L&D: You Say You Want a Revolution?

I’ll Toast That!

But most of the clarion calls I’ve been reading – that call for major upheaval in the L&D world – don’t seem to have their focus on the Ends – with recognition that Learning – is but one aspect of Enterprise Performance.

They are all too often all about themselves – Learning.

Slide1

Far too often I’ve found that my clients and others are not focused on terminal performance. They are handling some set of topics versus some set of tasks.

Yet the application of those Topics to the Tasks of the audience … are too often totally unclear to the developers of the Content. How well is that going to work?

That early disconnect … starts the haste toward waste IMO. Unnecessarily IMO.

Slide2

Targeting of efforts are all too often on providing Content to the masses – the real reason that the focus is on Topics versus Tasks. More precision Targeting is needed IMO.

More Task Targeting. Critical tasks and risky tasks.

Then … the Topics can be discerned. 

Slide3

Then the real stumble begins. Execution. 

Most efforts use non-Predictable Processes/Methods/Tools/Techniques.

And they start with a bias as to the end products of formal Learning Content/Training.

And often don’t see the need for a blend of methods for addressing any Advanced Organizers, the actual performance building content, and actual/authentic applications exercises … which are also good tests the more authentic the exercise – and the Reinforcement needed … depending on the amount of reinforcement natural to the performance environment. 

Or the rejection natural to the performance environment.

Slide4

That reinforcement and rejection in the performance context (s) then helps or hinders with knowledge/skills and applications capability transfer … and achieving the returns targeted.

Levels 3 and 4/5 in ISD-geek-speak.

Yes – Please Start the Revolution

And 1) please focus on terminal performance, and 2) instead of addressing anything or everything under the sun … focus on the top performance issues as determined by the target audience’s management, and 3) use proven methods, tools and techniques.

Note: This is not my first rodeo/revolution. Won’t be fooled again.

With apologies to The Beatles … and to The Who.

And to anyone else I’ve ever offended. 

# # #

L&D: Focus Squarely on the Authentic Performance Competence Requirements

(Re) Focusing your efforts in Enterprise Learning & Development? Focus squarely on the Performance Competence Requirements of your key Target Audiences.

01a.png

Align with the Enterprise Leaders to impact significant CBIs – Critical Business Issues – and meet, as best you can, the Requirements of all of YOUR current Stakeholders.

This is never easy but always necessary.

Formalize your Analysis efforts to be as Rigorous As Required and as Flexible As Feasible.

I’ve assisted dozens of clients over the past 35+ years in adapting and formalizing the Analysis methods and tools that I use in my consulting practice to meet their situational requirements and constraints. Or we upgrade what they already have in place. Always for a better focus on the authentic Performance Requirements.

Contact me for more info at: guywwallace@gmail.com

A Few Free Articles/Resources

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.

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.  25 page PDF.

Note: This methodology was first published in this 1984 article in ISPI’s (then NSPI’s) PIJ in November 1984. 6 page PDF.

# # #

L&D – Swing for the Fences, or Lay Down a Bunt?

Tom Gram asked a couple of great questions on LinkedIn the other day – here.

I’m doing a session for the Institute for Performance and Learning (IPL) soon on using Design Thinking process to address the innovation challenge in Learning. I Need your help. What do you think is the most important innovation challenge for the Learning and Development function? What needs does L&D need to meet to remain relevant to their organizations?

My Response

Innovation in L&D, IMO, needs to continue to focus ultimately on improving their Better-Faster-Cheaper metrics for both “Protecting and Improving the Enterprise” in both the eyes/minds of their stakeholders and in the data.

Better in the impact to the clients’ current metrics, not L&D statistics. Faster and Cheaper using the client’s situational need to determine what is appropriate.

This can best be accomplished via our own Processes … and our Process enablers – the people and non-people resources used within our Processes. Either our Processes are simultaneously “as rigorous as required and as flexible as feasible” without degrading the impact of our end products’ in the aforementioned metrics, or they are not.

Sometimes those Processes need to be able to swing for the fences and score a home run, and sometimes they just need to be able to lay down a good bunt and advance the runner. Whatever is appropriate given the client and stakeholders needs and constraints.

And the analysis – a seemingly lost factor all too often – needs to help the client see what other variables are key to their Performance goals – so that Learning isn’t expected to fix a non-Awareness/Knowledge/Skills deficit if that’s not one of the root causes.

Those appropriate Processes’ goals and adjustments require that our initial client and stakeholder engagement efforts quickly tease out what is necessary and what is not given the situation – and then quickly Plan appropriately – before any ADDIE/SAT/SAM effort begins.

Focus on the Performance Requirements.

