L&D: Top Tips Per ISD Phases

The Top Tip Is Always About Collaboration*

With the Right People Doing the Right Things at the Right Time.

More lean. Quicker/accelerated. Less ReWork.


I’ve been a fan and practitioner of using the Group Process – known by many other names – since 1979. Here is a past post about that – here.

And one of the things I learned long ago was that if the wrong people are involved you’ll have problems … or call them unfortunate opportunities. That usually leads to ReWork.

And if they do the wrong things that you’ll also have those unfortunate opportunities that leads to ReWork.

And finally if they do things at the wrong time that too will lead to more ReWork.

CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design

I’ve been doing CAD efforts since 1982. I’ve done 75 myself since then – and my business partners and consultant staff have done hundreds more.

CAD efforts don’t build/buy any new Content. The effort defines the Performance Requirements – the enabling Knowledge/Skills that enable … and then assesses existing Content for Use/ReUse in the design of a flexible, suggested sequence of Formal/Mostly Formal Instruction and Information.

All of that is manifested in a Learning Path/Menu/ Roadmap, including the all-important On-Boarding portion as well as the On-Going needs – until (mostly) Informal Learning can take over.

People need the most formal help on the front end of the Learning Curve – when they don’t necessarily know the job requirements, what they already know and don’t know relative to that, and where and how to learn it.

Later, higher up the Learning Curve they can learn less formally.

Who says/decides?

Master Performers and perhaps other SMEs (as/if needed).


Note: The upside-down Traffic Lights (Go Lights vs Stop Lights) indicate Gate Review Meetings with the PST.

CAD Top Tips:

  • In CAD Phase 1:
    • Conduct pre-planning Interviews with key stakeholders
    • Plan at a level of detail to insure success
    • Use a Group Process with a PST – Project Steering Team to review/ amend/ approve and resource the project with the right people for the remaining tasks
  • In CAD Phase 2:
    • Conduct the majority of Analysis efforts via facilitation of the Analysis Team comprised of Master Performers and other SMEs as needed (all handpicked by the PST)
    • Use a Group Process with a Project Steering Team to review/ amend/ approve the Analysis findings – and to resource the continuation of the project with the right people for the remaining tasks

CAD Key Outputs

  • In CAD Phase 3:
    • Conduct the Design efforts via facilitation of the Design Team – a subset of the Analysis Team – as approved by the PST
    • Use a Group Process with a Project Steering Team to review/ amend/ approve the Design outputs – and to resource the continuation of the project with the right people for the remaining tasks
  • In CAD Phase 4:
    • Conduct the Implementation Planning efforts via facilitation of the Implementation Planning Team comprised of Master Performers and other SMEs and other Stakeholders as needed (all handpicked by the PST)
    • Use a Group Process with a Project Steering Team to review/ amend/ approve the Implementation Planning  – and to resource the continuation of the effort to build/ buy the gap Content post-CAD, in MCD efforts, with the right people for the remaining tasks

A CAD efforts should smoothly segue into an MCD effort to build/buy all priority gaps in the current state Path.

All non-funded gaps remain Un-Structured OJT in PACT parlance – a.k.a.: Informal Learning – albeit named Informal Learning – until resourced (if ever).

MCD – Modular Curriculum Development

MCD is/has been my approach to ADDIE since the late 1980s.

I formalized it into these 6 Phases – in a 1991 project for Illinois Bell on Labor Relations for First Line Supervisors.

I formalized MCD in order to develop both my own staff of ISD consultants and my client’s ISD staff in post CAD efforts. I had been developing staff and client’s staff in CAD since 1983.


Note: Some MCD Phases may be skipped or truncated if the effort is post-CAD – which isn’t always the case.

MCD Top Tips:

  • In MCD Phase 1:
    • See CAD Phase 1
  • In MCD Phase 2:
    • See CAD Phase 1
  • In MCD Phase 3:
    • See CAD Phase 1

MCD Project Key OutputsNote: This graphic looks slightly different if the MCD effort occurs without a preceding CAD effort.

