L&D: Capturing & Reading Out Instructional Analysis Data

The 4 Types of Analysis Data I Use

  1. Target Audience Data
  2. Performance Data
  3. Enabling K/Ss Data
  4. Existing T&D Assessments Data

These are used … and expanded upon as needed … in the Analysis Phases my CAD and MCD and IAD efforts.


I use the following capture and report out formats – or adapted variations of same.

Target Audience Data

Here is my capture and readout format – from back in 1999 when I headed CADDI Inc.:


You would have one of these for each effort – just to pin down and then review for agreement and approval – that what is captured is “close enough” to base the project upon.

Performance Data

Requirements … and Gaps. Ideal and Actual.

Here is my capture and readout format:

Blank Performance Model Chart

The Starter Questions I Use

Here are the questions I use when teaching others these methods:

PM Q to Ask1

PM Q to Ask2

Here is a Perf Analysis – PM Format & Questions Job Aid … of this next graphic/job aid.


Enabling Knowledge/ Skills

Here is my capture and readout format:

Blank Enabler Matrices Chart

Note: The number of AoPs would be adapted to whatever number came out of the prior process.

Here are the 17 Categories I use – as a starter list – if the effort is limited to Instruction. These are sometimes pared back by 2-6 Categories in the planning efforts by the PST – Project Steering Team – and later adapted further by the Analysis Team.

K-S Categories

Existing T&D Assessments

After a clear understanding of the Target Audiences and their Performance within whatever scope agreed upon, and the enabling K/Ss – we are prepared to assess for ReUse potential – all the content that we currently have ownership of.

Here is my capture and readout format from 2002 – and would be updated to the client specifics as needed.

EPP 02- PACT- TMC ETA filled in (2)

From here we ban figure out what Performance and what K/Ss we have already covered adequately “as is” or what might be used “after modification” – and the all important: we looked at this and it is “not appropriate” for our use in our effort.

Then we cab address the rest in our Design efforts – after a final step in Analysis is a review and update/approve of the data before its use downstream in a Gate Review Meeting with the PST.

At least – that’s my approach.

Book Resources

From 2011…

2011 b AofPCR

Paperback $15 and Kindle $7.50

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

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

Other Resources

Look for the other PACT related article, chapter, book and audio podcast and video podcast resources in the Resource Tab. There are hundreds of free resources.


PACT is a collection of 5 flexible methodology-sets:

5 PACT Methodology-Sets

PACT is a subset of EPPI

Slide1 (7)

# # #

Instructional Analysis Is A Subset of Performance Analysis

The Big Picture of EPPI

Instruction is but a subset of Performance in my view.

My “branded” model/framework/etc for all of this is:

EPPI – which is Enterprise Process Performance Improvement.

With 3 key “variable” sets:

  • The Process or Processes
  • The Environmental Asset Enablers
  • The Human Asset Enablers

Here’s the BIG picture if you will…


There are various ways to model/capture Processes and to derive the enablers … and any gaps from “good enough” or “better than good enough” or “always dependable” or SixSigma … or better yet NineSigma… etc. Those can be used to derive the enablers – so the more detail there – upstream – the better that derivation downstream will be.


It takes an understanding of all of the Stakeholders’ Requirements to understand the acceptability of your current performance. And it is a comparison with your competitors – any of your customers’ alternatives in getting their needs met – that drives your own Future State improvement goals. To look at current issues in meeting those current customer requirements/needs AND our own future improvement requirements/needs.

And then … as ROI and our limited resources to pursue performance improvement allow … the next task is to look to the upstream Enabler Systems – which is structured a little differently in every organization – and see what their process capabilities are versus the needs downstream. And for the gaps.

Here is my adaptation of the Ishikawa Diagram … I come at this all from a people perspective but not necessarily a people focus.

EPPI Fishbone 14 Variables

In my experience … it is the lack of a Process – or a faulty Process (poor design: too rigid, too flexible, not blended, etc.) that is at the root of the issue … most of the time. Not the Enablers … including the people. Not always – but most of the time. It is the Process. The variation in Results, in Outputs and Outcomes … is in the Process.

And certainly it – the Performance Issue or Future Goal Issue – is not often due to a lack of Knowledge/Skill of the Performers – where Learning & Development (L&D) comes in – to address only 1 of the 12 variables … in my version of the Ishikawa Diagram.

Unless it was “unclear expectations” – which is really at root in the Data & Information segment of this model…

EPPI Fishbone 14 Variables - Process

If the Process is OK – I would tend to next look at the Environmental Assets – to see what deficiencies exist there – and look upstream for the responsible supplier – internal and/or external.