But unfortunately, that’s not always simple. And is always situational.

Expanding My Response

Improving the client’s Better-Faster-Cheaper metrics for both “Protecting and Improving the Enterprise” … in both the eyes/minds of their stakeholders … and in the hard data.

And by Better I mean in the impact to the clients current metrics … formal and/or informal. Not using L&D statistics and data.

Ruler 2

BTW – Faster and Cheaper metrics and targets are best determined using both the client’s situational needs and constraints to determine what is most appropriate.

And client’s have stakeholders – who also have requirements and constraints. Your L&D Processes had better take them into account as well.

Slide2

This can best be accomplished via our own Processes … and our Process enablers – the people and non-people resources used within our Processes. Either our Processes are simultaneously “as rigorous as required and as flexible as feasible” without degrading the impact of our end products’ in the aforementioned metrics, or they are not.

Sometimes those Processes need to be able to swing for the fences and score a home run, and sometimes they just need to be able to lay down a good bunt and advance the runner.

Whatever is appropriate given the clients’ and stakeholders’ needs and constraints.

And the analysis – a seemingly lost factor all too often – needs to help the client see what other variables are key to their Performance goals – so that Learning isn’t expected to fix a non-Awareness/Knowledge/Skills deficit if that’s not one of the key root causes.

MY ISD Processes look beyond the awareness/ knowledge/ skill requirements.

And puts the customer at all key decision points so they can make the Business Decisions inherent in all worthy improvement efforts.

Here is my Big Picture … note that the Process (of the client’s Learners/Performers) is where I first look and seek to understand. Then at the two sets of enablers.

Slide1

Analysis of Performance and Enablers

That requires a rigorous yet flexible process for Analysis – or whatever is the appropriate term for such efforts in your world.

Or you end up just taking orders and directions on how to fill those orders. Which is not very Value Add IMO.

slide213

My Analysis methods were spelled out in 1984 and again in 2006 – besides the dozens and dozens of Blog Posts on this site.

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.

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.

Handbook of HPT 2006

As Rigorous As Required and As Flexible As Feasible

Your ISD/L&D/ADDIE/SAT/SAM/Etc./Etc. Processes need to be designed from the get-go for impact and flexibility. And all the other processes within the sub-systems of your function. Something like this:

Slide5

That will require targeted rigor and targeted flexibility … in those possible subsystems’ key processes – with templates and defaults where it could go either way.

Not just: whatever, whenever, however.

Unless it just truly doesn’t matter. And then – why bother at all?

Slide1

Those appropriate Processes’ goals and adjustments require that our initial client and stakeholder engagement efforts quickly tease out … in a consensus manner … what is necessary and what is not given the situation – and then quickly Plan appropriately – before any executing your version of ADDIE/SAT/SAM/Etc.

Focus on the Performance Requirements. And Enable Them.

But unfortunately, that’s not always simple. And is always situational.

And As Always – Avoid the Foo Foo

Slide1

For more on the Foo Foo to avoid, IMO, check out these in my Resource section…

Some of the various types of Foo Foo found too often in Instructional Design and Performance Improvement, includes:

Buzz Thoughts...a2

 

Of course – your views on what is and what is not Foo Foo may differ.

Bottom Line: Use what works – as measured by your Client’s and Stakeholders’ metrics.

Not yours.

# # #

Managing and Mismanaging Stakeholder Expectations

Promise them anything, but give them what they want!

This article was published in the June 1995 edition of the Journal for Quality and Participation.

Dateline: Detroit. Labor Day weekend 1994. A beautiful sunny day—perfect for a wedding. What could possibly go wrong? Planning for this day has gone on for decades. For decades? Sure.

Next time a wedding procession of honking cars passes you by, look around. You’ll see young girls’ noses pressed up against the car windows. You know that in their hearts and minds they are dreaming of someday being the bride in the lead car: that’s the day the planning begins—decades early.

Let’s make this personal. I’m Uncle Guy. I videotaped the entire series of wedding events for my niece because one week prior to the big day the person hired to do the video canceled out (he was going out of town). Hey, not totally unexpected from these one-person shops selling fairly inexpensive personal services such as videotaping a wedding. But that’s a different story.

A Company Reputation at Stake

This story is really about a big-name car rental company who has savaged their own reputation with the 250 guests and the untold numbers who will hear this story every time this wedding is mentioned or the video shown. Or when any other attendee from this wedding hears some other bride and groom’s similar plans. Or maybe they aren’t planning anything similar, but they get warned anyway. The damage to this company’s reputation will continue unabated.

Let’s call the bride and bridegroom Wendy and Chris (their real names). Wendy and Chris planned in great detail for 12 months immediately prior to the big day. (I know. I heard about it ad infinitum for those 12 months. I’m an uncle, remember?)

