who decides what your “training classes” are intended to accomplish ... once you’ve done that step, I’d be delighted to continue this discussion – and to provide you with as much assistance as I can to help you get started ...

and now here’s one final “let’s-just-think-about-this” idea that you might want to consider ... do you have a “technical college” in your area that might have (or might want) a PLC program? ... if the answer is yes, then you might want to think about “partnering” with the school to develop and set up a program that would be beneficial to them, and to your company, and to local industries, and to the students ...

the trick to getting this to work is usually the school’s “industry advisory” committee ... many (most?) tech schools have one ... the idea is that people from local industries volunteer and try to keep the school “on target” with the material being taught ... ideally this means that the students who complete the school’s training programs will be qualified to join the local workforce ... and since a “working” student is a “tax paying” student, the politicians usually take some type of interest in how well the school is doing in turning out qualified workers ...

keeping all of this in mind, the idea that I’m proposing here is that you MIGHT (notice that’s a BIG “might”) be able to work with a local tech school in setting up your program ... here are just a few “brainstorming” ideas off the top of my head:

(1) the school buys the hardware and software at a reduced rate and sets up the classroom for their curriculum and/or continuing education students ...

(2) your company might donate the hardware and software completely free ...

(3) part of the deal is that the classroom and equipment is available (with proper scheduling of course) for your company’s use – for the type of “seminar” PLC training we’ve been discussing above ...

(4) the school might send their own instructors to your company for training ...

(5) the school might hire you personally on an “adjunct faculty” basis to develop the course material and/or do the training for their own students ...

(6) local students get to work “hands-on” with the brand of PLC that your company sells ...

(7) local industries become more familiar with the products that your company sells ...

(8) the school gains prestige from having an up-to-date PLC lab ...

if any of this sounds interesting, we can discuss it in more detail later on ... there are a few (minor) things to watch out for ... I’ll be glad to share them if you’re interested ...

I hope that some of this helps ... and good luck with your project ...

This post has been edited by Ron Beaufort: 27 November 2006 - 04:35 PM

[TWControls]

Congratulations Ron Beaufort.

Now I haven't thoroughly read your post but looks like you have broke the record for the longest post. Of course the previous record was also held by you

Previous Record - Held by Ron Beaufort
http://forums.mrplc.com/index.php?s=&s...ost&p=36932
Paragraphs 20
Pages 12
Lines 853
Words 5,759
Characters 27,290

New Record - Held by Ron Beaufort also
http://forums.mrplc.com/index.php?s=&s...ost&p=44527
Paragraphs 12
Pages 19
Lines 535
Words 5,868
Characters 27,481

Now gives us a few days for it to soak in I promise I'm reading it, it just takes a while
TW

[rsdoran]

Being the thief I am I like seeing Ron's posts.

[Steve Bailey]

Jeremy,

I once held a job a lot like yours, but for a GE Fanuc distributor. I was responsible for developing and conducting the training we offered. I agree 100% with Ron on the subject of charging a reasonable amount for your sessions. If you offer it for free, you will find that your clients don't take it a seriously as you would hope. Furthermore, if it's free, your customers may not make any effort to send students most likely to get something out of what you're offering. No matter how good a teacher you are, effective training demands some effort on the part of the student. A student who is in your class for no other reason than that his boss told him he had to go is not likely to to be paying attention to what you're trying to get across.

I used PowerPoint presentations with pretty good success, but I like to think I went above and beyond. I added VB scripts animate my presentations. In my slide of a timer function, I could show the class how the accumulated value increases and what happens when both the enable and reset functions were activated simultaneously.

I used the lecture and lab approach that Ron mentions. Keep the lectures as short as possible and spend as much time as possible on the labs. I used two types of labs. The first was what I call "cookbook". That was where I wanted to show how to program (for example) a timer function, what it looks like when you do it right, as well as common mistakes people often make.

The second type was where I gave everyone a design specification and told them to come up with a program to control it. For basic ladder logic, I used the example of a simple air compressor system with two pumps feeding a common tank. I defined the switches and lights on the trainer system as presuure switches, start and stop buttons, motor starters, and fault lights. I gave them a set of design criteria and challenged them to meet as many as possible. Just about everyone could get the basic start-the-pump/stop-the-pump from the pressure switch. A few could figure out how to detect a failure of one pump and automatically switch to the other. Some were even able to count ten starts on one pump and then switch over to the other pump for the next ten starts. It allowed the people who came to class with little or no experience to accomplish the simple tasks while providing a bit of a challenge to the students who already knew their way around the PLC. I also provided a sample solution, but I encouraged everyone to come up with their own approach rather than to copy mine. The labs I used were the genesis for the products I sell here on MrPLC.com.

http://shopv2.mrplc.com/product_info.php/c.../products_id/52

I also had a troubleshooting lab. I had a set of problems that I could introduce into each trainer setup and then have each team try to figure out what was wrong. They included simple things like blown fuses and broken wires, module terminal strips not fully seated, loss of program, I/O cards inserted into the wrong slot, etc. Basically I tried to put the most frequent problems I had to deal with over the phone into the lab.

Be sure to keep your class size small enough so you can give every student enough individual attention to keep them on track. I had four trainers, two students per trainer, max class size of eight students.

Ron mentioned the importance of making sure you don't get perceived as taking business away from the factory training. In my case, our factory rep was 100% in favor. We always felt that we were training people who would never get sent to the factory training either because of their job descriptions or because their companies would never spring for the money to send them to the factory.

I can't emphasize enough the importance of keeping your audience engaged. I have a couple of tricks I like to use. One is to keep asking questions along the lines of "what do you think will happen if...." To encourage people to actually answer, I will toss a quarter to the person who answers correctly. I will also toss a quarter to the person who asks a question that anticipates the next point I'll be making. Woe to the person who answers incorrectly though. From him I will ask for the return of the quarter. It's amazing how something that cheesy can keep people listening. I'll never forget one session where one particular individual bought into the game. We passed the same quarter back and forth several times. Eventually I caught him in an incorrect answer and instead of tossing the quarter back to me he dumped it in the pitcher of ice water on his table and told me to "come and get it".

Feel free to send me a private mesage if you'd like to talk in greater detail about what worked for me.

Steve Bailey

[JRoss]

Ron and Steve,
Thanks for your replies. I do intend to respond more thoroughly, I just haven't had the time recently, especially to digest all the great information you've got here! I will definitely use your suggestions and make use of your expertise!

Only one quick comment in response to Ron's assessment of salesmen. Amen brother! Actually, I am in a terrific position when it comes to this. We only currently have two salesmen, though we're looking for more (anyone want this job?). Both are electrical engineers, and they work hard to make sure the customer is getting the right product for their needs. I have been very impressed by this, especially given my previous experience.

I'll be back here again. Does this count as thread hi-jacking yet?