  • In MCD Phase 4:
    • Conduct the Development/Acquisition (Build/Buy) efforts via a Development Team comprised of Master Performers and other SMEs (all handpicked by the PST) working with the ISD staff assigned
    • Alpha and Beta Test in preparation prior to the more formal Pilot Test in the next Phase
  • In MCD Phase 5:
    • Conduct one or more formal full-destructive Pilot Tests with both Target Audience Representatives and Master Performers (all handpicked by the PST) and segregate their feedback to create the post-Pilot Test  Revision Recommendations
    • Use a Group Process with a Project Steering Team to review/ amend/ approve the post-Pilot Test Revision Recommendations – creating the Revision Specifications
  • In MCD Phase 6:
    • Use the Revision Specifications to update the Content before a General Release – deployment of the Content and/or making it available for Access

Both CAD and MCD are covered extensively in several of my books including lean-ISD (1999) and in my 2011 6-Pack.

See the Resource tab for more.

*Collaboration … Or?

When I first defined my ISD methods and named/branded them – when I was a partner at SWI (1982-1997) … I struggled with the “C” in PACT.

Was it about Collaboration – or Cooperation – or what?

PACT Definition.png

I finally settled on Customer-Stakeholder Driven … here is an updated graphic from when I moved from my firm CADDI (1997-2002) to EPPIC in 2002 …


Customer/Stakeholder DRIVEN was more appropriate – in full recognition that ISD works for the Customer and their Stakeholders – if one is to truly be successful.

Successful in meeting their needs/requirements.

And as measured by their metrics.


May be found by searching this site using CAD, MCD, etc. – or by scanning the 400+ resources found in the Resource Tab of this web site.

# # #


L&D: Knowledge Tests Don’t Test for Performance Capability

30 Year Ago

Performance Tests Do Test for Performance Capability

In the first consulting work efforts that my former business partners and I did creating Performance Tests back in 1987, we used our 4-Phase approach to Curriculum Architecture Design slightly modified, on 22 distinct Target Audiences, and then produced over 2200 Performance Tests in collaboration with the identified Master Performers.

Perf Tests

The Performance Tests fell into three categories:

  • Real Work
  • Simulated Real Work
  • Talk Through Troubleshooting

I created our methodology and then we tested it with several of the Target Audiences before we trained our staff and then did all of the targeted jobs.

After creating the Performance Tests and administering them the client was going to have me conduct a Curriculum Architecture Design (CAD) effort so they could build/buy any Training really needed. A good plan IMO.

It was a cold winter in Prudhoe Bay that November. Here next is a photo of one of my souvenirs from my part of the project.

2007-11-01 008

One interesting aspect of the effort – was that had been attempted twice previously and had been roundly rejected by those Target Audiences (both generated Knowledge Tests) who were each very technical in nature. And they hated paper and pencil tests – but loved our approach to Performance Testing.

Of course, they created the tests with our help – or vice versa.

This was an oil field, feeding the Alaska Pipeline – in the Arctic Circle – where sometimes the sun just don’t shine. And whales are sometimes carved up by the locals on the edge of the oil field – where the land meets the Beaufort Sea – as they have done for a long time – oil fields or not.

Oh. The Tests were part of a Pay Progression Program.

Meaning – you would only get a pay raise if you could prove additional competence – not in test taking – but in Performance Competence.

Meaning – we had everybody by their wallets – so to speak.

Meaning we had their attention. And suspicions.

They were a tough crowd. Members of oil field crews are known as roughnecks for a reason. But once they overcame their own suspicions – and they saw that they owned the whole shebang – so to speak – we had no trouble with participation/ engagement.

2007-11-01 004

All of the Performance Tests with a few exceptions were open book tests – just like the real world. That also was a big selling point. The tests were authentic in that way.

Speaking of the Real World

Here is a 15:15 minute:second video of my tour of the facilities where we lived and worked when we weren’t out in the environment.

It starts in our temporary office with my two business partners. They are looking for flights home to Chicago – through Anchorage after our cycle of a two week stay – one week home – and then repeat. I tour the living and eating areas and then my quarters. Talk about small – but I had been on a ship for most of my time in the Navy (1972-1975) – so it wasn’t small. It was cozy.

Note the temperature outdoors (on a TV monitor) when I approach one of the entrances and peak into the cold, dark night. At about the 3:15 mark.

Cold Cold Cold

The Book

Here is a book that provides very detailed steps and outputs for the Performance Tests AND the entire system we designed and developed for hand-off to the client for their use in operating and maintaining it all. 9 Systems – per the graphic on the books cover.


