A History of Developing Clients’ Capability on “CAD via the Group Process Methods” – and on all of PACT – over the past 2 decades plus!

I’ve been developing my own staff in the analysis and design methods of CAD since 1984 – when we started expanding our consultant staff at R.A. Svenson & Associates – which later became SWI – Svenson & Wallace Inc. in the late 1980s.

I needed to develop some consistency in our ISD efforts aimed at more than just a course or two – which the ADDIE model served. I needed to formalize the CAD analysis and design steps, the tools/templates…I needed “to reduce to practice” all of the ISD concepts, theories, models and methods one could find in the marketplace conferences and local chapter meetings, and in all of the literature.

Having just recently completed the first cycle of learning for staff members, I find myself reflecting on the past development of PACT Practitioners.

Perhaps the recent passing of my mentor, Geary A. Rummler in late October 2008 has something to do with it. He taught me to share freely – and not to hold back. One of the many things he taught me that I was unable to repay.

I needed to do this formalization of our ISD processes at both the CAD level and at the ADDIE level – which became MCD – Modular Curriculum Development/ Acquisition – after years known at SWI as CCD – Custom Course Development (the ADDIE level of PACT).

We seemed to be the only firm doing anything equivalent to Curriculum Architecture Design via a group process with a focus on real performance – versus competencies for a long time. back in the late 1970sand early 1980s it was DACUM – which stood for “design a curriculum” only it was/is more about the analysis effort than a design effort. Now-a-days there are “Learning Paths” as a competitive approach. But focused on competencies – but I may be wrong – it was a while ago that I took a look at it – and I can’t recall the details. But is probably an alternative to PACT that might fit better in your Enterprise.

What was I seeing out there in the ISD marketplace back in the late 1970s and early 1980s…?

14 different types of analysis!?! I think not.

Making up learning objectives and not deriving them from some model of process performance? You know – the workflow?!?

It seemed that all of the ISD programs taught pieces of the ISD puzzle – but never taught anyone how to actually do it from start to finish – in an Enterprise context.

My staff and the contractors we brought in as needed, for our approach – is one that could be referred to as “divide and conquer” – needed to work as one. Or more or less work as one. Some variation is inevitable. But it can be minimized.

And in 1985 I began developing the staff of my Clients’ organizations in my formal methods at their request.

I came back from an NSPI (now ISPI) Conference and my delivery of that first national session on CAD using a Group Process – and I delivered that to my Clients at MCC Powers – where I first met my business partner to be Pete Hybert – who was in the group getting their first shot of CAD. He really took to it.

When his organization decided to not use this method (but to hire it out and then do the ADDIE level work inside) he talked one of his internal clients into doing a CAD effort and he did one. His head worked that way.

And it was true of others: Christie Westall at HP was another great example, Katie McSporran at Amoco and then Eli Lilly, my junior employee in our production team, later a consultant and then business partner Kelly Rennels Smith, contractor to GM Kim Peterson, and dozens more.

Each was involved in a different approach to learning PACT – sometimes a deliberate experiment by me on would this approach work?

The Client companies I did this with include: MCC Powers (Now Siemens Building Technologies), and also the ISD staffs at NCR, Amoco, Bandag, Eli Lilly, General Motors, HP, and NASCO.

And now most recently for my own staff at one part of Wachovia – soon to be in perhaps many parts of the more-decentralized Wells Fargo – post merger. Soon.

Here is the Opening Lesson for the 1995 version of my training on CAD. That is followed by an overview of all of the related projects for developing capability and capacity at: MCC Powers (now Siemens Building Technologies), NCR, Amoco, Bandag, Eli Lilly, General Motors, HP, NASCO and finally, most recently at Wachovia’s General Bank Group’s (GBG) Learning & Development organization.

Lesson 1 – circa. 1995 – The SWI – Svenson & Wallace Inc. Version of the T&D I used for Formal Learning/ Training/ Development for My Clients’ ISD StaffThe Open
The workshop began with a pre-assessment written knowledge test to see where each of the Participants “were” on the learning curve. Some had typically been involved in CAD projects with our firm (SWI) and others in the room had not.

So we began with a test that had to be graded ASAP after its completion. This was needed to determine how to stack the teams for the “appos” – the application exercises – where the learning by doing would occur. It’s why we label the chunks of content in PACT as “Instructional Activities” – to help remind the designer/developer to keep it active!

The PACT Acronym

The acronym PACT took about 2 hours to come up with. I still have the original flip chart page that I used to play around with words and possible acronyms.

It was important that the methodologies be presented as “performance-based.”

I was in an Enterprise – and not an Educational or Personal “learning context” where most times you can describe the terminal application (performance) objectives and create appropriate enabling “learning objectives” that will get one to “Performance Competence.”

More PACT Acronyms

Most people love to hate acronyms – while simultaneously loving to use them as a short-cut.