And then I apply this very same model to them … to determine why they are deficient in meeting the downstream customers’ requirements. Look at their Processes, then their Environment Assets, and then their Human Assets.

EPPI Fishbone 14 Variables - EAs

Then – last – I would look to the Performers – and look at the 5 sets of variables – where 4 are in the control of the Recruiting & Selection System … and where ONLY 1 of these 5 and 1 of the overall 12 –  is in the control/realm of L&D.

EPPI Fishbone 14 Variables - HAs

L&D. or Learning, or Training, or Knowledge Management or whatever it is called in your Enterprise, addresses but 1 of 12 variables.

And most often/too often … L&D is asked/expected to affect too many with too much in too short an interval – and as a one-off.

Yeah, good luck with that. Check the metric of “negative ROI” for your scorecard results.

And asking L&D to fix problems in the Recruiting/Selection System is problematic.

Asking L&D to fix Process Definition MIAs is also problematic. As with fixing missing tools, Social Tools and/or more welders, etc., is also problematic.

We can suggest – if we have any credibility – or a Process that helps the client logically conclude something themselves – but we are not in a position to make decisions.

We can suggest a process and tool-set to do so for ourselves.

There are always many potential Solution-Set combinations in the typical Improvement effort – and L&D might be called upon to explain all of those and help people adapt to the new applications and climb the learning curve created by change better-faster-cheaper. But this issue typically doesn’t revolve around L&D.

L&D is a support organization. We don’t even own most Performance Support – if your idea of Performance Support might include replacing those shovels with bulldozers and backhoes. That might be more important and way better than any laminated Job Aids on every shovel.

PC at the Worker Work and Workplace levels

Book Resource

This book from 2011 covers my approach – developed in over 30 years experiences in helping my clients move purposefully – evolving – from Training – to Performance-based Training (L&D) – to Performance Improvement Consulting …

2011 f FTTPIC book cover

Paperback $15 and Kindle $7.50

From Training to Performance Improvement Consulting (2011) – as Paperback and Kindle

– a guide for a leadership team to take their Training/ Learning/ Knowledge Management organization and Stakeholders on a 2-Step Journey from Training to Performance Improvement Consulting.

This book is part of my 2011 six-pack…

PACT 6 Pack

2 Free Resources – 2 PDFs

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) Performance & Instruction Journal – in November 1984.

# # #

L&D: Separating the Common From the Unique

Can This Model Help?

In organizing your understanding of what process and practices might be shared or unique across your Enterprise? For understanding of what might be shared or unique regarding your content?

EPPA - Building Block View - Department

I use this 5-Tier Content Architecture for new content – and inventory existing content using this and cross reference using another scheme.

ECA - PACT's 5 Tier Modular Content Inventory Framework

Then Use Your Current Org Chart to roll it up or divvy it out.

And see your main value chains and support value chains department by department – and then job by job – as necessary.


Then use this model to diagnose what gap causes might be.


Recognize the systems nature of performance … with many stakeholders.


Create/capture the voice of the master performers of the work process performance and the critical enablers.

PACT Via a Group Process for CAD Analysis and Design

This model can be used to plan one’s development using informal and formal means. Or plan an organization’s development.

2011 e D-Y M-AoPC

Paperback $15 and Kindle $7.50

Developing Your Management Areas of Performance Competence (2011) – as Paperback and Kindle

– a model for individual use or Enterprise-wide use to define a Manager’s Performance Competence requirements, assess for improvement areas, and then develop a Management Development Plan.

# # #

Get Your Smokey On & Happy Birthday

Happy Birthday to Smokey the Bear


Only You

Since 1944, Smokey Bear has been the symbol of the protection of America’s forests from fire. More than 60 years later, his famous words of wisdom “Only You Can Prevent Wildfires” continue to be at the center of one of the most successful PSA campaigns in our nation’s history.

Smokey Bear is recognized by 97% of adults, and 3 out of 4 adults are able to recall Smokey’s message of “Only You Can Prevent Wildfires” without prompting.

To renew the important message of wildfire prevention to Americans, particularly adults 18-35, the Ad Council introduced a modern version of Smokey Bear in 2008. The latest PSAs, launched in 2011, focus on the role of debris and backyard burning in human-caused wildfires.

Smokey Bear reminds adults that he is counting on them to prevent human-caused wildfires by practicing fire safety habits and stepping in when others act carelessly.

All the wildfire prevention PSAs direct people to http://www.smokeybear.com to learn all about wildfires and how we can protect our forests.

# # #

L&D: Maps & Specs in the Design Phase

Note: This is my 2500th post since 2007 – I started my Blog in 2004 but restarted it entirely in 2007 once I converted my paper and PDF quarterly newsletter tradition – since back in the day of the mid 1980s – to a series of scheduled and unscheduled Blog Posts.

