L&D/PI: Thankful for My Many Mentors

In the USA – This Is a Day of Thanks

I’m especially Thankful for the support of my many mentors over the decades – and especially to the late Geary Rummler, the late Ray Svenson, and Neil Rackham – and these 39 other people – that I have tried to acknowledge in my past series of Blog Posts entitled: My First Friday Favorite Guru Series (2012-2015):

Links To All of the Past Posts in the MFFF Guru Series

My gurus, teachers and professional collaborators … in no particular order …

  • Eliyahu M. Goldratt – December 2015 – here. RIP
  • Brenda Sugrue – November 2015 – here.
  • Karen Brethower – October 2015 – here.
  • Jim Pershing – September 2015 – here.
  • Timm Esque – August 2015 – here.
  • Ryan Watkins – July 2015 – here.
  • Ken Silber – June 2015 – here.
  • Roger Chevalier – May 2015 – here.
  • Darryl Sink – April 2015 – here.
  • Jeanne Farrington  – March 2015 – here.
  • Don Clark – February 2015 – here.
  • Frank T. Wydra  – January 2015 – here. RIP


  • Philip B. Crosby  – December 2014 – here. RIP
  • Donald L. Dewar – November 2014 – here. RIP
  • Joseph M. Juran  – October 2014 – here. RIP
  • W. Edwards Deming  – September 2014 – here. RIP
  • Bonnie B. Small – August 2014 – here. RIP
  • Walter A. Shewhart – July 2014 – here. RIP
  • Carl Binder – June 2014 – here.
  • Ruth Clark – May 2014 – here.
  • Rob Foshay – April 2014 – here.
  • John Carlisle – March 2014 – here.
  • Miki Lane – February 2014 – here.
  • Harold Stolovitch – January 2014 – here.


  • Bill Wiggenhorn – December 2013 – here.
  • Will Thalheimer – November 2013 – here.
  • Roger Kaufman – October 2013 – here.
  • Roger Addison – September 2013 – here.
  • Ray Svenson – August 2013 – here. RIP
  • Dick (Richard E.) Clark – July 2013 – here.
  • Allison Rossett – June 2013 – here.
  • Carol Panza – May 2013 – here.
  • Jane Bozarth – April 2013 – here.
  • Judy Hale – March 2013 – here.
  • Margo Murray – February 2013 – here.
  • Neil Rackham – January 2013 – here.
  • Robert (Bob) Mager – December 2012 – here.
  • Joe H. Harless – November 2012 – here. RIP
  • Thomas F. Gilbert – October 2012 – here. RIP
  • Sivasailam Thiagarajan (Thiagi) – September 2012 – here.
  • Geary A. Rummler – August 2012 – here. RIP
  • Dale Brethower – July 2012 – here.

Note: Some did protest after my posts that they were not Gurus. I replied that Gurus are in the eyes and perceptions of the beholder. Me. IMO.

Perhaps you share some of these with me. I know many of them influenced hundreds and thousands in their career development.

To All – Thank You!

# # #


L&D: Badges Should Represent Accomplishments – Not Activities


I once worried a lot about all the noise (promotions) and the rush to Badges – as I worried about whether they would represent Activities versus Accomplishments.

The former is not good – the latter is very good – most of the time.

As always – it depends.

“Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!”

… is a widely quoted paraphrase of a line of dialogue from the 1948 film “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”

Badges for Activities

Might mean as little as “your check cleared” as we said back in the day (or updated today to: “your electronic transfer has been received“).

And/or… you attended a session. But… you could have been out in the physical or virtual hallway while the session ran. Who knows? How would we know?

Badges for Accomplishments

Are more difficult to do as it would require a Performance Test for Task Capability learned – or maybe a Knowledge Test if the intent was only awareness or knowledge.

The former is tougher. The latter easier.

Caveat Emptor Baby

Who is the audience for Badge Mania?

Who is asking you for them – besides the suppliers?

In any event:

Beware the Cult of Behaviors!

Embrace the Cult of Accomplishments!

As a Customer or a Supplier.

Or as a Customer’s Customer.

They’re not all the same. Beware!


# # #



L&D/PI: Facilitating Command & Control of Learning Design By Master Performers

Avoiding the Sage on the Stage Syndrom

When we, as internal or external consultants, go solo in conducting the Analysis and Design processes we employ to create education or performance-based Training – we act as Sages on those Stages IMO.