Since I am one of these obsessive/compulsive types, I was pleased by all of their planning—I like plans and planning. But I wish I had heard about this one before the wedding day because I never would have believed the promise made by the car rental company—I could have warned them.

The Plan that Went Awry

Wendy and Chris didn’t want to rent limos and be driven around by strangers; they wanted to rent four big, white Lincolns (Are you narrowing down the culprit company here?) with black interiors for the wedding party to drive. The words that would haunt us: rented Lincolns, white and black (the wedding colors), the promise and all that planning.

The Promise

They called six months early, explained what they wanted and why. The reply by the rental firm representative, “No problem — you’re calling so early.” They called again two weeks before, just to check. Again the answer, “No problem.”

The Letdown

On the big day, the groom and groomsmen went to pick up the four big, white Lincolns. Armed with all the paper flowers, signs, string, and tape to decorate the cars for the wedding procession (which would inspire more young girls to visualize their own big day, decades early), they entered the car rental office and asked for their planned for and promised cars.

“Four big, white Lincolns? No, we haven’t any — but no problem,” said the counter clerk, “We have three Lincolns: one white, one blue, and one red.” (Very patriotic colors for Americans or the French, but not the colors of this wedding.) “Of course it’s not a problem for you; you’re not getting married in five hours,” screamed Chris. No apologies or compensation were offered, only the three patriotic Lincolns and at the standard rental rate.

The Plan Goes a Bit More Downhill

Chris refused to do business with them and went to a competitor down the road. He couldn’t get what the dream plans called for of course, he could only find one champagne Lincoln for the bride and groom. After all, it was Labor Day weekend. The rest of the wedding party drove in their own older, somewhat rusting carriages.

These are young people. They all can’t afford the newer, nicer cars. But they could afford to rent for one day. And if they ever do, who can blame them for avoiding our culprit car rental company or for going out of their way to tell others about the culprit car rental company?

One Very Dissatisfied Customer Captured Forever on Video

I’m at the church, getting all the shots of the wedding party and guests arriving (remember I had to step in because the planned videographer bugged out). Clips of the bridesmaids getting ready; proud, smiling grandmas and grandpas, uncles, aunts, friends, the organist, the minister arriving; the whole nine yards. The complete video: six hours to be boiled down into a tolerable two. I’ve reviewed and logged it all in preparation for the editing chore ahead of me.

But right then, my big decision was how many of the audio/video clips should I include of the groom, Chris, screaming or more calmly telling the car rental saga. I have more than one dozen clips, but I could have had 30 to 40 and still not have caught each time Chris retold the story.

  • To me and my camera when he arrived at the church
  • Everyone as they arrived
  • The employees of the 7-11 where they went to get breath mints for the cigar-smoking groomsmen

Everyone heard the same story being repeated by a groom who must have felt as if he had personally disappointed his wife to be. All day and all night. Only the minister got the tame version.

Everyone who heard the story that day will retell it until it becomes part of the wedding culture of our town. In fact, I heard another young, engaged couple talking about it at the reception. They had heard all the details, including the name of the car rental company. This is what we the people do: we warn our family and friends.

Managing Customer Expectations

The point of personalizing all of this is to examine the concept of managing (and therefore not mismanaging) expectations for any of our organization’s stakeholders: customers, employees, suppliers, managers, shareholders, or folks in the community.

Why did this car rental company mismanage the expectations of its customers when their shareholders require them to increase the value of the company and thereby their shareholder equity? And why, why would they promise, not once but twice, that they would have four big, white Lincolns just waiting on the airport grounds for the big day? How could they make such a promise?

Are you shaking your head and wondering too? Or perhaps, as I hope, you are hoping your company doesn’t make the same type of mistake, or remembering that they have and wondering how to avoid future loss of sales.

How to Avoid Becoming a Legendary Poor Service Provider

So what should the car rental company have done when first approached by the bride- and bridegroom-to-be? Likewise, what should your company do to avoid becoming part of the bad service lore and legend of your region?

Begin with honesty—Meeting the customer’s requirements begins with honesty. If the customer’s most pressing need cannot be met with any guarantee, none should be given. They could promise to try their best without guaranteeing that they could pull off a minor miracle.

Satisfying Customers While Protecting Shareholder Interests

This is a prime example of a trading off of the customer’s requirements for those of the shareholders who simply can’t afford to maintain the kind of inventory or practice the kind of asset management that the car rental promise required. In the real world of business, such a tradeoff has to take place despite slogans or posters that proclaim the customer is a king or queen.

