The Pursuing Performance Blog

Communication. Is there such a thing? Do we ever really communicate?

2009-12-06T17:05:00.006-05:00

Communication. Is there such a thing? Do we ever really communicate?

Or do we really just miscommunicate with greater or lesser amounts of error?

I know I’m playing with the semantics of it all, but as a colleague quotes a friend, “It’s not just semantics, it’s always semantics!”

The American Heritage Dictionary defines communication as: “The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior.”

But I believe the dictionary is wrong. Communication/ communicating connotes that the message intended was the message received. Ha!

If we start with the premise that there is no such thing as communication, that we never can achieve zero defects in our communications, and that we will have to work very hard to get to six sigma (very, very hard), we will indeed be on the road to communication. And it is a long, hard road; an impossible journey to zero-defect communications. All we can realistically have is improved miscommunication; that simply means a lesser amount of errors.

Just as zero defects are statistically impossible in a world full of variation (you know, with the earth spinning, the resulting atmospheric and temperature fluctuations, the dust particles, friction, etc.), so too with communication, I know it’s impossible, because sometimes I try so hard and pay so much attention to it that I know I’m not achieving perfect “Nirvanian communication.”

And it’s frustrating, as you well know. I know you know if you’re really paying attention to it, if you’re conscious about it.

And the key - is to be conscious about it.

# # #

Management Areas of Performance - a Workbook for Diagnosing and Planning for Developing Yourself for Your Specific Professional Context

2009-12-05T09:47:00.007-05:00

Early Reviews of "Management Areas of Performance"
Published in 2007

Mark Graham Brown
"Large government and corporate organizations continue to spend money on canned or custom-developed leadership programs that fail to produce effective managers. This book presents a proven methodology for determining the specific management competencies needed for success in your own organization. By using this approach, based on studies of your most effective managers, you will build the foundation of a program that will allow you to select and train a large cadre of effective managers and leaders."

John Coné
"One of the great strengths of the book is that it is NOT about competencies. You make an outstanding point that there is more to the job than just possessing (or even exhibiting) competencies.

I really liked the book. Now, I have to be honest with you - it surprised me that I did. I have never been a fan of "workbook" type books that require me to do a lot of introspection and homework. Maybe that's because I'm lazy, or maybe because they require me to accept the models in the book as I go along rather than deciding after I have read it all how well they will apply to my world. Whatever the case, when I saw how your book was organized, I figured I wouldn't like the format and then I'd have to figure out how to tell you that.

But it didn't happen that way.

I think it is because of the way the book is organized, and perhaps also because you keep things relatively simple. You don't ask me to buy into a complicated and unusual model; but one that is pretty straightforward and logical. I also think that using the technique of directing people to the chapters that apply to them the most (as you do in Chapters 4 and 18, for example) prevents us from having to slog through work that we are not sure goes to the heart of our concerns. That is a brilliant move, and I wish more authors used the approach.

Thanks for the chapter summaries. They keep the reader on track and tell us what you as the author think are the key points of each chapter. The intros also do a great job of keeping us oriented.

The book reads easily and is very clear and concise."

Judy Hale
"I do like the way you have grouped the areas of performance. You have developed a useful tool and process to help identify, define, and evaluate managerial competencies."

Margo Murray
"How I spent my holiday weekend ....Actually several enjoyable hours of it were spent reading your new book! Congratulations on completing this comprehensive treatment of an essential subject. Here are some general impressions:

It will be very useful as a handbook and desk reference for managers, especially newer ones

I like the flexibility to access and use the sections most relevant to a current role or responsibility

Some chapters will serve as excellent checklists, for example the troubleshooting ones

I found myself many times thinking, 'I wish I had written this book when my management experiences were being tested and improved.'"

Joe Sener
"I like the model. It will help organizations on several levels:

Clarity of what should be the responsibility of each level of management in the organization.

The recognition that different individuals will be better at some of these AoP's than at others -- and that is not only OK but that diversity adds strength to the organization.

A detailed description of the skills required of each role at the individual contributor line as well as an assay of those skills at the organizational level.

A recognition of the time required at the Management Support level which is seldom, if ever budgeted for by the organization but is just assumed that we will find the time for it. I believe that upwards of 40% of my time is spent just managing Human Assets."

Darlene Van Tiem
"Tremendous performance management tool! Competence is key to inspiring, challenging, and coaching employees. Every leader should require Management Areas of Performance as part of a performance assessment empowering their managers to develop competencies, thus improving competitiveness and organizational effectiveness.

Comprehensive, well organized, and motivational.

Actually, I think that it is a terrific succession planning, career development, and employee development piece. You have presented, in detail fashion, the full set of competencies. You have not glossed over issues and made it a simple book."

Frank Wydra
"I like where you are going with Management Areas of Performance and I believe it will prove a useful workbook for many who are trying to move beyond training and development and into the bright, glowing work of human performance technology. You can quote me on that, if you so choose."

4 of my 5 books are available as free PDFs at http://www.eppic.biz/

# # #

What is Really Required in the Real World Is Often Not Formally Addressed in an ISD Degree Program

2009-12-05T08:52:00.015-05:00

Depending on your ISD "Performance Context" - and the ISD processes you follow, the tools and materials that you have at your disposal, and the awareness/ knowledge/ skills that you are expected to apply to the efforts you will face - an ISDer typically needs many more knowledge/skills than they will be taught/ that they will learn in an ISD program.

My approach isn't necessarily your "performance context" - my PACT Processes - so you would need to adapt the following, which comes from Appendices C in my book: lean-ISD: available for free at www.eppic.biz - This is what is needed in a PACT Context. Again, your context may vary.

The PACT Process Facilitator
The key attributes, values, knowledge, and skills required of the PACT Process facilitator are similar to the skills required of many other processes facilitators. For example, a PACT Process facilitator must be a good communicator, able to
• Communicate well verbally
• Listen well
• Use the flip chart effectively

The facilitator must be able to deal well with group dynamics. This means that he or she must be able to
• Negotiate smoothly and influence people
• Work well with diverse groups of people
• Handle group conflict

The facilitator has to have good problem-solving abilities. This means being
• Persistent
• Creative
• A systems thinker
• A conceptual thinker (versus literal)
• A strategic thinker (versus tactical)
• Able to suggest ideas
• Able to create models
• Able to work “bottom-up”
• Able to work “top-down”
• Able to deal with ambiguity
• Able to interpret data

And in addition, a good PACT Process facilitator has a variety of other attributes, values, knowledge, and skills that come in handy. For example, the facilitator must be able to
• Be organized
• Handle details well
• Be decisive
• Deal with technical or unfamiliar content
• Appreciate diversity in ideas, people, etc.
• Appreciate the value of a common process, where appropriate
• Appreciate process management
• Flex processes without sacrificing results
• Understand training logistics and administration
• Exhibit competence in ISD skills

There are other knowledge and skills required, but these seem to be key.