Now … on to the topic…

Maps for Visual Flow and Specs for All the Details

I use this set of templates to facilitate working with teams of people in ISD projects … as I wanted to engage people who wished to see the Flow and people who needed all the Details while creating or reviewing/approving the content. Some wanted/needed both. Some only wanted to see but one version. I needed to satisfy both types – and know that any one person could be 180 degrees off on certain topics from their overall level of interest. So I tend to err “over the line” of “getting be to be too much detail” by design in my data gathering and then the review/approval process..

And both types – Maps and Specs – are not always needed IMO – and can be produced anyway. But as I believe in “lean” – I typically only produce what 30 years of experience has taught me are truly needed – where having both help my project client and key stakeholders engage in the processes.

When crafting my ISD processes back in the 1980s, for use in the consulting firms I have worked for/been a partner/owner of (1982-today) I started with the premise that I needed to work for a team of stakeholders, and conduct Analysis, Design, Development and Pilot Testing with a team of Master Performers and other Subject Matter Experts.

We called it the Group Process. That language was reflected in two key articles my partners and I wrote and published in 1984. Today it would be called a Social Process.


There is no universal right answer as to which needs to come first, flow then details or details then flow. And again … I don’t always produce both – unless the client really wants them both. More on that in a moment.

Note 1: my language/labels are circa mid-1980s/1990s. Change them if you need to.

As most of my consulting clients were technical/engineering firms and their processes and target audiences were technical … and I was heavily into architecture of Training (Learning) content … this approach and language resonated with them.

And THAT’S what’s really important – that your/my approaches and descriptions resonate with the client IMO. Doesn’t matter if it works for you but not them.

Note 2: this is all covered in articles and presentations and older/original books available for free in my Resource tab – as well as newer books (2011) for a fee. The newer books have additional details.

It Starts With Analysis Data

Before I cover the Design outputs and process it needs to be clear that although you can make up the design details off the top of your head, or the heads of a group of people, it is all about the Analysis data … and whether of not it captures and presents the authentic situation.

That’s why I prefer to facilitate a group of Master Performers and other Subject Matter Experts … as: who would you ask? Who would know best? Certainly not a group of Learning Professionals taking their best guesses.

I use 4 sets of linked Analysis data:

  1. Target Audience data
  2. Performance data
  3. Enabling Knowledge/Skills data
  4. Existing T&D Assessment data

Once we are all clear with the Project Steering Team as to who is/are their target(s) – we are ready to capture and document (for downstream use) their Performance Requirements and then the Awareness, Knowledge and Skills that enable that Performance … and then see what existing Content begins to provide those enablers well enough “as is” or that which would “after modification” or “not at all.”

The next graphic focuses on the 2 key data-sets – but all 4 types are critical.


That data then leads to its use in Design. Again with a Group Process.

Maps & Specs at the Path/Menu Level

A Map Example

CAD P3 TD Path Zone Mgr TMC

A Spec Example – I don’t have one here – but would be/could be simply a paragraph or two overviewing the Path/Menu and then a list of the Event Titles with a designation as to which currently exist and can be used “as is” or which would be used “after modification.

While I have produced Specifications at this level of design in the past – I found it to be of low value for review/approval purposes or for downstream uses.

Maps & Specs at the Event Level

A Map Example

TMC - MCD P3 - Event Map

A Spec Example –  I don’t have one here – but would be/could be simply a paragraph or two overviewing the Event and then a list of the Lesson Titles with a designation as to which currently exist and can be used “as is” or which would be used “after modification.”

While I have produced these in the past – I found it to be of low value for review/approval purposes or for downstream uses.

Maps & Specs at the Lesson Level

A Map Example


A Spec Example –  I don’t have one here – but would be/could be simply a paragraph or two overviewing the Event and then a list of the Instructional Activity titles with a designation as to which currently exist and can be used “as is” or which would be used “after modification.”

While I have produced Specifications in the past at this level of design – I found it to be of low value for review/approval purposes or for downstream uses.

Maps & Specs at the Instructional Activity Level

A Map Example

I don’t do Maps at this level of design – although one could.

While I have produced Maps at this level in the past – I found it to be of low value for review/approval purposes or for downstream uses in development.

A Spec Example

I-Act Spec TMC

The PACT Processes for Training/ Learning/ Knowledge Management



5 Methodology-sets

5 PACT Methodology-Sets

Group Process

PACT Via a Group Process for CAD Analysis and Design

PACT Processes Resources

Here are the newer versions of my books on PACT…


Check out the Resource Tab for all of the resources – both free (audios, videos, articles, presentations and books) … and those for a fee (books only).