PHP – PACT has plenty!

CAD

A CAD is both a product and a process.

The product is a modular design of learning that leads to performance competence. A modular design that produces content (post-CAD effort) that will have a high level of share-ability with other Target Audiences.

CAD Phases

I have always represented CAD as a process using 4 Phases.

And the key outputs per phase and the key teams per phases – using a graphic that I call: POTs: Phases-Outputs-Teams.

Analysis & Design Outputs

This too is a long-used graphic.

It is always a part of the Project Plan’s narrative section.

Analysis Outputs

And the analysis phase outputs that got reported out in the Analysis Report were always presented as these 4 – in the graphic.

You’ve got to pinpoint your target audiences, their performance requirements, the enabling knowledge/skills needed and then one could assess any existing T&D content for its reuse potential.

Design Outputs

The outputs of the Design Phase (always #3) are typically presented as these 5 – but I’ve varied more in my articulation of these than of the analysis outputs. Those have remained the same while Design outputs have changed a lot over the years (since 1982).

Adopt or Adapt?

One must learn something well to be able to appropriately adapt it.

Most common processes will always need some level of “situationally appropriate adaptation” and PACT is no exception.

The Objectives

The workshop had Administrative Objectives (for Lesson 1 to cover as “The Open”) and Learning Objectives for the entire workshop.

Here are the administrative objectives…

And here are the learning objectives…

The Map

The Schedule

Establishing Credibility

Where has this been done?

Of course this is a list from 1995.

Projects to Develop PACT Capability & Capacity
Developing Capability & Capacity Via Formal Learning

Here are the many overviews of the “brief project descriptions” for all of those leading up to NASCO (not yet included) and Wachovia (also not yet formally described)…

…there are many!…

…when I was at SWI – Svenson & Wallace Inc. (1982-1997), and then at CADDI (1997-2002) and then at EPPIC (2002-2007+) and finally/recently at Wachovia (2008+)…

MCC Powers – now: Siemens Building Technologies
1985
Training Project Management Coaching. Miscellaneous coaching provided to the ISD staff in the use/application of our team-based ISD methodologies.

NCR
1990
Curriculum Architecture Design Process Design. Presentations and consulting services regarding our methodology for CAD were provided to the staff of the corporate T&D organization.

General Motors
2000
General Consulting for the PACT Process Technology Transfer (PPTT) efforts as General Motors University internalized a common process for instructional systems design/development (ISD).
1999
CAD: Brand Management—Opel (Germany). Guy’s 70th CAD project, focused on the needs of GM’s European Brand Management team personnel.
CAD: Brand Management—North America. Guy’s 68th CAD project. He supported a GMU contractor in this project.
General Consulting for the PACT Process Technology Transfer (PPTT) efforts as General Motors University internalized a common process for instructional systems design/development (ISD).
1998
CAD: Internal Controls. Guy’s 66th CAD project. He conducted the design meetings based on the analysis data generated by a staff ISD professional from one of GMU’s strategic partners.
PACT Process Workshop: Analysis (MC/MI Analysis). Guy co-facilitated this four-day workshop for the staff and strategic suppliers of General Motors University as part of CADDI’s technology transfer efforts of the PACT Processes for T&D (known inside General Motors University as Modular Curriculum/Modular Instruction).
PACT Process Workshop: CAD Design (MC Design). Guy co-facilitated this four-day workshop for the staff and strategic suppliers of General Motors University.
PACT Process Workshop: MCD Design (MI Design). Guy co-facilitated this five-day workshop multiple times for the staff and strategic suppliers of General Motors University.
PACT Process Workshop: PACT Process Project Planning & Management (MC/MI Project Planning & Management). Guy co-facilitated this four-day workshop one time for the staff and strategic suppliers of General Motors University.
Curriculum Architecture Design for MFD Area Managers. Guy’s 64th CAD project, which focused on metal fabrication department area managers.
Curriculum Architecture Design for Global Dealer Auditors. Guy’s 63rd CAD project, which focused on global dealer auditors.
General Consulting for the PACT Process Technology Transfer (PPTT) efforts as General Motors University internalized a common process for instructional systems design/development (ISD).
1997
Analysis for Total Vehicle Integration Engineering. Guy conducted the performance and knowledge/skill analysis for automotive engineers for later use in a CAD (MC) project.
Analysis for Finance. Guy conducted the performance and knowledge/skill analysis for finance personnel for an abbreviated CAD (MC) project to kick-start the inauguration of General Motors University.
Analysis for Manufacturing Assembly. Guy conducted the performance and knowledge/skill analysis for manufacturing assembly personnel for an abbreviated CAD (MC) project.
1996
Adaptation and Implementation of the PACT Processes for MCD. This was the beginning of our first large-scale PACT Process Technology Transfer project, where all of the methodologies were finally codified and documented for delivery, practitioner certification, and ongoing coaching/support. In this project, the PACT Processes for T&D were adopted and adapted to General Motors’ needs. Briefings, workshops, toolkits, go-bys, and many other support materials were created to support the implementation effort to transfer the technology and methodologies to General Motors’ strategic partners to support their training development outsourcing strategy.
Curriculum Architecture Design for Product Engineers. Guy’s 55th performance-based CAD project where the effort was to use existing DACUM data, and build a prototype CAD to demonstrate the methodology and create example outputs.
Course Development Analysis and Design for a Manufacturing Environment Risk Assessment Process and Tool. Guy conducted a combined analysis/design meeting for several T&D products to support the rollout of this tool.
New Tool & Die Supervisors-In-Training Curriculum Architecture Design. Guy’s 60th performance-based CAD project where, in support of the PPTT effort, he co-conducted the analysis and design processes to produce the CAD for an 18-month long T&D curriculum of classroom, lab, and on-the-job development process for new hire, new supervisor-in-training for the Tool & Die organizations’ die design and stamping operations.
The following workshops were delivered as part of the PACT Processes for T&D technology transfer to General Motors’ training strategic partners:
PACT Process Workshop: Performance Modeling & Knowledge/Skill Analysis
PACT Process Workshop: Modular Curriculum Design (MC a.k.a. CAD)
PACT Process Workshop: Modular Instruction Design (MI a.k.a. MCD)
Consulting: Adaptation and Implementation of the CADDI PACT Processes for T&D. This effort is intended to formally transfer the PACT Processes for T&D (lean-ISD) into General Motors NAO OED’s strategic partners to support their outsourcing strategy.
1995
Presentation to Staff: Curriculum Architecture Design. A two-and-a-half-day presentation to the OED staff of General Motors, expanding on the current CAD (ISPI version) and other of our presentation/workshop materials.
1992
Project Planning Coaching for Engineering Curriculum Design. Guy reviewed and critiqued existing Project Plans for conducting an engineering-focused curriculum design, using DACUM as the primary analytic methodology.

