Here to stay.

IF YOU HAVE HUNG YOUR HAT IN THE world of training for a long time, you have seen a lot of fads come and go.

Some of these fads are about content. Remember Transactional Analysis? Management by Wandering Around? Management by Objectives? Neuro-Linguistic Programming? If you are wearing trifocals, you may remember Frederick Herzberg's theory of motivator versus satisfier attributes and Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y.

Some of the fads are about delivery methods. In the 1980s we learned that video-based learning systems (we just call them "videotapes" now) would replace the stand-up trainer. In the 1990s, computer-based training (CBT) was supposed to do the same thing. The Learner-Centered Instruction, Accelerated Learning and Just-in-Time Learning modules were all catchy, but their ads are no longer jamming my mailbox.

To be fair, none of these products (or processes, or philosophies) was stupid or useless. My objection is that none was as revolutionary as its purveyors claimed, and none was the unique and total answer to the training question--as these products more or less claimed to be.

We are now several years into another "new kid" on the training block, and I have not parodied it in this column because I happen to agree with it.

You know, some new ideas never really catch on (soy burgers, men's handbags), and some quietly become part of everyday life (rear-window defoggers, microwave ovens). The current new thing has one characteristic that is unique, and it is this characteristic that I think will make it part of the training scene forever. The characteristic is that it does not claim to replace any existing technology or training technique. Rather, it embraces them all.

The buzzword is "blended learning." At the risk of possible hubris, I will attempt a rough, working definition. Blended learning is the concept that the optimal training solution is unique to each situation and is achieved by analyzing four sets of variables.

The first set is "What training tools are available?" This will typically include on-the-job training, coaching, print material, eLearning courses, video and instructor-led training.

The second set is "What do we need to train people to do?" Is it hard or easy? Is it material that participants will be eager to learn (how to decipher my paycheck) or the opposite (the latest on high-cost mortgage disclosures)? Is it conceptual (how to give performance feedback) or technical (completing the new Fannie Mae appraisal forms)? There are three or four other significant dimensions, but you get the idea.

The third set is "What are the characteristics of the trainee population?" Are they in one place (foreclosure specialists) or spread from here to kingdom come (loan officers)? Do they like to sit in dank caves and read (trolls and underwriters) or do they like lots of human interaction (account executives and customer service reps)?

The fourth set is the easiest: "How much time and money do we have?"

If you take any training project and look at it in the light of these four sets of (essentially simple) variables, a preferred training solution will probably present itself easily and naturally.

These are the beauties of a new training paradigm that is here to stay:

* It is intuitively sensible.

* It does not require the use of outside experts.

* It does not require discarding any material or process you are currently using.

* It is simple and inexpensive.

* It is scalable to any project and any budget.

Andrew Hubbard is senior vice president, director of training, for Aegis Wholesale Corporation in Houston. He can be reached at [e-mail].