This book – available as a paperback a Kindle, and a free PDF – is based on this project – and another in 1994 for 20 jobs on the Alaska Pipeline for more technical jobs (20) – and also a project for another client’s Branch Managers, Sales Staff and Technical Staff in the lower 48 (plus Hawaii) the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Employee performance-based Qualification/Certification Systems (2008)

Click on image to link to the download page.

Employee performance-based Qualification/Certification Systems is also available as a $15 Paperback book – and $7.50 as a Kindle – for more info and to order – please go – here.

Implications for Performance Support Efforts 

Creating Performance Support is much easier when you understand the Performance Competence requirements – and have the tests developed. Much easier.

A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Curriculum Architecture Design Effort

It was determined after the Tests were administered that it just wasn’t necessary to spec out and then develop/acquire any Training at all. Or any additional Performance Support items.

You see, as it was all aimed at improving Performance Competence – and it was tied to their pay – the motivated learners/Performers figured out how to pass each test … open book and viewable by anyone wanting to see them … by reading the available manuals, getting help from their crewmates, etc.

No Formal Training was necessary. For 2200 tests.

The tests themselves were all the Performance Support that were needed.

# # #

L&D: A Data Logic for ISD

The Data Feeds From Analysis to Design & Development

Note – not every data connection is displayed.

PACT Data Logic.png


Target Audience data (not shown) enables generation of Performance data

Performance data enables generation of Knowledge/Skill data.

Performance data and Knowledge/Skill data enables generation of T&D Assessment data.

CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design

CAD efforts produce T&D/L&D Paths – or Performance Competency Development Paths.

CAD efforts DO NOT create any new content. They rationalize the needs with existing content and spec (specify) the gaps into Modules and Events in a logical, suggested sequence – for adaptation by the learner/Performer and their management (or however that is intended to occur).


All of the Analysis data feeds CAD efforts and the generation of Module Specs (think: chapters) and Event Specs (think: books).

Modules later convert to Lessons in MCD – enabling reconfiguring them if the gaps in content are deemed worthy of funding acquisition/development efforts.

Otherwise they’ll exist as Unstructured OJT (my language/term for Informal Learning that preceded that nomenclature).

Analysis data also confirms the worthiness of Existing Content for ReUse “As Is” or “After Modification” or “Not Applicable” (for this effort – may be fine for others.


MCD – Modular Curriculum Development

MCD efforts produce new content. Think ADDIE – or SAM – or SAT, etc.


As MCD efforts build/buy Content – Instructional or Informational – of any/every Media and Mode – the Inventory must be updated. Version Control is an issue.

As MCD efforts potentially ReUse Content – “As Is” or “After Modification” – Content Variation … the engineering Target Audiences’ version might be slightly different than the sales Target Audiences’ version …  if authenticity is as important to you as it should be … another type of Version Control is another issue.

ReUse Event Map and 5-Tier Inventory

Content can vary slight or more – as appropriate – and versions between Target Audiences may not follow the same cadence.

As always it depends. And that is subject to change.


And for Those Not Getting the CAD and MCD Efforts?

Not all Target Audiences are critical enough to warrant serving their needs for authentic Content.

That’s just the way it is.

Push-Pull and The 5 Tier Content Inventory Framework

Content So while less than ideal – depending on your policies and practices – the Content acquired/created for the most critical Target Audiences can be made available to others.

Not ideal – but perhaps real. And subject to change.

# # #


L&D: Climbing the Performance Analysis Learning Curve – Part 3

This Not a Step Per Se

It’s a positioning.

Of analysis – using AoPs and Performance Model charts – at a higher level than a Task, Task-set(s) of a Job or a Process. Those were covered in Part 1 and Part 2.

What if you needed to analyze an entire department or a function?

Here is my model for that … groupings of AoPs.

EPPA - Building Block View - Department

In L&D or T&D or a Knowledge Management department or function these Super AoPs exist at the Leadership level and the Core level and at the Support level.

A Super AoP may include many AoPs. Which I have grouped into the 3 sets of the model above.

