How Are You Managing U.S. Harassment Prevention Training—Equivalencies, Assignments, and Emails?

​@Elaine_Barnes - good morning - I feel your pain. This is not a perfect trick, but we do something that helps us...it may help you.

So we actually have two training materials in the course. One of them are the same for the year (and it is the attestation). The attestation acts as the end marker for the course and the course itself is different based on State / employee level. Once opened - the course marks itself as completed.

We are doing this with a few low level risks recognized:

• a person in theory could try opening all the different flavors of SHACP training and be given credit to all by just completing one and opening the others.
• if we are not careful, this could have an impact on reporting

To get to some of your other data-driven logic - you may be able to do some of this with another data point that you know about.

For example - We do some manager logic based on a flag changing from our HR system that tells us that they became a people leader. We also do SHACP training as part of onboarding and for the states that require it, we do yearly training for folks. So we have a broad way of capturing them.

Where we can miss is it needing to be in context - an individual contributor becomes a manager (people leader), but they already completed their training. If the mgr and job seniority date triggers they would need to go to “orientation”, they would get assigned said training. But if they are not considered “new” by our definition for needing to go to orientation, we can have a gap occur where a person was trained as an employee and not a manager.

And the trick above (attestation triggering a course completion) - can create a mess...but we also really haven’t run into it and it's why we consider the risk to be low.

Happy to connect and look over your shoulder. DM me..for a little more...maybe we can get you there.

​@Elaine_Barnes Hi, Elaine … have you done a thought-experiment to flip your paradigms? In other words, start by assigning the employee level first since that is the broadest category? 

In this scenario, I’d have an additional fields that contains the role (Employee vs. Manager) and State. I’d have groups that collect by State, and collect by the Manager role (don’t need one for Employee because that’s global, and everyone is an employee).

Set the course enrollment so that everyone is enrolled when they have the employee role. Set another rule to enroll when they change to a Manager role. Then set your manager course equivalent equal to the employee course.

Notifications should fall in line along the same principles.

Good luck! Love to hear if this could work for you, or what the holes are with it.

Hi ​@KMallette,

Thanks for the response.  I feel like I’ve tried to think of this from so many directions at this point, but keep running into walls, to be honest.

Right now we have 16 groups that are populated by data brought in by additional fields for Work State and People Leader yes/no.  (CA, NY, IL, Chicago, DE, ME, CT, No specific state requirements).

Emails are triggered when a person is enrolled into any of the courses based on meeting the group criteria and managed by enrollment rules.

Ideally we would only assign the employee level course to people who needed to take it, which would exclude those who already completed a manager level course. 

We would only email a notification about the enrollment to those who need to complete it.

This is a vendor provided course and people need to complete just 1 course, either manager or employee. So unfortunately we wouldn’t want to assign out the employee level course to all due the confusion and cost. 

Unless I misunderstood you and you are thinking to use the ‘additive’ nature of groups and the ability to leave unchecked the ‘Remove deactivated users from the group’  option after I have added all of the ‘people leader = yes’ individuals per state? That would lead to anyone who was designated as a ‘people leader’ in the state prior to the enrollment rule being enabled related to that group not being assigned the employee level course for that state, even as they move in and out of meeting the group criteria.  This could work in the short term, like for our yearly refresher period, to avoid anyone who was a manager at that time from being assigned employee level training for the remainder of the year.  Not a bad workaround.  It does hold the assumption that that person completed the manager level training, though.  I’ll have to think through this option and the impact on reporting.

I’m thinking maybe I create yet another email for people who are enrolled in the employee level course but ARE complete for the manager level course (for the state) that tells them they have been assigned the employee level course and it will be marked complete automatically as they are complete for the manager level training, and to disregard the earlier message of assignment. Maybe this is the best solution as it is the easiest to implement and the number of people impacted (going from manager to employee) doesn’t warrant extensive solutioning, even though this solution is still relatively clunky, in my opinion.  

Thanks for your response!

​@Elaine_Barnes Are you trying to avoid assignments due to course costs, or just avoid having a learner repeat coursework? Is the training material managed by the CR, and is it the same materials for both courses?

Maybe you need to build a scenario around “on-boarding” (either on-boarding into this program, or on-boarding into the platform), and then another one around “promotion”. When you onboard your state groups into the program, use enrollment rules based on their current role, and then if they transition to people manager later, then bring in the “did they do the employee course” logic.

It’s always easier to go additive than subtractive imho. But I’m not seeing why you couldn’t leave “remove deactivated” enabled.

Could you utilize a new additional field, and then work your automatic group rules that way?