That’s worse IMO than the Sages on the Stages in Delivery/Deployment.

How to avoid that?

Via a Group Process

Which starts BTW – during Analysis. And Continues in Design.

And continues during Development. And can minimize the need for a Sage on the Stage in Delivery.

And some might consider my approach to Phase 1 – Project Planning & Kick-Off to be the real start of employing a Group Process. I do too – but I don’t want to push it (here and now).


Wait What!?!

Command & Control? What!?!

Giving up control of Learning Design to Master Performers?

But won’t that lead to Instructionally Unsound Content?

Nope – not if done right.

Not if facilitated by an Instructional Systems Designer/Learning Experience Engineer/ L&D Ninja/Etc./Etc.

I’ve been doing this ISD thing this way since 1979 – and have trained and certified hundreds of ISDers in this approach for my own staff and the staff of my clients – both since 1983.

And I’ve published articles (co-authored) on the Group Process approach since 1984 in both Training Magazine and the NSPI Performance & Instruction Journal.

Wadda Ya Mean: Facilitating a Command & Control Approach to Learning Design? 

I mean taking a Group of Master Performers and facilitating them through both a Performance and Knowledge & Skills Analysis effort … and then … a Instructional Design Process.

A Structured Process that allows a tiny bit of meandering – when appropriate.

One thing I tell the participants – handpicked for their instant credibility by the clients – who are organized themselves into a Project Steering Team (PST) to provide Command & Control over the business decisions inherent in any ISD/ID effort.

Maybe I should say Command & Control & Empowerment.

Because that’s what they – the PST – does when they sign off on both the Process and the Participants. They empower a designated group to go about the business of the next defined steps.

What will come out of those steps is pre-defined only so far – in terms of Format and organization. What has yet to be defined is the Content within those organized Formats.

Outputs in MCD/IAD (My version of ADDIE):

MCD Project Key Outputs

Outputs in CAD:

CAD Key Outputs

Oh – and as I tell and retell the handpicked participants:

I own the Process and You Own the Content

That’s what will keep the output instructionally sound – with a focus on terminal performance – and an eye on transfer back to the job.

With an eye – at the right time – in what Job Aids … EPSS … Performance Support are needed and what and how to present that – whether they already exists or have yet to be developed – in the APPOs (Application Exercises in PACT=speak) and demonstrated in the DEMOs and presented in the INFOs of a Lesson Map. All driven from the prior Analysis.

Prior Analysis of the Performance and the Enabling Knowledge/Skills. Plus analysis of the Target Audience(s) and the Existing T&D Content (for its ReUse potential or not). See those 2 graphics above.

Facilitating a Group Process

Here are some Facilitation Guidelines…


Here is a recent Blog Post where I revisited my 13-part Blog Post Series from 2008 – where I went in-depth on these guidelines beyond what I published in my 1999 book: lean-ISD.

Additional Published Resources From 1984 and 1995 and 1999 and 2006


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.



Video of my 1995 Presentation at the ISPI Conference (used to be NSPI) being presented to the ISD staff at Eli Lilly a couple of months later.

And yes, back in the day we used Overhead Transparencies. 

Long Version

Short Clip #1

Short Clip #2


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.

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.


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.


New book 6-Pack.


For more information about this 6 Pack (you buy them individually) and some of my other books – please go – here.

Blog Posts. Many Blog Posts. And Audio Podcasts. And Videos – over 50 Videos from my School of PACT series.


Scour the Resource Tab.

Or search on the Key Words that interest you.

Note: there are over 2500 Posts.

# # #



L&D: Begin With the Formal “10” … IMO

If You Don’t Begin With the 10 

  • People could learn the wrong things from the 70
  • People could learn the wrong things from the 20

The Formal 10 – in 70-20-10 … or as I prefer it … the 10-20-70 – to present an appropriate Flow … should prepare the learner/Performer to start the job and be better prepared for the inevitable 20-70 Informal Learning that just cannot be helped.

You just don’t want the wrong lessons learned – inadvertently, of course.

Because that adds to what needs to be UnLearned before the real Learning can begin.

Formal 20 vs Informal 20

And for tricky tasks – the 20 should be both Structured and delivered/facilitated by designated Coached – sometimes Certified for that role – and sometimes not.

Otherwise any old coach just might do the trick.

