Video #5 – Adventures in performance-based T&D

My Adventures 1979-Today

Part 5 of a series of videos about my time in the ISD field. This video focuses on my involvement with NSPI/ISPI – my professional home – since joining a chapter in Detroit in September 1979. Recorded 2020-04-09.

This Video is 109:23 minutes in length.

This is one of several videos to come, in what might be described/ labeled as “The Insomnia Solution” – for your insomnia, not mine. ;)

The complete series of videos for Adventures in performance-based T&D is available here:

# # #

T&D: Awards in ISD Should Not Be a Beauty Contest

ISD Is Not/Should Not Be a Beauty Contest

Awards should be given for Results Achieved. And for no other reason IMO.


Back in 1989

My client and I won an “also ran” Finalist Award from NSPI for our project addressing AT&T Network Systems Product Managers. NS-1251.


NS 1251 – was the Keystone Course of a top-down design of a Curriculum Architecture Design – was the culmination event after the Target Audience worked through a series of modular content based on the specifics of their assignment – and their incoming knowledge and skills based on their education and experience.

NS 1251 was built around a series of 25 Simulation Exercises where Product Managers ran 5 Product Team Meetings – one for each Phase of the Life Cycle – also and participated in 20 additional Product Team Meetings – learning about their non-Product Management team members and their concerns as they too went through all 5 of our Life Cycle Phases … see the Game Board …

My beautiful picture

The T&D Path (v. 1989)…


The NS 1251 Program was the last blue box of the 1000 Series… of the CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design …


Finalist. Hmm. Runner up. Hmm.

The Award Submission Package … Plus

38 page PDF from 1989 – 1989 NSPI AoE Submission Pkg for NS 1251.

From the Submission Package…


Results – Results – Results…


Feedback from the Target Audience – NS 1251 Feedback – for some seductive details. ;)

My Followup Inquiries Led to My Action

I saw who won (but today I cannot recall who they were and what their submission was all about) and I compared their documented Results to those my client had calculated – I got to wondering.

My immediate client and his project manager (my handler) worked with their CFO to calculate both the Investment costs and the Returns – as they weren’t about to let me and my handler do that on their behalf – because Reputation meant something to them.

When I inquired to the Awards Committee Chair as to why, one of the answers from the Committee head was that AT&T had won the previous year when he/she was the Deputy Chair – and was told “it wouldn’t look good for for them to win the top award two years in a row” I got mad.

So that’s how I came to volunteer to lead a 2 year effort to revamp the Awards Program at NSPI (now ISPI) and then 1 more year to support the Committee charged with Implementation.

A Three Year Grind

The late Bob Mager, whom I had met in 1980 at my first NSPI conference – but really didn’t know at that time – reached out to me once the word got out that I had asked the Board to assign me this task – to encourage me to make it Criterion Referenced. Which was my intent. Others also encouraged me to do the same. Those who know of Bob’s work know that it was all about Criterion Referenced – and not Norm Referenced.

So I worked with many others while carrying a heavy load as an ISD consultant – to get this done over two years and then handed off the ReDesign to another committee to Implement it – and I supported their efforts for the next year.

The Criteria of that Professional Society was, as those who were around it back in the day  should well know – was Worthy Outputs or Accomplishments (ala Gilbert).

Results. Results. Results.

Measurable Results.

Quibbling About Results

Now – we all quibbled about what and how to measure Results. My take on all of that was we were often talking Educational Contexts or Enterprise Contexts without distinction – and those Contexts are different.

In the former you don’t know the ultimate Terminal Performance Objectives of your students as you don’t know what job they’ll eventually get once they get their degree – and so you do the best that you can in establishing Learning Objectives – 3-part or otherwise, Terminal and Enabling or otherwise.

In the latter one should know the ultimate Terminal Performance Objectives of your Target Audiences as you should know what job tasks they’ll eventually be responsible for get once they get through your Instruction.

Nowadays I see Personal Learning in the mix, besides Educational Learning and Enterprise Learning.

It’s All About the Benjamins

Which for me – since 1979 – thanks to my managers and peers in the Training Services function at Wickes Lumber – was ROI. They taught me that the 4th level of the Kirkpatrick Levels of Evaluation – Results – was ROI – as that’s all our leaders at Wickes (and elsewhere) would understand. Invest nickles for dollars. Returns on Investments.

Benjamins In and Benjamins Back

Or whatever language and phrases work in YOUR CONTEXT. Mine has been corporate leaders where I was employed (1979-1982) or served as a consultant (1982-Today).

If I guided my clients in creating cheap and crappy-looking Job Aids for Performance Guidance & Support in the Workflow – and that saved them millions while making millions more – and had that submitted to some awards program where the majority of the other submissions were sleek/slick looking multi-media programs – and we lost out on the basis of Surface Appeal vs Results Achieved – I’d know what that wasn’t about.

It wouldn’t be about Value. Despite their slogans and marketing.

And it wouldn’t be worth my continued time, energy and money to participate further.