The shareholder’s need for sound business, financial, and asset management practices must win out over customers’ expressed needs that exceed the company’s abilities and assets. Such decisions are right and good—quality business decisions because the customer is not always king.

Saying that the Customer Is Not Always THE KING Is Not Heresy

A supplier merely has to meet or beat its competition but not exactly and in every case meet its customer’s requirements. Here’s one example that few would argue with. If the customer wants you to do something illegal, who is king? The government stakeholder is king, with the power of the law behind it. It wins all conflicts regarding stakeholder requirements. If we can’t meet some of the customer’s needs, wants, desires, and demands, what should we do?

We Need to Manage Customer Expectations

We need to educate the customer, employee, supplier, etc. about why we can’t do what they want, or about what it will take to meet their requirements. Why? Because customers are just one stakeholder with less of a call on the firm than our primary stakeholder—shareholders. We cannot conduct business in such a way that we reduce shareholder equity and that fact is explainable to our customers, even if they are two young kids.

Not yet Convinced? Still Want to Be King or Queen?

Would you let your brother-in-law build a porch on your house because it fulfilled his need to be nice to you, even if you knew for a fact he would do such a poor job that the value of your home would immediately drop by at least $10K? From an owner’s viewpoint, you would say “no way”, even though from an in-law viewpoint it would be nice to let him meet his need to be nice to you. The bottom-line message—you can’t afford to reduce your own equity to satisfy every need or desire expressed by a customer.

Don’t Promise if You Can’t Deliver

What should the car rental company have done?

  1. Never made the d…n promise in the first place! They were managing expectations that they couldn’t possibly guarantee to meet.
  2. They might have explained rudimentary asset management concepts in simple terms and offered them alternatives such as renting the cars for a day or two in advance to be absolutely sure they would have them on the big day.

Do I hear you saying, “Uncle Guy they can’t afford that”? What’s that, they couldn’t afford their own requirement here in the real world? What then? What would you do? Get a new requirement most likely, or modify your plan.

Even wedding plans that have evolved over decades can be modified if done early enough.

My uncle counsel to Wendy and Chris was this

  • Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans.
  • Conduct risk assessment of your plans for life.
  • Plan contingencies.
  • Try not to take it all so seriously when your life doesn’t unfold exactly as you had planned.
  • Enjoy life. Enjoy each other.

My counsel to my readers here

  • Practice good customer expectation management.
  • Be real.
  • Treat people as if they are smarter than you think they are (they usually are).
  • Tell them the truth.
  • Make sure your stakeholders’ attitudes, opinions, and knowledge of the facts have been duly influenced by you.
  • If you expect there will be some objections to your message, plan a strategy to overcome them—preferably before they are even raised.
  • Explain why the objection cannot be met or what it might take to meet it.
  • Explain the alternatives.

What we say and how we say it is critical for gaining the grudging acceptance of people who aren’t exactly happy but are not furious and telling their story all over town because their expectations were so mismanaged or they were misled.

Deliberately or inadvertently mismanaging stakeholder expectations is a quality crime.

A postscript note to Wendy and Chris: It’ll probably be somewhere near your one year anniversary when Uncle Guy will have your video edited. Yeah, I know. Later than you’d like. Maybe later than you’d planned. But here’s what I can do for you. You can have an unedited copy until then. OK?

Love, Uncle Guy

*** *** ***

Stakeholder Hierachy Example 3

# # #

 

Remembering the Late Geary A. Rummler on His Birthday

RIP Geary A. Rummler, Ph.D. – April 16, 1937 – October 29, 2008.

2009-03-07-031

4 Videos

Human Performance Technology Practitioner 2008

At Motorola’s Training & Education Center 1981

Needs Analysis – 1986

Performance Engineering 1986

Some Cool Stuff

A Chart on Why Performance Based Training Fails

From my files – from the work of the late Geary A. Rummler – whom I had the pleasure of working with at MTEC – Motorola’s Training & Education Center 1981-1982…

This graphic is from the 1981 session I attended at MTEC – see the 2nd video above for Geary’s walk through explanation.

1981 MTEC G A Rummler Session

For More

See the PDL – Performance Design Lab site – where his former business partners carry on with and extend his work – here.

There they have a publications library and other references from and about the good doctor.

# # #

LiML – Lessons in Making Lemonade

Lessons in Making Lemonade

A cartoon strip I did online for several years.

80553-Lessons_in_Maki-sfull

https://lessonsinmakinglemonade.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/lessons-in-making-lemonade-630/

Here is the Last Strip. Number 1151:

Don’t be afraid to read the entire series backwards – as presented online – starting here.

80929-Lessons_in_Maki-sfull

Again – start the series at the end – here.

Cheers!

# # #