The PACT Processes to Facilitate
At various times during the PACT Processes, facilitated teams are involved in
• Planning activities
• Analysis activities
• Design activities
• Development activities
• Debriefing activities
• Project Steering Team gate review meetings

However, the specific PACT Processes to be facilitated do not always occur in team meetings, although those are the most difficult facilitation applications for the PACT practitioner. Meetings may also be one-on-one. More on dealing with SMEs and Master Performers one at a time, later.
Meetings include the following:
• Initial meeting of the T&D requesters and other key stakeholders (individual meetings)
• Project Steering Team gate review for Phase 1: Project Planning & Kick-off (group meeting)
• Meetings needed to gather target audience data (individual meetings)
• Analysis Team meeting(s) (group meeting)
• Facilitation of the assessment of the existing T&D (individual or group meetings)
• Project Steering Team gate review for Phase 2: Analysis (group meeting)

• Design Team meetings for Phase 3 in Curriculum Architecture Design, Modular Curriculum Development, and Instructional Activity Development projects (group meeting)
• Project Steering Team gate review for Phase 3: Design (group meeting)
• Implementation Planning meeting in Phase 4 (group meeting)
• Project Steering Team gate review for Phase 4: Implementation Planning (group meeting)
• Project Steering Team gate review for MCD Phase 5: Pilot Test (group meeting)

The facilitation guidelines apply mainly to group meetings. Some may also be used in individual meetings/ observations and interviews.

But beware dealing with one SME or Master Preformer at a time: Research shows that an expert can miss up to 70% of what a novice truely needs to perform. See this video of Dr. Richard E. Clark talking about this research - from USC's Center for Cognitive Technologies - embedded in on of my prior Blog Posts here.

Guy Wallace’s Facilitation Guidelines
I call these “The 12 Rules and Guidelines of Proactive/Confrontational Facilitation for the PACT Processes for T&D.” They are
1. Go Slow to Go Fast.
2. Be Declarative.
3. Write Stuff and Post It.
4. Be Redundant by Design.
5. Use the Four Key Communications Behavior Types.
6. Review and Preview.
7. Write It Down and Then Discuss It.
8. Use Humor.
9. Control the Process and the Participants.
10. Be Legible on the Flip Chart.
11. Beware of Group-Think.
12. Assign Parking Lot Valets.

Each of these is covered in more detail in this prior Blog Post series that starts with #1 here - and wraps up with a summary of links to all 12 posts in the series here. In this series I've embellished the early content from the book.

Read them. Use them as needed. Adopt what you can and Adapt the rest. Make up your own guidelines - whatever really works for you in serving the needs of the group and project!

Note: Lean-ISD is available as a free 404-page PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/

Or you can buy a hardbound version here or a Kindle version here.

In 1999 Miki Lane, senior partner at MVM The Communications Group wrote an Early Review:

“lean-ISD takes all of the theory, books, courses, and pseudo job aids that are currently on the market about Instructional Systems Design and blows them out of the water. Previous ‘systems’ approach books showed a lot of big boxes and diagrams, which were supposed to help the reader become proficient in the design process.

Here is a book that actually includes all of the information that fell through the cracks of other ISD training materials and shows you the way to actually get from one step to another.

Guy adds all of the caveats and tips he has learned in more than 20 years of ISD practice and sprinkles them as job aids and stories throughout the book. However, the most critical part of the book for me was that Guy included the project and people management elements of ISD in the book. Too often, ISD models and materials forget that we are working with real people in getting the work done.

This book helps explain and illustrate best practices in ensuring success in ISD projects.”

# # #

Are Instructional Degrees Always Needed for an Instructional Designer?

2009-12-04T17:34:00.006-05:00

Cammy Bean and Karl Kapp are tweeting and blogging about Accidental Instructional Designers and asking a question online that has been asked many times in my 30 years in the biz:

Do Instructional Designers need to have a degree in Instructional Design?

On LinkedIn the question was whether or not you could be considered a professional in HPT unless one had an HPT-type degree.

I have a degree in Radio/ TV/ Film - and have been in the Instructional Design biz - starting as a Program Developer in Saginaw Michigan right out of college - creating video-based Instruction Packages (Supervisor's Package and a Learner's Package) for distribution to 280+ do-it-yourself lumber yards across the USA.

Later when I was at Motorola our staff got updates and highlights - where I read that a typical employee would have 7 distinct careers in their working lives. Do we expect the typical worker to also get 7 degrees as they make each change during their career?

I think not.

But they do need to learn the new business - whatever that might be - Instructional Designer or Product Manager or Business Analyst. But not necessarily get a degree.

Someone needs to 1- put a set of valid ISD processes into place, and then 2- put the infrastructure into place and then 3- train everyone when and how to use them.

So, as an accidental instructional designer myself, and having trained many ISD folks with degrees in my PACT Processes, I don't believe that your ISD staff needs to have everyone have an ISD degree. But perhaps one would be good - depending. For QA purposes.

As always, it depends.

Many degreed ISD professionals were not really taught how to first dialogue with a client or clients, develop a plan, and then quickly/rapidly put that plan into action and produce results - not butts in seats or butts on sites - but RESULTS.

They were taught many theories, models, principles - and they got some experience in how to do a student project or two...maybe three, maybe not.

Then they are too often expected to sink or swim in their first jobs - and as Geary Rummler taught us: put a good performer into a bad system, and the system wins every time.

And if you are going for RESULTS, measured results, then you'll need more than that sink-or-swim approach.

BTW- As a grey beard in the biz 30 years, Level 4 has always been ROI, because how else would you pose RESULTS but via ROI - or ROA or RONA, etc. Whatever the business uses. When in Rome....

I do not have an Instructional Design degree. But I learned it working with people who used valid methods at both Wickes Lumber and Motorola. And then I also learned about ISD wheat and chaff at ISPI - where I have been a member for 30 years as well. And got my annual booster shots of "performance-based HPT" - including ISD.

In fact they published a second version of my PACT Processes for T&D/ Learning/ Knowledge Management in a 12-part series published in their Performance Xpress (PX) monthly newsletter during 2007...

The late Geary A. Rummler, and others sanctioned my ISD methods as valid - see those listed below. Geary even designed the book's cover and back.

So the lack of a degree hasn't hurt me - but I was lucky - in the right places at the right times. You can't always get lucky like that. So get a degree if you can - and if you cannot - find a source of valid methods versus popular methods.

lean-ISD is available as a hardbound book and a Kindle book, and as a free PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/

lean-ISD Book Quotes (1999) - from when the book first came out...

Geary A. Rummler from the Performance Design Lab says, “If you want to ground your fantasy of a ‘corporate university’ with the reality of a sound ‘engineering’ approach to instructional systems that will provide results, you should learn about the PACT Processes. If you are the leader of, or a serious participant in, the design and implementation of a large-scale corporate curriculum, then this book is for you. This system could be the difference between achieving bottom-line results with your training or being just another ‘little red school house.’ ”

Dale Brethower, Ph.D. from Western Michigan University says, “This book is not an easy read, it is something much better. It is a book written for people who share Guy Wallace’s passion for developing training that adds value, for people who are so committed to competence for themselves and the people they serve that they are willing to do what it takes to develop training that adds value. The best way to use the book is as a guide in doing projects . . . it describes the why and the what and offers many wise and useful suggestions about how.”

Jim Russell, Professor of Instructional Design at Purdue University says, “This highly structured and detailed process for instructional design provides excellent guidelines for advanced students and practitioners. The focus is on improving training and development processes and products in business and industry.”

John Swinney, from Bandag, Inc. and president of ISPI says, “Guy Wallace is giving away the magic. This book provides a model and methodology to help a training function link its long-term outputs to the business needs of the organization. The PACT Processes help introduce the voice of the customer into any training organization whose mission is to improve performance.”

