PACT: Micro-to-Macro-to-Micro

Sometimes the performance situation is very complex and it is unreasonable to think that one long “class” or one-unified series of e-learning content would be sufficient. That’s when you may need to design a curriculum architecture. A performance-based Curriculum Architecture Design (CAD).

If you are going to architect a curriculum, you need to understand the “building blocks” for content structure – that “object” hierarchy thing – and also understand the technology systems/infrastructure in place to design, develop and deploy/make accessible – the Right Content.

And you need to understand the contextual intent of what you are designing curricula for: an enterprise context, or an education context, or a personal context. Because that can change everything!

You might need to design your Curriculum Architecture in such as way as to “later” maximize re-use by other target audiences of high risk/reward potential. Beginning with the end in mind – or really – beginning with many off-shoots in mind. Or maybe not, situationally/contextually appropriate for you.

Being “common“ about it – in several regards – is key in some but not all situations. More so in Enterprise, but not always. Less so in Education, but not never. And a lot less so in Personal, but not never either – just less likely than in the other two.

Those “regards” are:

Concepts, models, methods, processes, tools, templates, and e-systems planning, for analysis, design at multiple levels (PACT has 3), development, deployment/access.

Micro-to-Macro-to-Micro Overview and Preface Notes
PACT gathers little pieces of data – all strung together. PACT has a big picture data logic. PACT has a micro-data logic.

PACT uses Specs to provide details – and Maps to show flow. Wordy or visually – as needed.

Adopt or Adapt? Or Both? We say both, most likely, to be successful.

A Rose is a Rose is a Rose. And it is also a Rosa.

While CAD is somewhat unique in the world old ISD – MCD is the ADDIE equivalent, and use usee T&D-Learning-Knowledge Management as one thing – as they are overlapped figuratively and liternally – and should be managed as one.

KMS and EPSS are finally enabled by Web 2.0. – but most want to tag it Learning. One may need how to use EPSS – say in how a Wiki’s content is organized – and then stand back and let the Performance happen! But it’s not Learning anymore – except as a means to and/or an inadvertant but desirable “after-effect” of performance. Most cannot help but learn when they perform.

PACT Micro-to-Macro-to-Micro
Micro
Analysis starts with who: the Target Audiences – and then their Performance – and then the enabling K/S, and then the existing content (Instruction/Information).

Analysis data and their “utility-downstream” in PACT:

1- Target Audience: target performance analysis.

2- Performance: captures a model of ideal mastery performance and a gap/cause analysis against that ideal.

3- Enabling K/Ss: identify what needs to be known and what skills are enabling of the terminal performance objectives.

4- Existing T&D Assessments: identify what available can be used as is – or after modification – and not at all.

In MCD the ADDIE-level of PACT
Again, MCD is the ADDIE level of PACT. The analysis data feeds the design process in MCD’s 3rd phase – of its 6 phases. The design process actually processes the analysis data in a predictable, logical manner – with the Design Team – all whom are familiar with the Analysis data as they generated it!

All of that data indeed ends up in an Instructional Activity Spec (or Activity Spec)- which is a part of a Lesson Map – which is part of an Event Map. Specs provide details and Maps present flow.

Macro
CAD is part of the macro picture of PACT.

In CAD we use 4 Phases to produce a T&D Path and priortize all gaps – a T&D Path which is composed of T&D Event Specs- which are composed of T&D Module Specs – where Specs identify and segment content gaps.

In the back-office for PACT are whatever LMS you might use. PACT is robust to any LMS.

An LCMS could be different- depending on how it facilitates PACT’s approach to content configuration (more on this in a later Post on Content Inventory/ Enterprise Content Architecture). PACT’s segmentation/content configuration schemes might be difficult in some LCMS environments.

The PACTools are robust to any and all… Authoring Tools… Deployment/ Meeting Tools… Content Inventory/ Enterprise Content Architecture… and the 4 sides of the box of ECA: Enterprise Content Architecture – is a somewhat “arbitrary configuration.”

Micro
Back to micro.

Here is where our analysis data circles-back-around and meets itself in the details of design…the design details of MCD. In the Instructional Activity Spec. That can generate a lot of IA Specs. Lots.

Before a year was up at General Motors (back in the mid 1990s) they had over 10,000 Instructional Activities – and they knew they’d easily have IAs in the 6-figure range.

If one were to address many detailed needs via a Curriculum Architecture – how should one organize the “dewy decimal system” – the SKU: stock keeping system – the data logic?

Mine works…my data logic…of using Instructional Activities as our lowest level of design, which rolls up to Lessons in MCD/Modules in CAD, either of which rolls up to Events, which rolls up to the T&D Paths, which rolls up to the entire Enterprise Content Architecture. Which is either organized by design – or it is not.

