But shouldn't everyone be able to handle common software programs? The issue emerged in the recent debate over departing USA Today Executive Editor Kinsey Wilson, when Anonymous@12:25 p.m. wrote on Sept. 26: "In a newsroom full of print people who can't figure out how to send a document in Word to the nearest printer, he was a constant agent for change and growth."
Been there, seen that! I know newspaper employees who still can't complete a simple attachment to an e-mail, without calling for help. No wonder. As long ago as the early 1990s, newsrooms talked about requiring at least basic proficiency in Excel spreadsheet software, electronic file management and other tech skills. But the hires almost always happened without enforcing that standard.What tech skills are now a must in your area -- and not just editorial? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.
Ummm - strange that a post about lack of tech skills refers to the new "Kronos" payroll system.
ReplyDeleteThe payroll system is Lawson. Kronos is just the timecard system.
Which you posted about here several months ago.
My interactions with newsroom folks concurs that many are lacking in basic technical skills. It's not that management isn't "enforcing" a standard, but that many folks (not all - so don't flame me) in the newsroom absolutely refuse to learn anything new, no matter what training options may or may not have been available.
I'm sure many folks will flame me about my comment, but perhaps some of the conflict between print and digital is related to the technical divide...
You're right, @12:12. There are people who resist learning new tech skills out of sheer stubbornness. These people are not going to go far or last long.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I also see some terrible training methods that more or less guarantee failure. They leave people confused and overwhelmed, which only makes the trainees more likely to dig in their heels. Nobody likes to feel stupid, and that's exactly the result of slipshod training.
There is no excuse for it, really. Solid, effective training techniques abound for any skill, from frying eggs to writing code -- or using Excel.
Leaders need to pay attention to the way people learn, not just "do it now and don't bother me" outcomes. This is one area where thinking through the implications of top-down directives would pay huge dividends in efficiency -- and at very low cost.
Broad questions: When new people start, are they given training in the software they'll be using every day? If so, is the training done by someone in IT (read: someone who really knows the software), or is it done by someone in your department (who may or may not know it particularly well)?
ReplyDeleteWhen new software is disseminated, does everyone get trained by a professional? Do you just get printouts (or online PDFs) to help you? Or nothing at all?
I am not a Gannettoid, but my newspaper is part of a Major Corporation. I'm curious about your practices in this area, because at my "site," it's an absolute joke.
ReplyDeleteLet's just say that any 9th-grader with a pimped-out MySpace could bury my "new media" editor. This individual can't even hand-code the simplest HTML. It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic and ultimately toxic to us grunts.
Our editors make no effort to get training for themselves or their staff. When we offer ideas for Web content, it is usually batted down, if not ignored outright. Like they're put off by our skills and ideas. You can just hear the "well, lah-dee-dah" in their sneers.
The middle-aged drones in charge have been here for years and aren't going anywhere. But for those of us who haven't hit menopause and still entertain thoughts of moving on to real papers, I fear the lack of published projects can be pretty limiting.
Arrgh, 12:12 pm. Thanks; I fixed that. As to some of the other comments so far, I've gotten training from IT folks, from non-IT types -- and from no one.
ReplyDeleteFor example, at USA Today, I was once given 11 days to devise an idea for a blog, learn the writing/reporting concepts, and then get it up and running. But there was no time set aside to learn any of the software required. In fact, I had to beg to get software that folks back at McLean, Va., didn't even know I would need (Photoshop). Needless to say, I got zero training. Toward the end at USAT, I wanted to learn to make online video. There was no training at the time, and certainly no equipment. In the end, I was discouraged from even doing it by a very senior dot-com editor.
That's been my experience down the years with technology. In Louisville, Ky., people thought it was strange that I wanted a PC on my desk in 1996. I asked for an e-mail account, but was told they were in short supply; eventually I signed up for an AOL address, and then expensed it every month.
Zero training here when I worked for Gannett. I took the job, thinking that within a month, I'd be a one man band. At that paper, photo did the videos and wanted to keep it that way. If I had it to do over, I would have bought my own equipment, trained myself and outshined them all.
