Enabling Knowledge & Skills Analysis Data informs Lesson Mapping…to ensure that the minimum of what one needs to know, in order to adequately perform back-on-the-job, is included – without interesting, extraneous details, that detract – by adding – to the cognitive load of the learners.
Effective Lesson Maps are informed by Performance & K/S Analysis data. Efficient Lesson Maps are informed by Target Audience & Existing Content Analysis Data.
Go for Performance – in your Design of Instruction and Learning Experiences – to add value for your stakeholders rather than potentially subtract value.
I see many who conflate Performance-Based Instruction/ Training/ Learning with Performance Improvement Consulting (PIC) – when PIC looks at all of the variables of Performance to determine what the Gaps are in the Current State and decides which to target for improvement efforts.
My mashup of Gilbert & Ishikawa…
And Deming said that 94% of problems are rooted in The System – not individual performers. So no one should automatically default to Instruction-Training-Learning as the prime solution. Ever. Unless the request was for addressing the needs of New Hires – or people who have never been trained (it happens).
There are Total PIC and Partial PIC – just as in the past I wrote and spoke about Total Quality Management and Partial Quality Management (TQM and PQM).
Back in 1979 I used Gilbert’s BEM which I then informally mashed-up with the Ishikawa Diagram in 1981. But it wasn’t until the late 1980s that I more formally portrayed my mash-up, in a diagram (lost now to the failed hard-drive gods) but that made its way into my business partner’s and my 1994 book, The Quality Roadmap (now out of print but sometimes available used).
No matter what level of Performance one is targeting – Worker, WorkFlow, WorkPlace, or the World – Performance Competence can be stated and measured in the same manner – by the Output – which is an Input downstream – based on the Stakeholders’ Requirements.
Back in the late 1980s, I worked for the Marketing function of AT&T Network Systems and in particular their Product Management operations across 4 (and then 5) SBUs – Strategic Business Units.
They liked my Process-Orientation and asked me to help redesign their T&D (L&D) function from a Process Perspective.
This next graphic, from a 1994 newsletter – is an update of the model that I put together for AT&T Network Systems – and had also defined the Key Outputs (and Interium Outputs) and the Major Tasks (and not the Micro-Tasks) per Process-Family – which I later called Systems – bundles of Processes.
In the #8 sub-System – Marketing & Communications – there were 3 Processes – see the graphic below.
I have written about this framework – before – including in two books – and my 1999 book, lean-ISD, also introduced the framework – besides the introduction in quarterly newsletters going back to 1994.