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

Analysis

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).

cad-pots-20121

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.

slide1-3

MCD – Modular Curriculum Development

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

mcd-pots-2012

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.

01-liml-66155-lessons_in_maki-sfull

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.

# # #

 

Advertisements

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.

01-liml-66155-lessons_in_maki-sfull

 

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.

org-chart-in-l-c-s-mode

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.”

Slide3

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.”

Slide1

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.

AoPs TMC

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.

Slide1

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.

Slide2

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.

Slide3

 

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

slide61

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.

IMO. IME.

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.

Slide3

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.

Slide5

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

# # #

 

L&D: IME – Most “Training” Isn’t

It’s Education on Topics. Tasks? Maybe Micro.

IME – In My Experience
Slide1

But it isn’t Training – as it hasn’t/ doesn’t enable Performance to Requirements.

Again – In My Experience.

Slide1

My Experience

In the 75 Curriculum Architecture Design (CAD) efforts that I’ve conducted since 1982, and in the 50+ Modular Curriculum Development efforts (my ADDIE-like methods) I’ve found that most Learning Content/ Training Content was about Topics. Sometimes Tasks – but mostly Topics.

The last of my 4 types of formal Analysis is an Assessment of existing Content for ReUse in a new Path or Paths through the current Inventory and potential future Inventory of Content – and various levels of formal Instruction and Information. What have I found?

Topic after Topic … with no or weak links to any kind of a Process Model as a Scaffold to hang each Topic on, to place the Topic in a mental model of overall Task performance.

Even if Tasks were covered they were what I would call Micro-Tasks, and they too were not placed in some bigger picture. Some model/scaffold of the Macro Performance.

An example of a Macro Performance Model/ Process Model: Ill Bell Labor Relations at the Supervisor level:

Slide1

This model/framework was presented early in the Introduction – and thus set the stage for all learning content that followed, including the process details. the internal organization, the union, the current agreement based on current law and the current contract, and then the process tools and techniques.

It was a big poster on the wall plus the binder insert cover … it was, after all, 1991.

slide27.png

These graphics above were from the Analysis (the top graphic) and Design Documents (both graphics) from this 1991 effort.

Existing T&D Analysis

Again, the ETA is my 4th and last type of formal Analysis conducted during the Analysis Phase – as in reality analysis occurs in all phases of my 6 Phase effort.

My 4 Types of Analysis in the PACT Processes are:

  • Target Audience
  • Performance
  • Enabling Knowledge/Skills
  • Existing T&D Assessment

In CAD…

CAD Key Outputs

Clients often wanted me to start with thewir existying content – which I would gently push back on by stating that I wouldn;t know what I was looking for in that content until I had minimally done the analysis on Performance – and – the Enabling K/Ss. They almost always saw that logic.

They, of course, were worried that we’d throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. This wasn’t their first rodeo.

My bias has always been – if it looks close enough – use it – and then evaluate that decision with during the Pilot Test and the evaluations of ongoing Deployments. Prove it out versus prove it in (initially).

I firmly believe in ReUse “As Is” or “After Modification” – but if it just doesn’t fit – despite the title suggesting that it should fit – we deem it: “Not Appropriate.”

The ETA Process

PACT ETA Process

Documenting the Assessment

I use a form to document the assessment – which feeds a database. The following is the 2002 version of said form.

Check the final assessment in the bottom row of side 1 of 2.

Slide1

That assessment of the ReUse potential is: “As Is” (AI), or as source “After Modification” (AM), or do not use as it is deemed Not Appropriate (NA).

Adopt-Adapt

Given the Performance data and the enabling K/Ss data.

pm-ks-used-in-design

If you don’t know the Outputs and their Measures and the Tasks and their Measures – plus the enabling Knowledge/Skills related to those Outputs and Tasks – you are likely to miss The Mark.

The Mark of Stakeholder Requirements – for both Outputs and Process Tasks.

Slide5

Now – Switching Gears and Direction

I bring this up after reading Mirjam Neelen’s excellent August 29, 2017 post about…

THE QUESTIONABLE RELATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

– and that brought to mind my prior reactions to other similar studies, articles and posts.

Training – Is Too Often a Misnomer

It may be called Training – but it is not.

Or it is just poor Training.

Which just seems all too prevalent. In my experience.

It might have been better labeled Education – where we often don’t know the terminal application exactly of the learner/Performer. Topics one might need to know. Tasks that one might need to know. Might need – because we were unsure of the terminal performance objective and process specifics. But then – that’s not Training.

But maybe they did need Active Listening. Sounds logical, doesn’t it?

I’ve written before about my experience where the ETA process in a CAD effort uncovered 28 versions of Active Listening that one client had in their inventory. Talk about Opportunity Rich – or Overload in the extreme.