Miki Lane, senior partner at MVM The Communications Group says, “lean-ISD takes all of the theory, books, courses, and pseudo job aids that are currently on the market about Instructional Systems Design and blows them out of the water. Previous ‘systems’ approach books showed a lot of big boxes and diagrams, which were supposed to help the reader become proficient in the design process. Here is a book that actually includes all of the information that fell through the cracks of other ISD training materials and shows you the way to actually get from one step to another. Guy adds all of the caveats and tips he has learned in more than 20 years of ISD practice and sprinkles them as job aids and stories throughout the book. However, the most critical part of the book for me was that Guy included the project and people management elements of ISD in the book. Too often, ISD models and materials forget that we are working with real people in getting the work done. This book helps explain and illustrate best practices in ensuring success in ISD projects.”

Randy Kohout, director of knowledge management at Fireman’s Fund says, “I’ve found lean-ISD to be a very useful reference tool and resource. After having been involved with Guy Wallace on a large-scale application of the methodology at my last firm, I’ve taken on several recent projects in my new company using many of the methods, tools, and templates of Guy Wallace’s PACT Processes for Training & Development. The book is designed so that I was able to quickly access the information I needed to provide my clients with practical, timely, and quality approaches to tackling their business issues. I highly recommend this book as a guide for business professionals challenged by either training and development, learning, knowledge management, or human competence development projects.”

# # #

Reducing Over-Generalizing In Learning By Targeting a Specific Context

2009-11-28T10:29:00.005-05:00

When I read online or on-paper about Learning I am almost always trying to figure out which Learning Context or Contexts the writer is writing about. Some proclamations seem to place the proclaimer in one camp/ one context, but their proclamations exclude nothing from falling within the rule set out, the generalization set out.

In frustration with the over-generalizations made by many in the Learning Space, as I am sure I am guilty of creating myself, I created this 3 segmented Learning Context model (above) and descriptions - see here for those.

Most don't position what they are writing about as a generalization with exceptions. Many come across as it they are THE ONE with the one true concept-set, one model-set, one tool-set.

To combat that I often use the following phrase in my writings, as a self-reminder and as a reminder to my readers: As always, it depends.

One size does not fit all. And Best Practices should never had been something you'd consider "cutting and pasting" into some new context -without having to then edit/tweak for a better fit. Best practices might be able to be adopted, but more often they would need to be adapted.

As a general rule that is.

# # #

Achieving Role Clarity via Performance Modeling and E-S-I-R-A

2009-11-27T08:07:00.017-05:00

ESIRA - Like RACI* – but clearer sometimes.

A Twitter tweet exchange with Dennis Callahan earlier this week inspired me to revisit the methods and devices I have used in the past, and trained others to do, to help groups of Master Performers model “ideal performance” - against which you can later conduct a “gap analysis” of actual “typical” (and on rare occasion: and/or atypical) performance of the incumbent population. More on that Gap Analysis later.

A big part of for me in getting Role Clarity is sometimes, but not always, but especially in complex Performance Contexts, is the use of Role/Responsibility “columns” on a Performance Model chart (see the graphic below - click on it to enlarge and scan it top to bottom for the data it presents and the codes used in the center, defined in the footer of the PM chart).

The clarity comes from using some device like this to define who’s doing what, when, etc., where there are "co-performers" in a task-set statement. When there are multiple players in the sand box of performance - however framed, to whatever scale.

See those task statements above? Sometimes they are Micro-Task granular - and sometimes they are more “Macro-Tasks” big - Macro with many micro-tasks (you might call them steps or something else) where that level of detail doesn't make it to the page (the PM chart). The more global (vs. granular) that they are the more you need further clarification regarding each “role’s” responsibility within that one task statement.

It’s the old “Who’s on First?” for your effort later if you don’t clarify this better early – and only to the level of detail, etc, necessary and adequate to YOUR DOWNSTREAM needs.

So it can and will vary.

So - in those R/R “columns” above, you see the various letters, and the codes at the bottom of the Performance Model Chart.

BTW - I’ve always pronounced it/the system I inherited from former business partner Ray Svenson back in 1982: “iss-ih-rah” – but you do as you please.

So the example chart 2 above, enables a group of Master Performers (who else would you ask?) to be facilitated to clarify "ideally" who does what, etc. Tying Tasks to Outputs, and organizing them by Areas of Performance (AoPs - a decidedly task versus topic orientation) for complex Performance Contexts - such as the context for graphic #1 above - where that focus on "training" is one small slice of the "Performance Context" of Clinical Trials Management - globally.

That one page (Performance Model chart) is one of over 50 to describe the "ideal performance" and to capture the "gap analysis against that ideal" as determined by the facilitated Master Performers - and others as needed/appropriate to the downstream uses of this data-set). This was part of an effort to follow-on a Six Sigma project that re-engineered this global corporate (high risk and high reward) process - with my PACT methodologies for CAD - Curriculum Architecture Design. The effort produced a T&D Path (or Learning Path) of a modular curriculum where many sets of content (performance-based information and instruction) were logically set in a framework and sequence - on the visible T&D Path (itself a Marketing Poster if you will).

Partial - Defining Role Clarity Another Way - And Why
The example PM chart below uses a different "role clarity device" - a different "code" to further define who might be doing such-and-such a task-set. P is for Primary as in, this Role (job title, etc.) is responsible for this task (task-set) most of the time. The X means that these Roles are sometimes "on the hook" to conduct this.

Can you see the cross training needs pop out in front of your very eyes? I do as I facilitate groups. I also immediately see the potential need for a "train 'em" either both: before the need and during the need - or just during the need. For the X group that sometimes has to do this. Again, the potential for that. But that is on my radar screen - something to be addressed in the Design phase of PACT, not now during the Analysis phase.

Not Used - Not Specifically Defining Role Responsibility Differences
Is it always necessary to use the R/R column and Responsibility Code Definitions devices on the PM chart?

No.

As always it depends. The example below did not. Check it out.

What's the deal? Why not used in this project, with its own "Context" in the Client's project? And who decides, and when? The short answer is: the needs you have downstream - which you should understand. You should almost always collect "only the data and to the detail required" for your known needs downstream in "your process."

The long answer is too long for here in this post.

Other Responsibility Code Definitions
*RACI – a very popular device, a set of definitions. Many groups that I worked with over the past 3 decades sometimes struggled themselves with the real difference with the R and the A - as defined/used in their own organizations.

BTW- I very much like the RACI definitions below – they are much clearer than the official definitions that some of my clients used internally - and sometimes caused the hangups - which were always more visible to me during the group process than to perhaps most of the participating Master Performers. And in my PACT Processes, not having a group consensus in any one step leads to the unwinding of group confidence in the quality, quantity and appropriateness of the data that we as a group generate.

Hmm. Worrisome. How to avoid?

Use what works. These Responsibility Code-sets are just one piece of doing this.

RACI
Definitions from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix

Responsible
Those who do the work to achieve the task. There is typically one role with a participation type of Responsible, although others can be delegated to assist in the work required.

Accountable (also Approver or final Approving authority)
Those who are ultimately accountable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable or task, and the one to whom Responsible is accountable. In other words, an Accountable must sign off (Approve) on work that Responsible provides. There must be only one Accountable specified for each task or deliverable.

Consulted
Those whose opinions are sought; and with whom there is two-way communication.

Informed
Those who are kept up-to-date on progress, often only on completion of the task or deliverable; and with whom there is just one-way communication.

If my team of Master Performers (think of a group of very strong egos in one room) were really struggling with this - I would often propose a switch. If they then, as a group of Master Performers decided it was OK for us to use ESIRA instead of RACI, when their organizations typically used that definition-set, we would.

It then always seemed to be OK with everyone who later saw the Performance Model charts - typed up from the original flip chart pages we used in the group process method I prefer to generate such data.