Don’t confuse the grouping with a hierarchy – because I have found that Senior Managers focus more on Leadership AoPs. and Middle Managers focus on Support AoPs, and First Line Supervisors focus on the Core AoPs.

But – as always – it depends.

The Core Processes to be planned, assigned, managed and trouble-shot – might be:

  • Product Line Planning
  • Product Line ADDIE-like Development (or SAM or SAT)
  • Product Line Deployment/Access

So you would add those too – a 4th grouping if you will.

And maybe you also offer Services as well as tangible and digital products. Add those in too.

As always – it depends.



Look at Your Organization Chart This Way

As a network of departments of AoPs. And not every department or function does all of the Super AoPs.

Say it with me now: as always – it depends.


AoP Branches from Enterprise to Division to Business Unit to Function to Department

Your Enterprise and focus might differ.

And againas always – it depends. 

It depends on the number of levels in your Enterprise and otherwise how it is structured.

EPPI Tier 1 View

In every level and every box – it’s all about Performance Competence … and that is not “as always – it depends.”


The Big Picture of Enterprise Process Performance Improvement

I’ve learned – was taught by people and by experience – to start Analysis of the Process itself – before the Human enablers and the Environmental enablers.

Or of you prefer: the Environmental enablers and then the Human enablers.

Either way.

But IMO/IME start with the Process. Another not “as always – it depends.”


Free Book PDFs

My 2007 book…

M-AoP Book Cover 2007

Click here for that book and others that I offer for free. It’s the third book down.

Books for Sale

The free book was updated in 2011…

2011 e D-Y M-AoPC

And the book on Analysis.

2011 b AofPCR

Click here for those and other related books for sale.

# # #



L&D: Climbing the Performance Analysis Learning Curve – Part 2

Once the AoPs Are Established – Detail the Performance Requirements and Gap Analysis

Part 1 covered establishing the AoPs – Areas of Performance – here.

Performance Model Chart

TMC SM Perf Model Chart

Note that there were several chart/pages for the Performance Model for the one AoP of: Staff Recruiting, Selection and Training. Note that that AoP could have been broken down to 2 or 3 AoPs. That is not the big deal about chunking.

The AoPs for the above example.


Example Chart/Page Progression

One – Capture the Tasks and Outputs/Measures.

My experience – I’ve been doing these since 1979 – suggests that people generally think of Tasks before Outputs.

So often I ask for a Task – any Task – within the AoP and then work upstream and downstream until the Task sounds like an Output: Draft the Analysis Report.


Two – Using the measures determine the Typical… not everything/anything under the su – unless THAT is critical to your downstream efforts/outputs.

Sometimes it is necessary to go beyond typical to potential. Then change the header of the column.


Three – determine the probable cause – unless you need to cover every possibility. Again, change the header of that column. And finally complete the last column of type of cause. See the Job Aid that follows for more on that.



Eliciting the Performance Model Data – Including the AoPs

Use this job aid…

Perf Analysis Job Aid

Practice Using Your Kid/Summer Job From Part 1 

Using this blank chart.

Blank Performance Model Chart

Some Resources

Models and Matrices- NSPI PIJ -1984 – 5 page PDF – the first publication of the performance and enabler analysis methods for ISD, from NSPI’s (ISPI’s) Performance & Instruction Journal, November 1984.

Perf Modeling & Enabler Analysis – HR-Com – 2003 – 17 page PDF – an online publication at HR.Com in 2003 covering the analysis of both Performance Competence Requirements and the Enablers – part of my ISD (PACT) and Performance Improvement (EPPI) methods.

lean-ISD (1999)

Click on image to link to the download page.

Note: the cover design for “lean-ISD” was created by the late Geary A. Rummler.

Note: Guy W. Wallace’s book “lean-ISD” – was a recipient of a 2002 Award of Excellence for Instructional Communication from the International Society for Performance Improvement.

lean-ISD is also available as a $15 paperback book – and $7.50 as a Kindle – for more and to order – please go – here.

Analysis of Performance Competence Requirements (2011) – as Paperback and Kindle

– for Analysts in performance-based Instruction and Performance Improvement efforts.

Paperback $15 and Kindle $7.50



PACT as a brand was part of my former businesses at SWI– Svenson & Wallace, Inc. – and then CADDI– Curriculum Architecture Design & Development Institute, Inc. – and then EPPIC– Enterprise Process Performance Improvement Consultancy, Inc.