ReplyDeleteJust a comment about Gannett training overall---Seems corporate could benefit tremendously by hiring a trainer who specializes in adult learners. There's a huge difference between classroom trianing, which seems to be the approach Gannett takes, and effective training for adult learners. With things changing rapidly, Gannett would benefit by having at least a consultant on board to make sure effective training techniques are in place.
But I'm a big believer in the old saying that the most important resources are human resources.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteIn 2000 Louisville pressroom asked for computers in contract proposal. This just after Ford gave all of their folks one, and company told us we would need computer skills to run new press. Of course that was a "silly demand" and rejected. After we got new press, company spent more on printing hard copies of press manuals than PC's would have been.
I've seen editors, reporters and even designers hired and not given any training at all on CCI, which is a complicated, powerful system that isn't used anywhere outside of a few large newsrooms.
ReplyDeleteThe result is that my section has no idea how the system is designed to work and it takes an incredible amount of people to put together an 8-10 page section every night. If these people knew how to work their system (not their fault) they could go about three times faster or operate with less overworked staff. At my previous paper, everyone pretty much knew the system inside and out, and we produced better-looking pages much faster.
When I moved over from an exlusively print job to one that required a lot of online work, I was pretty much a dinosaur. There was a mass class held at my paper for online posting that was fairly bewildering, and then I was given a printed manual and told good luck.
ReplyDeleteI perserved, asked a lot of stupid questions, and became fairly proficient online. Thank god for several non-management web folks who were endlessly patient and showed me how to do stuff! Note: I'm no longer with Gannett, but at the time I was a mid-level manager. I think I would have been worth a bit more training.
If the company would only invest in more coherent online training, you'd get a lot more dinosaurs getting with the program. If you properly train people, they'll be more comfortable doing things on line _ and the more you do it, the more comfortable you become with the whole system.
If I were to guess about the reasons for the lack of good training, I would mention two: 1) turf and 2) control.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I think some managers are concerned about giving people below them the kind of control the Web (and inside knowledge of CCI) offers. I don't think they're worried that the grunts will get it wrong--although that's what they'll say--but that they'll get it right.
The Gannett culture isn't exactly one of empowerment, know what I mean?
There are people at USAT who still don't have a clue as to how CCI (the paper's main pagination and text/image/workflow system). They can't perform the simplest of functions. No clue to the overall purpose of the system. They run to others for help even though it is part of their job to know the basics. And their bosses cover for them, remarkably because many of them don't know what the heck they are doing or how the paper gets out. The multi-million dollar system has been in place for years, yet there is a large portion of the newsroom that is clueless and actually thinks it's not part of their job to deal with any sort of technology. (I've had an editor tell me that!) As a result, the system isn't fully utilize, a lot of time is wasted, workflows break down, etc. How these people will ever enter the digital world is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteA lot of print people are up on technology and embrace it as a more efficient way to do their work, but some still remain defiant and so far behind that they probably couldn't catch up now even if they wanted. They are clogging up the system. All their other skills (editing, organizing, etc) are diminshed because they have not shown enough interest in moving beyond 1985 newspapering. Things move quicker, yet I get the impression some of them still want to walk down to the composing room and watch the pages get pasted up. As nostalgic as I can sometimes be about that, I know that I'd rather have CCI than deal with a waxing machine!
On the other end of the spectrum are the people who are so fascinated by the bells and whistles of technology that they forget about other basics of what makes a good picture or story or video. They are so charmed by the latest software that they lose some creative ability because they are so reliant on the computer to do the magic. The content becomes secondary.
I believe the people in the middle, who appreciate old school fundamentals like sound copy editing, but who also eagerly try to learn new technologies are probably the most valuable employees. I hope if there are anymore job cuts, that these people retain their jobs.
Where I work, they'd better know Office. They'd better know something about file management ("I created a document and can't find it," ugh) and some grasp of Internet other than a browser (FTP, anyone?). Most importantly, they should be willing to learn to fish, if you know what I mean.
ReplyDeleteAs an honest-to-god techie at a metro newspaper, not Gannett (but former), it's the battle of new skills versus doing your job.
Most reporters and editors love their news gathering job, no surprise there, and that's what they want to do. They don't want their work lives complicated with e-mail or a system like CCI.
Some never acclimate, and some just say, "oh, well, I'm just no good with computers!"