But RACI is a good tool too. I just started using ESIRA in the early 1980s and I didn’t come across RACI until later in that decade or early in the next. Again, you use what works. And you flex as much as needed - as determined by your downstream needs and methods.

Adopt if you can and it’s appropriate – otherwise adapt as needed. Avoid starting from scratch. Do a little home work first. Ala ~ Abe Lincoln:
"Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe."

The Gap Analysis and the R/R
The data captured on the PM charts links the roles and their responsibilities data AND the gap data - back to an output - hopefully a Worthy Output - within the framework of AoPs: Areas of Performance.

In the group process, after all of the ideal PM data is captured (the left side of the PM chart) the Gap data is systematically derived by the facilitated group of Master Performers - again - who else would you ask about the Master Performers' peers who were not Masters - but doing the job at levels less than masterly?

Finally
And if one is modeling a future state versus a current state - it is trickier - it just requires more heads in the facilitated process.

Other Resources

This Blog - has many posts on PM charts and the process for generating the data. There is an ISPI article in PIJ in 2004 (which was back when ISPI was NSPI). There is also my Chapter 11 in the 3rd Edition of the Handbook of Human Performance Technology: order here. And there are several relevant Slideshare Presentations and Articles (Documents): here.

# # #

Learning Measurement and “Topic-based” vs. “Task-based” Approaches

2009-11-25T10:59:00.010-05:00

...and the Implications for Content Creation for Information & Instruction to Improve Workplace Performance and for the Meaningful Measurement of Impact at L1-2-3-4/5. Or at least for: 3-4-5.

Those in the business of Content Creation for Information & Instruction to improve workplace performance should measure themselves at L3 and L4 only – because if you don’t move those needles in the right direction in your real world – L1 and L2 successes won’t suffice for long. Nor should they*. Not for those concerned with returns on shareholder equity investments. Nor for those concerned with good stewardship of that shareholder equity.

*Besides, Level 1 and 2 data are not really trustworthy: http://tiny.cc/p1KSf - per research into the correlations between L1 and L3/4/5.

And I wouldn't measure L3-4-5 after each course/module!!! How incremental for the big impact measures!!! That's too much too often!

Topic-based Information & Instruction
Ever been given a topic to address with your learning solutions-set by your Client? How do you proceed?

You probably next outlined the flow of content and would perhaps show templates as you storyboard or rapidly prototype right in front of the Client’s eyes.

Then when it’s time to develop you probably start with the content versus the tests – which is counter to best practices in ISD. You should first start with your testing of the learning objectives – enabling and terminal. Most don’t. Testing is most often an afterthought, let alone being designed into place for the Learners’ benefits - to help them with meaningful Progress Checks.

But developing meaningful testing is hard to do when you aren’t anchored to actual task performance – and only have an outline of content flow. You now have to develop all of the content first - and then you can develop testing on that content! Oh boy!

There is another way - covered later.

Task-based Information & Instruction
When given a Task by your Client for you to train to- and for learners to learn XYZ - it’s so much easier to proceed.

You can probably take that “TASK statement” from the Client: "train ‘em to or on XYZ” and then break that down and also build up to the higher levels to see how this fits within the big picture of overall process performance – so as to set the Context-Stage, so-to-speak.

I break it down and expand my view during analysis efforts. Tasks are what people do with the resources available to produce worthy outputs – that are measured by Stakeholders at both the Product level and at the Process level.

Learners probably need to understand “how score is kept” as well as how to play (tasks) and what to produce (outputs) in the workplace performance sand-box. You can also examine typical gaps by incumbents – because if that is ultimately difficult to learn on the job (Informally) by those incumbents – then it’s too tricky to leave to chance. You need to address it adequately, by design.

I also ask about the big picture, of how this process-outputs flows into other value chains to determine if “what’s important” has any variances, and what those are, one context to another. The down-steam and higher-level contexts – that is.

I often want the learners/Performers to see the big picture - including the consequences for their performance. To me, that is always part of a structured Advanced Organizer for the Learners’ benefit – as well as for the Developers.

The Typical Difficulty Being Authentic with Topic-based Approaches
If you have a topic and details about that topic, but not the performance contexts in which it is relevant, you cannot create anything other than Mickey-Mouse Content and Quizzes – those that are simplified, boiled down to the common denominator to the point that it’ll be necessary to keep reminding those learner/Performers about how to personally think about WIIFM – because the developer couldn’t.

Unless of course, you just got lucky that day.

What are your Instructional/learning Products:
What have been your recent experiences with what your Clients give you?
• Topic-Based?
• Task-Based?

Being Authentic with Task-based Approaches
When I have a Performance Model (or equivalent) in front of me, I can start with the test development, and with the design of applications exercises (knows as APPOs in PACT), as well as the DEMOs chunks, and the INFOs chunks. Whether or not I use the formality of a PACT “Lesson Map” in front of the Client or not. I still ask questions and pose ideas with this framework in mind.

And you have to work hard to escape the authenticity of the data in front of you – on a Performance Model chart that is.

How to Immediately Convert a Client’s Topic-Based Request into a Task-Based Request – and Survive the Moment
When I have a Client request for a topic be covered, I say yes immediately (as I was taught to, by Joe Harless) and then move into initial analysis to convert a topic to a task.

I usually try to start with a focus on the Performers/Learners - and ask about the Learners and try to pin them down somehow: What can I safely generalize about their both their terminal performance contexts, and their incoming awareness, knowledge and/or skills.

This is for both of us – because sometimes there are other audiences, perhaps many audiences, and I get caught up in thinking only about the one that the Client starts with. It’s what’s at the top of their mind – but it may not be inclusive.

Then I go for a better understanding of how that TOPIC plays out in the TASK performance requirements of the Target Audience(s). I need to understand this well enough to “see the APPOs in my head” – and then I “Test for Understanding” with the Client about those potential “applications” and their appropriateness of the variations (or not) of the Target Audience(s). The “secret sauce” in Client discussions for me has often, not always, been a quick focus on the applications of the learnings – to what can they do with this and how can we test/ assess that?
Clients really do like that. A Focus on applications.

Then I ask about other enabling Knowledge/Skills required to truly enable the Target Audience(s) in Task performance.

Then I ask about existing content and other communications/training that might support this – and what from the past may be in contrast or competition with the new content to be developed/acquired (build/buy).

And then I write that up, as needed, and get on with making it happen. And initially focus on developing the tests, the application exercises (APPOs in PACT) first and then back out the details of the content in the “Activity Spec” boxes on the Lesson Map.

PACT is covered in lean-ISD, available as a hardbound book and a Kindle at Amazon, plus as a free 404-page PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/

# # #

Neil Rackham - 10 Design Criteria for Performance-based Instruction - 1981 at MTEC

2009-11-19T17:09:00.012-05:00

I first met Neil Rackham in 1981 the day he made the day long workshop/ presentation captured on the 57 minute video that follows. It was my first week on the job at MTEC.

Video 57 minutes.

Neil, later of SPIN Sales fame, was brought in by Bill Wiggenhorn for his newly assembled staff of "Training Project Supervisors" and other managers at the newly created Motorola Training & Education Center, the forerunner to Motorola University MU.

Geary Rummler had been there the week before, hear Neil's reference to that captured in the video here. I met my eventual business partner, Ray Svenson when he did a day with the MTEC Staff in this aggressive series of staff development (and pure enlightenment too) workshops with some very bright, leading edge corporate T&D folks, circa 1981. It was a great experience. Most were in our offices for several days, and so more went on than just these workshops in our conference room.