# # #


L&D: Get Over Yourself Regarding Performance Improvement

You Are A Support Function

And an important Support Function. But…

Most – not all – folks in L&D are not the business people they might wish to be … or see themselves to be.


L&D Impacts 2 or 3 of the Set of Variables

In this model, you can impact 2 … or maybe 3 … of the variable sets of Performance or what I call Enterprise Process Performance.

Your language and models may differ.


L&D can affect 3 of the variables … “if” … you are capable of designing a new client Process to meet the balanced Requirements of all of the actual Stakeholders. And then can really impact the Awareness/ Knowledge and Skills of the Critical Performers in the Enterprise – and – maybe – provide/give access to some of the right Information/ Data needed.

But then … that’s the job of all of the other management in place – to take care of their own.

So 2 – maybe 3. The rest of the variables needed – per my model above – are the jobs of all of the other managers in place to put into place. To enable the Processes that they are in place to manage.

Or why have them?

Variable Set 1: A/K/S

Impacting/enabling the Awareness/ Knowledge/ Skills are what L&D should be all about. As directed by the client and stakeholders. And THAT is still shared with the other managers.

If you can’t do that very well all of the time – focus on that first.

Variable Set 2: Data/Information

L&D can also impact the Data/ Information – not by making it available – but by determining and sharing what and how the current Master Performers do it.

Sharing their Best Practices if you will.

And if the needed data and information isn’t available – the best you can do – from a L&D perspective – is to bring that to the attention of the client and stakeholders to make that happen.

They can then request and/or direct and fund IT … or whomever is appropriate. That’s not the job of L&D.

Variable Set 3: The Process Itself

Designing a Process – robust to all of the things that can go other than right – is tricky business.

That requires deep knowledge of the downstream requirements of the downstream Customer(s) and their Stakeholders – and of the Process and Tasks within that Process and the requirements of all of the Stakeholders.

L&D staff won’t know that – most likely.

A Performance Improvement function’s staff would know “how to” IMO.


But L&D staff might be able to facilitate those in the know – to help them design a Process.

The Group Process

I’ve been using a group process and facilitating the same since 1979.

Here are some old articles about that.

CAD – Training Mag – 1984 – 6 page PDF – the first publication about Curriculum Architecture Design via a Group Process – published in Training Magazine in September 1984. Original manuscript (30 pages) – How to Build a Training Structure That Won’t Keep Burning Down.

Models and Matrices- NSPI PIJ -1984 – 5 page PDF – the first publication of the performance and enabler analysis methods for ISD, from NSPI’s (ISPI’s) Performance & Instruction Journal, November 1984.

Teaming for T&D GWW 1999 – 5 page PDF – on my story of inadvertently creating a team – out of frustration with too many revision cycles for a video script I was writing –  for training development back in 1979 – and liking the approach for using a Group Process to shorten cycle times and improve the quality of the output.

Modeling Mastery Performance and Systematically Deriving the Enablers for Performance Improvement – by Guy W. Wallace, CPT – Chapter 11 of the Handbook of Human Performance Technology – 3rd Edition – 2006.  This methodology was first published in this 1984 article in ISPI’s (then NSPI’s) PIJ in November 1984.

Past Blog Posts

My 12 Rules/Guidelines for Facilitation

The 12 Rules/Guidelines for PACT facilitators that I covered in this Blog series – was “sourced from” my writings from back in 1999 in my book: lean-ISD – in Appendices C.

And that was sourced from my field experiences in having conducted hundreds of Group Process analysis and design meetings.

The 12 Rules/Guidelines for PACT Facilitators are – and the links to the prior 12 Blog Postings 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.

This Blog Post series embellished the original content already published in lean-ISD.

Free Book PDF: lean-ISD (1999)

Click on image to link to the download page.

Note: the cover design for “lean-ISD” was created by the late Geary A. Rummler.

Note: Guy W. Wallace’s book “lean-ISD” – was a recipient of a 2002 Award of Excellence for Instructional Communication from the International Society for Performance Improvement.

lean-ISD is also available as a $15 paperback book – and $7.50 as a Kindle – for more and to order – please go – here.

Everybody Wants to Rule the World

# # #