And … they all were two hour modules. All were generic, canned programs not built for the type of Active listening needed and then reflected in the authentic INFOs, DEMOs and APPOs (Application Exercises).

Kinda like taking Training for somebody else’s job.

And that’s what my experience in ETA – Existing T&D Assessments has taught me.

Wisdom from the Late Geary A. Rummler

One Slide…

1981 MTEC G A Rummler Session

You can call in Training – even Performance Based Training.

But THAT does not make it so.

Look at the titles of your Learning Content.

Are they more Topic sounding than Task sounding?

I bet so.

Are INFOs, DEMOs and APPOs (Application Exercises) authentic enough?

The Video…

The slide was from this 1981 presentation at MTEC – Motorola’s Training & Education Center. The video is 45 minutes in length. Well worth the watch IMO.

Unless your Content – T&D, Learning or Knowledge Management – is authentic enough – it won’t likely transfer. And won’t have the impact – or ROI – that it might have.

If you are not going for Measured Results – the question becomes – why bother?

Measured Results

Resources

lean-ISD (1999)

Click on image to link to the download page for the FREE PDF:

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.

Book 6 Pack For Sale

The PACT 6-Pack – from 2011 –

for Instructional Systems Design/Development and Performance Improvement

Purchase through Amazon’s CreateSpace online E-store or Amazon.com for the Kindle versions.

These 6 titles include:

The Curriculum Manager’s Handbook (2011) – as Paperback and Kindle

– for Curriculum Managers, L&D Managers and Chief Learning Officers – to define your job and function in Performance Competence terms and identify targets for improvements.

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.

Paperback $15 and Kindle $7.50

Performance-based Curriculum Architecture Design (2011) – as Paperback and Kindle

– for the Project Planner and Manager, plus the Designer of a Curriculum Architecture Design effort for produce performance-based Learning Paths and Planning Guides.

Paperback $15 and Kindle $7.50

Performance-based Modular Curriculum Development (2011) – as Paperback and Kindle

– for the Project Planner and Manager, plus the Designer of a Curriculum Architecture Design effort to produce performance-based, modular Instructional Events of any mode and media.

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.

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.

Paperback $15 and Kindle $7.50

# # #

 

 

L&D: Climbing the Performance Analysis Learning Curve – Part 1

Step 1 In the Process of Performance Analysis Process

Is to chunk the segments of Performance into what I call Areas of Performance – AoPs … or if you prefer… AsoP.

Performance Analysis itself is the second type of analysis in my ISD methodologies known as PACT (since the late 1980s/early 1990s):

  • Target Audience Analysis
  • Performance Analysis
  • Knowledge/Skills Analysis
  • Existing Training Analysis

I use the following format and ask the learners/Performers to focus on something familiar to start … something such as their first kid job … a summer job where they got paid by someone other than mom or dad or some other relative.

Summer Job AoPs

After doing this on your own prior job(s) – take on someone else’s summer/kid job – your kids, friends, etc. Then move on to more adult type jobs – which are usually – but not always – more complex than kid jobs.

Note that I typically teach this after teaching how to complete the Performance Models and Knowledge/Skills Matrices – as that’s where the AoPs lead – and beginning with the ends … or next ends in mind is most always helpful.

The exception to that sequence is if the Target Audience has witnessed the entire process – something that was part of my PPTT – PACT Process Technology Transfer efforts with my clients. Search on PPTT if you have more interest in that.

Sounds Like Tasks and Not Topics

AoPs are NOT about knowing something – but are doing something. What do your AoPs sound like? Things to know – or things to do?

By Tasks – I really mean Task-sets. The A in ADDIE represents many tasks for example.

Flow

Follow the Cycle – or Cycles of the job performance.

AoP Examples 3

Minimize Overlaps and Gaps

Overlaps = bad.

Gaps = bad.

Again – don’t confuse the enabling Knowledge/Skills overlaps with the AoPs.

I may need to know and have the skills about word processing … or keyboard skills … to document both my Analysis efforts and my Design efforts … as in ADDIE … but the A and the D are the AoPs … not the keyboarding skills.

AoP Examples 1

Having overlaps in AoPs means that the next step of Knowledge/Skills Analysis will generate a ton of redundancy in those results.

Self-Test

For your learning self-check.

AoP Examples 2

Examples

Sales Rep…

AoPs Sales Rep

Manager…

AoPs TMC

My Blogs have covered this in the past. Search using AoPs for additional posts.

Like the Old Saw

Eat the Performance – or chunk the performance – one chunk at a time. Yes – you’ll have to most likely understand how the pieces work together as a system.

AoP Segmentation Scheme

BTW

The Answers to the Self Test above are:

  • ISD Professional = Non-Example (Bad) – things to know in the mix
  • Milkman/Milkperson = Good Example – non-overlapping task-sets

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

slide61

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.

# # #