In the video above, Neil presents on his "10 Design Criteria" for Instructional designs/programs. And he does it with flip charts that he creates as he goes along. This was 1981, long before PowerPoint, but not overhead transparencies.

#1- Is what you are teaching, based on a valid success model?

#2- Is your emphasis on "basic" behaviors/ skills?

#3- Is there a low threat learning environment?

#4- Is there an incremental building of skills?

#5- Is the design a learner-centric approach?

#6- Are there frequent and objective progress checks?

#7- Are there maximum practice opportunities?

#8- Are the behaviors/ skills taught based on a specific performance model?

#9- Is it exciting to teach/ learn?

#10- Are there reinforcements back on the job for what is being taught/ learned?

A pretty good checklist, even for 1981. I think every point is valid in today's technology-rich deployment/ access world of web 2.0.

I think it worth the 1 hour investment to view the video while applying the 10 Criteria to your recent/ current/ future efforts.

# # #

Pushed and Pulled Performance-based Information and Instruction for Developing Performance Competence

2009-11-19T06:54:00.006-05:00

Now there’s a blend.

Performance Competence
Performance Competence is the ability to perform tasks to produce outputs to stakeholder requirements. Stopping with Task Analysis and not understanding the products produced and their key measures – requirements by the various stakeholders including but not limited to the customer, is stopping way too short.

Stopping with just the customers’ needs is stopping way too short.

Performance-based whether Formal or Informal
In an Enterprise Learning Context – as opposed to an Educational Learning or Personal Learning context – the terminal performance objectives are discoverable/ definable. We look to the workflow, to the process, and derive the needs for information and/or instruction from that truly authentic source: on-the-job performance competence requirements. We can make/buy whatever makes sense for directive Formal and non-directed Informal Learning/Skill needs for our particular situation and the context of our current and future learners/Performers.

The Customer is King – Not!
Stakeholders are many and varied and their needs need to be known, and balanced in case of conflicts. They sometimes care about the process and not the product (child labor laws) and sometimes they care about the product and not the process (sausage) and sometimes they care about both.

Information Pushed and Pulled
Information should be pushed - where the learner/Performer is first exposed to and then caused to react with that information - in job-relevant ways - and the performance competence with that information is then measured – at the appropriate point of knowledge/skill accumulation – not after every module!

And Information should be made accessible for pulling where an ongoing need exists, or where new needs emerge for a learner/Performer.

Information makes one aware and perhaps knowledgeable. If combined with other prior knowledge/skills, the exposure to new information might be all that is necessary to develop a new skill! But not always.

Instruction isn't always needed. As always, it depends.

Instruction Pushed and Pulled
Instruction should be pushed where warranted and completions tracked and performance competence measured – at the appropriate point of knowledge/skill accumulation – again, not after every module!

And Instruction should be accessible for pulling where a new need emerges for a learner/Performer.

Modular instruction participation - in one module - may not lead to a particular performance competence, but may be one of several or many enablers that all add up to a particular performance competence. Measuring at this stage (L1-L4/5) is premature.

I'd only measure at this stage of the learning progression if I wasn't getting terminal performance competence at the point where, by design, that would have occured on the Learning Path.

Before the Need in the Process Workflow
Sometimes there are tasks that are very critical that one really does need to master before the need in the workflow because the consequences for less-than-performance-competence perfection would be disastrous.

We might need to both train upfront with information and instruction before the need.

During the Need in the Process Workflow
Sometimes there are tasks that one really doesn’t need to master before the need because they are relatively easy to do and/or the consequences for less-than-performance-competence perfection would not be disastrous.

We might not need to both train with information and instruction before the need - but only provide access to informational and instructional content to guide the learner/Performer in their performance during the need.

Before and During the Need in the Process Workflow
Sometimes there are very critical tasks that one really needs to master and either because they happen infrequently or the consequences for less-than-performance-competence would truly be disastrous.

We might need to both train with information and instruction before the need - and have access to informational and instructional content to guide the learner/Performer in the very critical performance steps during the moment of need.

Blend It
Blend your proactive response to the needs of learners/Performers to master their jobs, to achieve Performance Competence. To their needs before and/or during their moment of need. How to determine? Ask a group of Master Performers in a group form (F2F and/or Online). Blend Formal and Informal. Blend deployment media and mechanisms. Blend in applications with feedback immediately prior to the next attempt. Blend in time for reflection at critical points - both self-reflection and group discussions to reflect as a group. Blend in spaced applications over time.

Determine what of all of that - those needs - for all critical performance situations/contexts, and then enable them "with before and during development and resources" using whatever delivery channels make sense from a shareholder ROI perspective. Traditional drill-and-practice training. Online Social Network community of others in the same, similar, and related jobs. Online access to specific data/information repositories - and to the WWW - wikis created by this community for this community - etc., etc.

ROI
Don’t forget about the Returns for the Investments, the Rewards achieved and the Risks mitigated/avoided. That's what you get when you focus on performance, and insure that your enabling Knowledge/Skills content (Information and/or Instruction) really do enable performance, regardless of how deployed and/or how accessed.

If you are always working collaboratively with your Customers and other Stakeholders, they will know the R's for the I's as you take this journey together. You will collectively self-correct if you keep a watchful eye on where those investments are targeted, and the results that you are contributing to.

# # #

It’s Hard Work - Performance-Based Information & Instruction

2009-11-16T17:09:00.007-05:00

It’s not easy, but it’s not impossible either, to insure that your investments in Learning & Development are focused on improving performance.

That is your goal, no? In an enterprise sense? In an educational sense? And in a personal sense?

Or, why are you learning? To learn something and then to never “use” it?

As you ponder that and/or go on to the next Blog Post here or elsewhere – have a listen to John Handy’s up-beat but still-mellow jazz piece: Hard Work here.

Hard Work - John Handy

The trick is always figuring out what that terminal performance is, those terminal performance objectives that lead to terminal learning objectives that lead to enabling learning objectives that lead to test development (I prefer Performance Tests over Knowledge Tests any day that it’s my money that’s being invested) that THEN FINALLY LEADS TO DEVELOPMENT as rapidly or as slowly as your desires and circumstances allow.

And the trick is also to keep it all scalable. From one single “performance” producing one output, to lots, to many more, and then to them all – for a single enterprise – and then on a larger industry value chain. What’s your scope?

At the bottom level of scale – the individual output might require many tasks, but a single task without a “worthy outputs” (thank you Tom Gilbert) isn’t worth much. It simply has the potential to be part of what creates value, an output, which might require more outputs to really become a worthy output. Just as an analysis document needs to lead to a design document and then the development of the thing – or as a component becomes a sub-assembly of a unit that eventually becomes a whole car.

How can you scale your “informational and instructional products” for learner/Performer consumption before and/or in the moment of need in the process workflow? To address all the individual performance needs – the real-world needs driven by the processes as defined and rigid, or as un-defined and fluid as they “really” are? That’s “authenticity!”

If you would like to read about my proven approach to ISD that will get you to Performance-Based Information & Instruction - see my free 404-page PDF book: lean-ISD.

And/or download one to twelve audio podcasts on various aspects of lean-ISD via the PACT Processes for T&D/ Learning/ Knowledge Management.

Go to www.eppic.biz

And still...it will be hard work.

# # #

Thanksgiving season: I love technology - when it works. And mostly it does. So thanks NASA!

2009-11-15T09:25:00.004-05:00

I still carry business cards. Every once in a while I get asked for one. So, just in case.