There are other categories of the ECA – including Legacy content – that is not configured per PACT. Those are organized within the ECA too. The ECA is kind of a 4-sided box.

Here are more micro details, per the 5 Tiers and the Sub-Tiers for Tier 3…

PACT’s Data Logic – which I evolved during the 1980s into the very early 1990s – and you can see that in the current approaches of myself – and even of others whom I have taught whether they acknowledge the real sources for “their stuff” – or not- will see that it all ties back to the early articles/presentations from 1984 and 1985 and 1986 – covered in an earlier Post.

Back to the Now and the Future
Back to an Enterprise Context. Using PACT will improve performance impact and reduce costs due to it’s design concepts, models, methods, tools and templates.

Back to an Educational Context. Using the concept of an ECA and link that to all of the Degree Programs – uncover the common enabling a/k/s so as to share those – build them once and share to all/everyone globally. Then let the teachers focus on those who need their help/guidance.

The R for the I? How many times is a second grade lesson plan for math for an entire year re-invented – and at what total redundant cost? What’s the payoff for building that once, designing it and developing it in both a blend of e-learning and instructed learning (teacher/facilitator/coach/mentor, etc.). What the upside of doing this for every subject and every grade and then being done with that – focusing the teacher on the individual student and their needs, hang-ups/mental barriers?

Could the “as is state” of that be a dollar value of something around “a Trillion a year globally” – with 98% of that being unnecessary “redundant efforts at a cost” that could be avoided? If only….

Back to a Personal Context. Using PACT’s concepts of “performance analysis and deriving enabling K/S and then the ETA process expanded to the universe of the Internet’s access to content and access groups/individuals of similar interests, and the library system of books/papers/references, etc. which may not yet or ever be online. Mixing, blending new with old. As needed.

Comments on Informal Learning and Formal Learning
Learning vs. Performance or Knowledge/Skill or Both? Or Informal learning?

I cannot think of any “job” that I’ve come across in 25+ years as a consultant or my 29 years in the biz – that are an excellent candidate group for a deliberate “Informal Learning” strategy.

Now I might want/need to “enable their performance with Web 2.0” as EPSS tools, etc. But only if they have critical, high Risk/Reward consequences.

PACT
PACT is intended for Enterprise, CAD for high risk/reward Target Audiences, and MCD for all New Product Development efforts – for content. The components of PACT that can be leveraged in an Educational Context are the Performance view (AoPs) can be replaced by a Competency view – and then go from their.

The components from PACT for a Personal Context involves setting some sort of Knowledge and/or Skill goals, and perhaps Performance Goals as well – and may involve much more open free-range research on the Internet of course – but in your Libraries as well – and less formal planning planning – before execution of the short term plan – is deciding what you need to know in the short term and then defining where/how to get it now. And then decide step-by-step, incrementally.

Web 2.0
Web 2.0 is even more important for Formal Learning than for Informal Learning – which is really a performance-orientation versus a Learning-orientation (where actual learning is sometimes incidental compared to what might have been really intended). If things to be addressed by Informal Learning were so important – so Risky/ so Rewarding – it would be addressed by Formal Learning. Leaving less to chance.

Web 2.0 is more important to Formal Learning because most Formal Learning should be directed to address high risk, high reward situations, and not low hanging fruit with mass appeal but little chance for adequate Rs for those Is.

And if Web 2.0 can leverage that “performance” – then teach them how to do so. That’s leveraged Learning via Web 2.0 That’s leveraged Performance!!!

For example, the Project Steering Teams (ala PACT as covered in lean-ISD) and the Councils and Board of Governors of the T&D Governance & Advisory System describes in T&D Systems View (at 12 O’Clock) – can use SN for for asynchronous meetings/information exchanges, and Wikis for data repositories, and Blogs for communications. And Second Life for meeting together in cyberspace when meeting face-to-face is not practical.

And the curriculum-level and ADDIE-level architectural structures that I use is that 5-Tier Content Inventory Structure/Framework and the T&D Path/Planning Guide. Note that all of Tier 1, 2, much of 3, and some of 4 and 5 can be placed on a Wiki for access – as open or as controlled as one needs it to be.

Each of those constituences – the PST/ the Curriculum Councils/ the Board of Governors and the Target Audiences themselves – can have very specific, measurable goals and objectives for their use of Web 2.0 functionality – within the context of working in the various workflows within the Learning/T&D/Knowledge Management systems and processes – besides any other roles that they might have.

But then – that’s Performance – and Learning is only involved periferally – to only teach them about it as pertinent to the job. Relevant to the job.

If it – your content – is needed to be job relevant.

IF that is important to you. To some it is. To some it is not.

As always – it depends.

# # #

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.