You might wish to start with this – my 2001 book available as a free PDF (or a paperback or Kindle).

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.

# # #

Cultural Fit – It’s Initially About the Selection System

Although Awareness/ Knowledge/ Skills Do Play a Role

The A/K/S component is critical in the Selection Process up front – as both an initial explanation of the current state or future state – and as a warning – as it performs A/K/S maintenance – battling the Forgetting Curve.


Yes – a warning about the Consequence System – which is the real key – IMO – in creating and maintaining the Cultural norms desired.

The Selection System itself either weeds out inappropriate candidates … or the rest of “the systems” drive staff to either “self-select out” or “remove them” … but not always soon enough.

The Consequence System

Which either rewards and encourages the Cultural Norms of the Enterprise. Or they don’t … and they reward and encourage the opposite … or anything and everything.


But … as we have all most likely seen in our time in an Enterprise – the difference between words and actions is sometimes the Gap to be addressed.

Because the Consequence System – which either rewards consistently and sufficiently … or it does not –  is central – and it being in place – and its clarification – is what is needed to create the initial awareness/ knowledge/ skill.

And … as any medium-to-large Enterprise does not have one single Culture … in my experience … I have always looked to the local supervision and management … both geographically and level-wise… as the fulcrum to be leveraged. As they control that local Culture.

In my small firms – that would be me.

Back in the Day

Back in the Day I had a staff of 15-25 – in the 2 consulting firms where I was either a partner with 1/3rd of the ownership – or I was the majority owner with 98%.

We would let the appropriate manager conduct the recruitment and selection process. Sometimes it was the Office Manager for the Production Staff – the Home Team – and other times it was me for the Consulting Staff – the Traveling Team.

For many reasons I felt it was necessary to be the Voice of Warning to everyone on the payroll.

If they were production staff (almost always hired as temps) I had the Warning Conversation at the end of the process.

If it was the consulting staff I did this much earlier.

And then we relied on the 90-day Probation Period to let it all shake out – if not dealt with earlier – as needed.

3 Ways to Get Terminated Immediately

Before I outline those 3 – please know that my intent was to help everyone to “hear me now “and “believe me sooner rather than later” (a phrase I adapted … the “sooner rather than” was my add) popularized back in the day for viewers of … and borrowed by me from … SNL) – to make my diverse staff – feel safe.

And because I wanted to make it both memorable and impactful – I was always a bit overly dramatic about it.

I’d have a few back and forth pleasantries with the new hire or candidate – but not too many – as I wanted this to been seen and heard as: NO KIDDING. So I was sometime abrupt in changing the conversation (again in an attempt at being dramatic) and cutting to the chase.

1- Engage in any sexist behavior … and I’d tell a quick story about me being the son of a single mother who raised two sons on her own… yada yada. And … I was a child of the 60s. And I had zero tolerance for such behavior toward women.

2- Engage in any racist behavior … and I’d tell a quick story about having worked for minorities and with minorities before and during and after my 3 year tour in the US Navy … and that I was a child of the 60s. Yada. Yada. And I had zero tolerance for such behavior toward anyone on my staff … or by my staff.

3- Cheat my clients in any manner … including fudging on time sheets – which is how we determine the time and expense invoice amount … or how I developed and sharpened my fixed fee estimating models. No yada yada. Just my smiling but fixed stare.

And Then the Icing on THAT Cake

Was that if my Production Manager wasn’t here when I decided that an individual had to go – I would get out the company checkbook and write that last check myself. They would be gone immediately. Right then and there.


And that the Production Manager had the same power – the same charge from me – the owner – to write that check immediately as well – and that I would ask no questions of her.  She was empowered.

Any Questions?

Was the final act in my 3 part play.

Then We Would Digress Into the Pleasantries

Tell me about yourself. Family. Experience. Education. Etc.

Any questions?

The Consequence System Drives the Culture IMO

And I truly believe that “being forewarned is being forearmed” … it was only fair that they were really forewarned … and I chose to insure that by being a bit dramatic.

Yes – it might have been a shot across their bow.

And they might have to hide their attitudes – their Personal Values … of which I had ZERO CONTROL over.

But I could control – and would – their behaviors while at work. No kidding.

He who pays the fiddler … calls the tune … so to speak.

As I took myself seriously – and I certainly wanted the new staff member or candidate to take me that way too – I made myself be a bit “over the top” … dramatically speaking – to fit the seriousness of the situation.

It was their job and paycheck that was at stake – so it was that serious.

So I needed to Play a Role. And Talk the Talk.

And I knew that when it came time to Walk that Talk – that my Production Manager and our observant staff – would judge me – and her – not by the words themselves – but by my/our actions.

No Kidding.

# # #