The alternative is to not have one, looking unprofessional to those who still expect them, still use them themselves - or me somehow inadvertently suggesting that they are out of touch and from the past, and un-cool.

Business cards? How un-cool, how un-green. How, so, so passe. But, then again...when in Rome....

So I can do both... hand you a card - and/or - send you my contact information via email and/or SMS and/or MMS. I can write down a quick note too, on my paper with my pen - but that's because I've always been a lousy typist - and - that I didn't thumb my way to today - I used the little metal/plastic "pointers" and I tapped out my text messages and notes, calendar appointments, contact info in the past.

Which brings me to the personal personal productivity of technology - at least for me. And the blend: new and old : personal digital assistants (of today) and paper & pen.

An aside to start: So thank you NASA for all that you have done for us lovers/haters but users of technology. Talk about ROI. Step back and think about what the publics investment in NASA has returned to the individual in society, across the planet. Yes, it took a while.

The drive to make everything smaller and lighter, and more transportable into and through space - and to make room for all sorts of other stuff - themselves being continuously shrunk in size and weight - has ended up in the palm of our hands. All for the cost of the hardware and the connection - the world of information (good and bad, true and false, etc.) is in your hands.

I've been carrying around tools that most thought of as toys for decades. Where most contemporaries were on the Palm Pilot (which I eventually used to sync better with Outlook) I started with the Sharp Zaurus before the Pilot was available. I had several products in that line before the switch over to the Palm Pilot. Those who traveled a lot for business like me had special needs. And if you were zipping all over the country in the friendly skies BEFORE President Ronald Regan changed air travel forever and... remember the days when... you needed less distractions... then you've been doing this for a long time and were probably a lot like me in the following way.

I was always trying to reduce the size and weight of the things in my briefcase and carry-ons, sometimes one was not enough in the professional world as everyone from back in the days appreciates the real business need to carry around so much stuff, such as personal and professional calendars, pencils, pens, paper, calculators, voice recorder and tapes, camera, video cameras, travel tickets and reservation information and directions/maps, and then my new mobile phone which had been car phones for a while until they too shrank a whole bunch, and then a GPS unit replaced looking at the small print of the auto rental map of your local area at night under a streetlight, and then I always had my mini-Cassett player and the headphones and the cassettes which later shrunk a whole bunch with the iPod replacement that I used for my air travel time - both in the air and in the waiting areas, and then too I needed to pack all of the different wall chargers and cords, the car chargers and cords, and other stuff - because business traveling requires it - and/or your sanity requires it.

And now today - all of that in one device - my little smartphone, where I can carry all of that stuff above plus, plus many many photo albums, presentations and documents, videos, voice recordings/notes. And get updates to the news, weather, sports updates, updates on travel conditions by ground or by air, and gadgets/tools for this and that and for serious needs and for fun needs.

How cool is that?

So again, thank you NASA!

And I'm glad you found water on the moon. So you can build a base there for the next generation of Space Cowboys. What will you bring us next? And will the public see the potential benefits - do they appreciate those that they have now?

Probably not on either count. And that's too bad.

What do you think about investments in NASA and space exploration?

# # #

First Focus on the Performance Competence Requirements

2009-11-07T07:52:00.003-05:00

When you first focus on Performance Competence: outputs and tasks and stakeholder requirements - it's easy to start with designing and developing the Performance Tests and then any necessary (performance-based) topics to support task performance (to produce worthy outputs).

If you start your Learning Solutions effort without that insight, all you can do is focus on whatever topics the client has identified - and then make up some less-than-authentic (read: less than performance-based) application exercises.

And that's why you read so often about the need to sell the learner on WIIFM. Because the designer/developer too often didn't have a clue.

And that's bad stewardship of shareholder equity.

# # #

Parallels Between the Structures of Presentations - Education Sessions - Training Sessions

2009-11-06T06:53:00.003-05:00

I've been using this simple 3-part segmentation scheme for about 30 years for my Presentations and the designs of Education Sessions and Training Sessions for my employer and consulting clients. It's the starting point these three buckets.

And before the biblical phrase was recently re popularized I always "began with the end in mind."

Either the punch line, or the logical conclusion, the key points and any specific details, the knowledge desired for recall capability, or the terminal performance objectives for Performance Competence - which I define as: the ability to PERFORM TASKS to PRODUCE OUTPUTS to STAKEHOLDER REQUIREMENTS.

Which means you need a means for figuring that out. What performance? What stakeholders and what do they each care about this process-wise and/or product-wise?

And you need to be able to produce valid Knowledge Tests and valid Performance Tests.

What's in your toolkit to help you do all of that?

# # #

Celebrating 30 Years Success with an Instructional Analysis Methodology-set - Inspired Partially by the late Geary A. Rummler

2009-11-04T06:46:00.015-05:00

It struck me last week, when thinking about my mentor, the late Geary A. Rummler, and that it'd been 30 years since I knew of him, (29 since I met him) and it'd been 30 years that I had had a "derivative of a derivative Rummler-methodology" in my own set of ISD analysis methods (as in the "A" in my version of ADDIE ~ MCD - Modular Curriculum Development of the PACT Processes. MCD is one of 3 levels of ISD in PACT).

The approach to instructional analysis that I’ve been using for 30 years now, is based on that derivative of a derivative of a Geary A. Rummler method - and - a Tom Gilbert method from the late 1970s. That’s when I was exposed to the first derivative – from people in my Training Department at Wickes Lumber in Saginaw Michigan, who had learned it from Geary’s brother Rick Rummler when they were all at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Detroit in the mid-to-late 1970s. BTW- In Gilbert’s “Human Competence” – all of the Insurance Industry examples are from BXBS. BXBS - I was told - was kind of a "proving grounds" for the work of Gilbert and Rummler.

The methodology that I use for focusing on authentic performance - was first published in November of 1984 – 25 years ago – in NSPI’s (now ISPI’s) Performance & Instruction Journal (now the Performance Improvement Journal). I see that the graphic below states August - but it was really November.

This article was published two months the methodology for conducting both the analysis and design of a large-scale, performance-based Curriculum Architecture was published in Training Magazine in September 1984. A sweet marketing one-two-step for us of us at what would soon become SWI - Svenson & Wallace, Inc. at the time.

More recently the analysis methods are covered in my book lean-ISD (1999)...

...and in the 3rd Edition of the Handbook of Human Performance Technology (chapter 11).

Analysis Building Blocks
The analysis methodology has 4 parts with 4 specific outputs (data-sets) – 1 part a Rummler Derivative, 1 part a Gilbert Derivative, and two parts “anonymously sourced.”

 Part 1- Target Audience data: who, how many, where, turnover rates, and background education and experience, etc. Gotta know what you can "generalize" and what you cannot (should not).

 Part 2- Ideal Performance and a Gap Analysis (ala Rummler’s Performance Analysis in the 1970s).

 Part 3- Enabling Knowledge/Skills (ala Gilbert’s Knowledge Map in the 1970s) using 17 Categories.

 Part 4- Existing T&D (Content) Assessments for Re-Use.

Analysis of Small-Scale Performance
An example of the data from an analysis effort for something "small" in size/scope:

I’ve walked into a Client’s office several times over the years and used their whiteboard (and flip charts before that) to conduct this analysis right then/right now.

I only attempted this when I thought that “I had already heard” that the scope of performance (not to be confused with the number of performers nor the critically of the task-set) was relatively small: a small number of outputs (or a single output) and a set of tasks. And I did this when one other criterion – covered later – was apparent.