It really depends on the Risks and Rewards – two sides of the same coin – and is the R in ROI.

The 70

In my writings going back to the mid-1980s on this – I referred to what has now become known as Informal Learning as Un-Structured OJT.

Named, but that’s it.

Of course – there was always additional Topics/Tasks not captured and named in my methods.

But it was always assumed that those were of little consequence.

# # #

L&D/PI: Performance Improvement Beyond Learning and Beyond Individual Performance

The L-C-S Model Goes Back to the Early 1990s

L-C-S Model – a Leadership – Core – Support Model of Managerial Performance.


It was constructed to be a Starting “Straw Model” for future consulting projects focused on analyzing Management Performance – and was based on a review of the 20+ Management Analyses done by myself and my two business partners at SWI – Svenson & Wallace Inc. – where I was an associate and then a partner for 15 years (1982-1997).

We spent two days in our conference room back in the day reviewing the extensive data sets from those 20+ projects. I adapted that model slightly for my own uses in the mid-1990s and used it at SWI, and then at CADDI Inc. (1997-2002).

And I have used and still use it at EPPIC Inc. It’s had … and got “legs” I think.

It was also central in the SWI 1994 book: The Quality RoadMap:

1994 QRM Book Cover

The book is out of print – but may be purchased used at Amazon (and I have a box of new copies in my office … somewhere).

Leadership AoPs – Areas of Performance

These are typically the province of Executive Management – but – as always – it depends. First Line Supervisors would be involved to a lesser extent – but again, as always it depends.


All of these Areas of Performance (AoPs) have very high potential for sharing Tools, SOPs, Training, etc., across all managers in an Enterprise.

That’s one of the primary purposes of the model – to identify the sharable and the unique AoPs.

For example, “how to” Policies, SOPs, Tools. Formats, Training for conducting and preparing the Strategic Plan (in sync with every other SP) could be shared. The content of a Strategic Plan of course would be different – but they would all be aligned and similar in format and organization.

The next three…


All of these Areas of Performance (AoPs) have very high potential for sharing Tools, SOPs, Training, etc., across all managers in an Enterprise.

For example, “how to” Policies, SOPs, Tools. Formats, Training for Communications – could be shared.

Again – that’s the primary purpose for using the model. To identify and support the sharable and the unique. And to treat them that way.

Core AoPs – Areas of Performance

These are typically the province of 1st line Supervisors – but – as always – it depends.


All of these Areas of Performance (AoPs) have very high potential for sharing some Tools across all managers in an Enterprise.

But only in a generic sense. SOPs would not be sharable for example. Some Tools and generic Training on using the Tools would be – but Planning and Assigning Sales work is different than Engineering work – as L&D work would be different than Recruiting work.

The next two…


What Core Work?

This is what makes these 4 AoPs unique – unless the Process is shared across one organization who owns it and others who support it. It’s purpose could be shared, how it’s measured could be shared, etc.


Support AoPs – Areas of Performance

These are typically the province of Middle Management – but – as always – it depends.


All of these Areas of Performance (AoPs) have very high potential for sharing Tools, SOPs, Training, etc., across all managers in an Enterprise.

For example – requesting a headcount budget increase, or conducting Progressive Discipline, would be the same across all managers.

The next two…


All of these Areas of Performance (AoPs) have high potential for sharing Tools, SOPs, Training, etc., across all managers in an Enterprise.

For example – ordering materials & supplies – would be the same. As would be requesting a capital expenditure.

It’s All About Performance

Understanding the Performance Competence Requirements is only part of it…


Once you Adopt and/or Adapt the model to the specifics of a particular Enterprise – you can get your ducks in a row regarding Policies, Procedures, Tools, Training, etc., etc.

All focused on enabling Performance Competence at every level: individual, team, organization and the entire Enterprise. Or – however many levels you might have.

And – I would organize all of the Performance Support items by this model/framework (after adapting as/if needed).

Adopt what you can and Adapt the rest.

Systematically Deriving the Enablers of Process Performance

Including but Beyond Knowledge/Skills.


Analyzing the Enabler Requirements of an Organization


Examples of the Capture Formats That I Use

For the Human Assets…


For the Environmental Assets…



Scour this website using the Search function for many Free Resources, Blog Posts, etc., etc..

Or check out this 6 Pack of books… available as Paperbacks or Kindles.


For more information about this 6 Pack and some of my other book – please go – here.

# # #