You can't change them - nor should you point out that they should quit, because a computer is an important part of their job, and if they don't want to use it, management can go hire someone who will.
It goes over like a fart in church.
Don't even have to get that complicated. Our newsroom uses Quark (VERSION 3.3!!!) and has for several years. Not a week goes by where I.T. doesn't get a call asking how to fit a graphic to a box... from the same people who have been asking that question for years....
ReplyDeleteindy was the u.s. beta site (pre-gannett) for cci. a bunch of people went to denmark to help design our version, and came back to teach the staff. they did a good job.
ReplyDeletenow we are run by people who weren't here then, don't know how to do much with it, can't be bothered to learn and have driven out many of the people who helped develop it. when pc hardware failed massively awhile back, a graphics guy saved the paper from not publishing by running everything off his mac laptop.
I'll give an example. We have a ton of people that have been with the company for decades. As the process of putting out a newspaper has evolved, these people have evolved with it - to a point. This creates two different sorts of people - those who are doing a job they have evolved into with some cursory training, and the newer hires who knew most of the software back and forth before they were hired. As it goes, the less experienced, but often more skilled workers are the ones who get called upon to solve problems or take on special projects that require more technological knowledge. Sometimes the newer workers are answering basic software questions - on older software - for people that have been there since ads were still being built on pasteboard to be shot on cameras. (Or even since the paper was still being set on hot lead.) As far as being proficient, the bar is set much higher for new hires than the long-timers.
ReplyDeleteSpoken from someone who was forced to do this... Professional training is the first thing cut from budgets every year. Like clockwork. It is painless to everyone...right? I mean...what can cutting training possibly hurt??? Uh...duh...staying competitive???
ReplyDeleteSecond problem is that we're not using current software. The company has contracts to get current Microsoft products, however, no one is spending any money to upgrade the hardware to run it on. End result -- lots of old garbage running software that is older than what advertisers send us ads on or sources send us materials on. That prevents us from moving forward and staying competitive.
Now, as to what skills all employees should have... How can any employee expect to get hired without basic skills, the ability to send an e-mail attachment and use MS Word. You would say, "No, it isn't possible!" I would say, "Oh yes, and it seems like the company seeks out these people with less skills!!!" Want to really see an example of this, look at some of the "technical managers" -- especially in Online -- the area where you REALLY NEED THESE SKILLS!!! Instead of searching for really talented, hot candidates, we either pickup folks who are clueless or who are dinosaurs from other areas who got promoted into these positions. Once again...hard to stay competitive when the folks running the highest-of-high tech areas don't know how to look at the website on their blackberry or iphone, let alone understand the coding behind them and how to manage the team.
As a tech, I think the problem many people have is technology fatigue. Every time they turn around, some new piece of tech comes out that they have to learn to use. Or some piece of technolgy they have used and know well puts out a new version and it is just different enough that it has to be learned again. And that is not just in their work lives. It is everywhere. The bombardment never stops. Maybe some of these folks are dinosaurs. Or maybe they've just had enough.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteIt could be worse. I know that's not a comeback, but just to put things in perspective -- when I worked for Thompson just before the purchase by Gannett, the newsroom had one computer with Internet access. It was faster to go to the public library than to use that machine. If we wanted e-mail, we used personal accounts. And that was in 2000.
I think it's the "turn-key solutions", the "content management" that gives our workers technology fatigue. If everyone out there read a 50-page book on HTML, they'd be shocked at how easy it is to make a web page, compared to the arcane coding and training needed to produce a page of printed newspaper. Our editors would find ways of making our own online content instead of being shackled to these CMS monstrosities. It's these imperatives to "build us a machine that makes our web pages" that drown us in poorly implemented, poorly documented crap that makes people think computers are hard, that the Internet is hard.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, the people who know the least about how to accomplish something in the newsroom CMS, or in Photoshop or Avid or Quark, etc. are the IT people. They are the people who should not be training anyone. All they do is install (sparingly) and fix things when they go down.
ReplyDeleteRight, 9/30 8:13 pm, the reason we in the IT crowd don't admit to knowing the applications we install is that we don't want to do your job for you. And I've seen every way to Sunday of all sorts of staff trying to do that.
ReplyDelete