I’d ask questions related to #1 above - the Target Audience or Audiences, then segue into questions about the "topic" that they wanted covered and I'd ask about output(s), the key measures of those outputs, the tasks/steps to be performed and a matrix for Roles/Responsibilities if there was more than one job title (or different levels within one job) involved. I'd turn topics into performance at every turn.

Then I’d probe for current performance gaps by asking if and how these output measures weren’t being met by incumbent performers “typically” as opposed to atypically (once in a blue moon, etc.). See the graphic above.

Then, having memorized the 17 Knowledge/Skill Categories...

I’d ask what specific K/S items did the Performer/learner need, going category by category. I’d note those all on the whiteboard. And kind of organize them on the whiteboard in terms of what they "enabled" task-wise or outputs-wise (if more than one).

Then I’d ask about existing instruction and information related to all of the performance data and the enabling K/Ss visible on the whiteboard. I’d add that to the analysis data.

Then I’d turn to the client – who could now see it all right in front of their eyes. I’d tell them that all of this performance data, the enabling K/S data , and the existing content reuse potential data were the piece parts, the Bill-of-Materials for the eventual Instruction.

I’d tell them we’d first overview the ideal performance and the typical gaps as an “Advanced Organizer,” then provide all of the enabling K/Ss, then demo the performance expected, and then finally put everyone into a hands-on/brains-on applications exercise – of the “authentic” real world performance. And of course we’d want to space additional applications later, somehow, someway. But on their white board would be a Lesson Map (or two or three) for this small scale performance to be addressed.

They were always blown away – because they had expected to simply discuss their need – and instead we had conducted the analysis and a high-level design instead. Can you say “Rapid?”

The other criterion? I only would attempt this when I was pretty sure that the Client would know the answers to the detailed questions. Or that they would see that we would need others for inputting to the process – and then I’d talk about the Secret Sauce – covered later. And how we might use such a Secret Sauce to embellish and validate this early analysis data-set and the preliminary design.

Analysis of Large-Scale Performance
Most of my 250+ ISD efforts over the past 30 years were bigger than a breadbox – so doing the analysis in front of the Client was most often impractical. In that case I might do a quick demo for one small part of the overall scope, so that I could dialogue with them about this kind of data and how it would be used in the design - and how to go forward with their project.

But the analysis is basically the same: Outputs/Measures, Tasks, Roles/Responsibilities, Typical Gaps, the enabling K/Ss, and identification of any existing content covering any of that.

But to scale up beyond one Output/Task Cluster (my term for that set of data off the Performance Model) I needed a framework to house all of that performance requirements and gap data.

I bundle O/T-C data into Areas of Performance. There might be one or a dozen O/T-Cs per AoP. It always varies. Go with the flow.

And for looking at an entire department, I use the Management Areas of Performance model/framework (M-AoPs). See the graphics above and below.

And looking at a function of several or many departments I would use that same M-AoP framework, but keep everyone’s data segregated, but similarly framed. That way I can more easily see the common K/S and Performance requirements (if any - and we usually find between a 50% to 75% range of potential sharable content (driven by common analysis data) when I've done projects across several Target Audiences in one project or across many projects.

I’ve even had a project to do this for an entire company (Spartan Stores in 1993). Overviews of almost all of my consulting projects (1982-2007) are available at http://www.eppic.biz/

OK – that frames the data – but what is the approach for gathering the data and analyzing it? That’s the Secret Sauce.

The Secret Sauce?
The Secret Sauce is the use of what I call use of a “Group Process with Master Performers” – otherwise known as Star Performers, the Best of the Breed, or sometimes: Subject Matter Experts.

As the research is pretty clear that a single SME or Master Performer will miss up to 70% of what a novice would need to actually perform (see the work of Richard E. Clark at USC’s Center for Cognitive Technologies) – I share that with my Clients – so they will see the wisdom of bringing a group together to be facilitated - much the same as they might have experienced with me – so that the Master Performers can “correct” each other, to build a robust model of the Performance requirements and the enabling K/Ss.

Having them work together, synchronously is important – so they can clarify and test for understanding (something that I find I typically need to teach them how to do in the process I employ), and together THEY build shared understanding of what they are compiling as a set of data related to ideal performance, current gaps, and the enabling Knowledges/Skills needed to perform those tasks.

And even then, you’ve got to be aware that your data is probably not perfect. But it’s probably as close as you can get without validating this via observations (if practical), or via Pilot-Testing (probably too late by then huh?).

But - who else would you ask - other than folks like these doing the job to a recognized level of mastery? Who else has any credibility to even review and approve or amend this kind of data?

More Resources
Dozens and dozens of resources exist: 4 free books (in PDF format),

Audio Podcasts, articles, and many presentations on the PACT Processes for T&D/ Learning/ Knowledge Management.

See my Blog Posts at: http://pursuingperformanceblog.blogspot.com/ - on RADD...a short version of PACT - true to PACT and a focus on Performance first - and then enable that!

See my Blog and my web site http://www.blogger.com/www.eppic.biz for these resources on PACT and ISD, T&D, Learning, Knowledge Management - and more.

# # #

So if it is a Valid Need with Enough ROI Potential - What Is Your L&D Function's Response "Maturity" Level?

2009-11-01T11:28:00.004-05:00

So your "Intake Process" has brought you a Need deemed worthy for addressing.

What do you have "in place" for addressing that Need in a predictable manner?

Predictable in terms of

Quality of Impact to Learner's Performance Competence on-the-job from the solutions-set implemented
Schedule for the effort
Costs to conduct the effort

Two books of mine might give you a place to start from, for your adaptations and implementations journey.

"lean-ISD" covers my PACT Processes for T&D/ Learning/ Knowledge Management

And "T&D Systems View" is about all of the internal processes (47) that a T&D/ L&D/ KMS function would need to have in place "to run their function like a business."

And then there is the need to "Segue from Training to Performance" that I've been writing about for decades and Posting about before as well - many times. Here's the overview of the 3 steps. The first link includes in-depth Posts on each of the 3 steps in my model/methodology-set for this.

But, as the 3 steps to a "segue from Training to Performance" advise: first things first. Get your current ISD efforts in "enough control" to provide consistently great services to your clients in the deliverables of ISD before attempting additional, more sophisticated services.

# # #

The Worthiness of Any ISD/ Learning Solutions Effort Is Situational

2009-10-31T08:46:00.006-04:00

I've been saying this for a long time:

Just because an ISD Professional can identify a valid "training/ learning need" - does not in and of itself warrant meeting that need.

But some in the profession do not agree. They complain when management doesn't fund everything - as if all K/S needs were of equal value, of equal consequence. They don't take a bigger view than from where they sit. Or where their Learners' sit, in the bigger picture.

Whether on the front-end of your "Intake" process - or preceding it as a separate step, at some point you should assess the ROI potential by estimating the values for the Risks and/or Rewards (the R in ROI, no?), and estimate the Investment costs for the likely solution-set.

And your Intake/Pre-Intake Processes should separate the wheat from the chaff, the needs from the wants. Surveying your audiences for what they "want" and believing that those are "needs" is taking a very loose view of what Learning should be about when in an Enterprise Context. It is not about meeting everyone's wants - it is about meeting the needs of the business for human competence, and performance competence at all levels: individual, team, process, business unit, enterprise. For ROI.

And doing good for Society as a whole too, IMHO. Another Reward in the Return category.

Perhaps you need a set of proven ISD processes for large-scale ISD needs identification based on the Process Performance requirements - and for small scale Instructional and Informational Content development/maintenance efforts based on the Process Performance requirements - so that you really impact the process via formal human performance competence development.