And I do know what I am talking about here.

Been there – done that.

Back to the Future? 

Results? Results? Results? Measurable Results?

Or backsliding?

# # #

T&D: What Do Your Practices, Products & Services Say About Your Professional Integrity?

Just saw a post on LinkedIn from last week where a vendor tied their Sales oriented product/service offerings to MBTI.

Surely by now they can’t be serious.


Yeah – yeah. Don’t call me Shirley. ;)

But seriously?  How can they continue to do this when the evidence for is from those promoting the services behind MBTI – and all of the independent research suggests it is QUITE BOGUS!

How are they gonna overcome THE OBJECTIONS that surely will come?

Tap dance for distraction?

From The Scientific Standard

In order to determine whether or not MBTI is a suitable means of categorizing personality types, reliability and validity must be addressed. Reliability indicates that a test will deliver consistent results and validity stipulates that a test measures what it says it measures.  There are two types of validity that should be considered: construct and criterion. Construct validity looks at how well the MBTI relates to other scales measuring similar concepts, while criterion validity explores whether or not MBTI predicts specific outcomes related to interpersonal relations and job performance. According to the National Academy of Sciences committee, who reviewed data from more than 20 MBTI research studies, only the introversion-extroversion scale has adequate construct validity. When speaking about criterion validity, MBTI struggles to predict job performance and relationships because it offers no explanation for behavior other than the cyclical argument that behavior is caused by traits, which are inferred by behavior.

For more from their post – please go here.

A GIF (31)

I Was Honored To Be Asked To Review This Book Pre-Publication

It is a quick read – with helpful pointers to the underlying research – PLUS PLUS PLUS it offers guidance on what to do instead of embracing these all-too-common myth that pervade our profession.


One source for this book, Amazon – is here. Well worth it!

And see Clark Quinn’s website – here.

# # #

PI: Linking Human Performance Requirements In the Processes – To The Enabler Provisioning Systems

I Created This Diagram in 1993

To support my intended conversation with my two business partners about a book we were undertaking at the time. This was one half of the Big Picture – as besides the Human Resources – there are also the Environmental Resources – that Enable Process Performance. I’m not sure where that portion of my Persuasion Support is – as I haven’t seen it since the mid-1990s.

The Human Resources Infrastructure Engineering Platforms 1993 GWW

I recall riding on the roads, built 12 feet above the tundra, at the Prudhoe Bay Oil fields on the North Slope of Alaska in the Arctic Circle, trying to persuade both of them from the backseat of our assigned Truck – how we might tie our Performance Model format and data into the Big Picture. Or Bigger Picture.

And then we saw a Polar Bear cub on the right about 40 feet off the road. And looked immediately to our left … and saw the Mama Bear. And so Ray stepped on it, as they say.

And after that little distraction … I recall trying to get back to my point.

That took a few minutes or more.

The Quality RoadMap (1994)

That diagram – more filled out/completed to include the Environmental Resources – became the two bottom layers on the “front face” of the cube on the book’s cover.

1994 QRM Book Cover

And that led later – much later – to another of my books…

From Training to Performance Improvement Consulting (2011)

Which addressed “How To – No Kidding” segue from being a Training/ T&D/ L&D/ Learning/ Instructional Design department or function … to a performance-based Training function … to a Performance Improvement Consulting function (that would still offer performance-based Training.

2011 f FTTPIC book cover

As the cover suggests – earn the name change BEFORE changing your function’s/department’s name.

Too many were doing things like that IMO back in the early 2000s … changing their name due to their aspirations … before they were capable of pulling that off. False Advertising IMO. And not good at all IMO.

The 1993 graphic has influenced and been at the center of most of my books, and many articles, and consulting philosophies and practices since.

Let’s explore the 3 columns of that 1993 hand drawn diagram … left to right…

Process/ Performance Models

The 3 Tiers… have changed a bit … evolved as it were…

Tier 1

EPPI Tier 1 View

What that L-C-S is all about…

M-AoPs - ADDIE Example

Tier 2

EPPI Tier 2 View

An Example Performance Model chart…

PM Chart

Tier 3

EPPI Tier 3 ViewSlide3

Enabler Matrices

The Matrices called out in the middle column exist – and have been used – and go beyond the Human Resources/ Assets … and are framed by my adaptation of The Ishikawa Diagram … in the graphic above …

An Example Enabler Matrices chart…

KS Matrices

Enabler Provisioning Systems

That third column – expanded to include the Systems that addressed both the Human Resources and the Environmental Resources – became this…

The EPPI HAMS and EAMS Model

I changed the language from Human Resources – so as to avoid confusion with that function – as most HR function own only some of these BLUE BOXES and share some with their internal fellow-functions.

And of course not everyone likes my use of the term “Human Asset” just as they object to the term “Human Capital” – which I would use when speaking to my client’s clients and Stakeholders who most often didn’t get so hung up on language like that – and were probably already familiar with “Human Capital” and “Capital Assets”, etc.


That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!

# # #