Lean-ISD is available at Amazon - and as a free PDF.

# # #

In Memory of the Passing of Geary A. Rummler - October 29, 2008

2009-10-29T07:47:00.005-04:00

I've been feeling this coming up these past few weeks. In memory of all that Dr. Rummler did for me and thousands of others here are two videos of him. The first is of Geary in 1981 at Motorola's Training & Education Center (MTEC) speaking to Bill Wiggenhorn's newly assembled staff on "Performance-based Training" -

And the second video is of an interview I conducted with Geary at ISPI's Spring Conference in 2008:

Geary was my main professional mentor - and over a 28 year span he taught me a lot. I still miss him and receiving his Professional booster shots annually at ISPI Conferences.

# # #

My Video Interview with Don Tosti - from ISPI Conference April 2008

2009-10-25T19:46:00.010-04:00

Don Tosti has been a favorite ISPI colleague for over 20 years. His presentations at ISPI Conferences are always packed - and I've always walked out with something new to use right away.

Here Don talks in this 7:48 video about some of his experiences in performance improvement consulting.

Looking forward to ISPI 2010 in San Francisco in April and seeing Don and many favorite speakers, as well as many new speakers, all focused on measured results via HPT - Human Performance Technology.

# # #

Judy Hale Interview

2009-10-20T17:38:00.003-04:00

Here is a video interview with Judy Hale from the ISPI Spring Conference 2009 in Orlando.

Click To Play

She talks with me about the "politics of Performance" among other topics.

Note: Judy will be the 2nd presenter at ISPI Charlotte - this December 10th. Check out the program here.

# # #

Another Milestone Slips Quietly By

2009-10-10T12:22:00.004-04:00

Today is the 34th anniversary of my EOAS date (end of active service) - October 10, 1975 - with the USN. 34 years ago my brother Garry drove me and my 450 Honda back from San Diego to Lawrence Kansas in his pickup with a camper bed. That's where his dog stayed (for the most part). I had just had surgery for a hernia, discovered during my "last days" physical - necessitating my extended stay. Another 5-6 days as I recall now.

After joining as a Seaman Recruit (E2) I rose to a Petty Officer 3rd Class (E4) but avoided going to E5 as that would have put me on Shore Patrol for my last 5 months in, when back in the states from a 13 month WESTPAC. I ran the CCTV Systems and did other related jobs as a rated Journalist on the USS Okinawa - LPH-3.

So today on a (planned) lazy Saturday I look out on the lake I live on, with grey, cloudy, fall skies cooperating. Thinking about "back in the day."

Enjoy your weekend! And I hope you have time for reflection too.

# # #

Thiagi Picture & Video Snippets - ISPI Charlotte - October 2, 2009

2009-10-07T17:32:00.004-04:00

Last week we had Thiagi in for our forming chapter's kick off Meeting and 1-day Workshop at ISPI Charlotte.

He did a Playful Introduction to HPT in our Thursday evening meeting Program. And on Friday he did a 1-day Workshop on "Interactive Strategies for Performance Improvement" - both huge successes!

Here is a 5:33 (short) Video from the Workshop.

Click To Play

Thiagi's web site: http://www.thiagi.com/

# # #

ReRun: Marc Rosenberg on ISPI and E-Learning and EPSS

2009-09-30T20:46:00.006-04:00

Marc made some interesting statements at the: E-Learning Debate 2009, according to Clive Shepherd here.

Here is a video interview with Marc and me done back in the spring of 2008 in NYC:

I'm having trouble getting this to work - please go here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9001322087016410278

Visit Marc's web site here.

# # #

PACT is a more predictable approach to ISD...

2009-09-30T20:37:00.003-04:00

Here is a Slideshare presentation of an overview of my 3-levels of ISD methodology-set: PACT

The Pact Processes - Overview

View more presentations from EPPIC Inc..

This is also covered in my book: lean-ISD available as a hardbound book and a Kindle book at Amazon.com - and as a free 404-page PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/

# # #

Slideshare & Video: Project Planning & Management of ISD and HPT Efforts

2009-09-19T08:46:00.004-04:00

In the last post I wrote about a PLAN, PLANNING and fixed fee pricing for ISD efforts.

This set of media in this post is of me at ISPI's Spring Conference this past April, 2009 - where I addressed those topics within my presentation on: "Project Planning & Management of ISD and HPT Efforts" - which I video taped from the back of the room - as I did it.

This is how I use my ADDIE-like process model/ project management planning framework, and do my own REVERSE-TASK-ANALYSIS to forecast my time burdens by role/assignment, and to calculate my costs and to determine a schedule with just enough "slack" for Mr. Murphy. Otherwise your pricing technique is best guess - or a WAG - and not a SWAG. Or enough of a SWAG.

Here is both a Slideshare presentation - and a Video - of me delivering the session at ISPI (sorry about the lighting) with some post-session editing on the video.

Slideshare:

Project Project Planning & Management for ISD and HPT Efforts

View more presentations from EPPIC Inc..

Video:

# # #

If your ISD/ADDIE Process Were Lean - What Would That Mean?

2009-09-19T07:46:00.009-04:00

PACT is my methodology-set - for adoption/adaptation - for ISD efforts. Scalable for large-scale end-to-end curriculum paths, or learning paths, or as I've been describing them since the early 1980s T&D blueprints and Curriculum Architectures.

In all the recent hysteria about the "current value of ADDIE" I still see it as a useful planning and management tool. It is our (my) profession's NPD Process - our New Product Development Process. Every Enterprise of significance has one - because it's too risky without one.

One of my pet peeves is whenever I read about the iterative nature of ADDIE.

Hey really - none of my consulting clients in 25 years years (1982-2007) would EVER had tolerated non-predictive ITERATIONS. That was also known as "re-work" to my manufacturing clients. Because you didn't get it right the first time.

I wanted my ISD processes to get it right (enough) the first time and then proceed according to plan. I wanted to have a plan - to determine my "incurred costs" so that I could make sure that my pricing reflected that (and any other risks). Th e"Lean" movement is all about stripping out unnecessary tasks and approval loops - and look to stream-line a process. That's what I intended with PACT. I wanted it to be "lean."

Why? Because that's cheaper, faster and if done appropriately - higher quality of output.

The above 7 "RETURN" types is a framework for determining the answer to "WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN?" for yourself. As always, it depends.

Adapt what you cannot adopt. Adopt what you can.

My PACT version of ADDIE is MCD - Modular Curriculum Development.

I never liked ADDIE's lack of a "planning" step. So I fixed that in mine.

I needed a plan because I had a cadre of consultants all trained/certified (by me) on my staffs at SWI Svenson & Wallace Inc. 1982-1997) and CADDI (1997-2002) and that I used as contractors at EPPIC (2002-2007) - and I needed to use them more effectively, on more projects than one at a time (I often had 5-7 projects going simultaneously back in the day) - and I needed to fairly price my efforts.

And I always have preferred offering fixed fee pricing because that was always best - IF the deliverables are crystal clear and the tasks/steps of the project are clearly defined, then the client is less likely to make mid-course changes to the what and how of the project.

Mid-course corrections most often leads to cost run ups - and no one likes that - not even the consultants - or at least those looking for a long term relationship that is.

I did a 12-month series of articles on my ISD methods in ISPI's Performance Express for the entire year of 2007. Kind of an update to my 1999 book "Lean-ISD."

The lean-ISD book is available as a free PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/ - and as a hardbound and Kindle at amazon.com

# # #