Amoco
1997
PACT Workshop Delivery: Performance Modeling & Knowledge/Skill Analysis. Guy facilitated this workshop for eight Amoco ISDers.
1996
PACT Process Workshop: Curriculum Architecture Design. The first pilot test of the five-day CAD Design Workshop, which built upon the learners’ knowledge and experiences with the Performance Modeling & Knowledge/Skill Analysis Workshop.
PACT Process Workshop: Performance Modeling & Knowledge/Skill Analysis #2. The second delivery of the five-day Performance Modeling & Knowledge/Skill Analysis Workshop.
PACT Process Workshop: Performance Modeling & Knowledge/Skill Analysis #1. The first pilot-test delivery of the five-day Performance Modeling & Knowledge/Skill Analysis Workshop, which develops the learners’ knowledge and skills regarding facilitating the group process for Performance Modeling and then systematically deriving the knowledge and skill enablers.
Curriculum Architecture Design Project Design Coaching and Support. Guy’s 58th performance-based CAD project where he assisted in the creation of a straw-dog CAD prior to the design meeting, to help the new PACT practitioners play with the data and generate one potential outcome, for use with the Design Team only as an example of what they might themselves produce.
PACT Process Workshop: Curriculum Architecture Design.
PACT Process Workshop: Performance Modeling & Knowledge/Skill Analysis. This project continued the development of PACT Process practitioners at Amoco.
1995
White Paper Development: Training Needs Assessment at Amoco. In this project, Guy wrote a short white paper describing the methods, uses, and management issues/opportunities for the systematic needs assessment process at Amoco Production Company, based largely on the PACT Process for Performance Modeling and Knowledge/Skill Analysis.

1994
One-Day Project Planning and Proposal Development Workshop . Guy developed a one-day workshop for using our interview guides and then structuring and developing a situationally appropriate Project Plan and Proposal to deal with conducting analysis, design, development, and pilot-testing the materials for all of the training implications.
Two-Day Workshop: Curriculum Architecture Design. Presentation of the then-current CAD workshop, covering both Performance Modeling and Knowledge/Skill Analysis plus the CAD design methodology. The workshop was not nearly long enough for covering the skill development needs of the learners.
1993
Training Module Design Template Development.

Hewlett Packard
1997
Consulting: Application of the PACT Process Methodologies in Process Redesign and Human Performance Improvement Consulting Projects. In this project, Guy provided telephone consultation to two performance technologists in the process of transforming their T&D organization into a human performance technology (HPT) service organization (including instructional technology) over a three-month time frame for the initial project.
1995
Four-Day Workshop: Curriculum Architecture Design. Presentation of the then-current CAD workshop, covering both Performance Modeling and Knowledge/Skill Analysis plus the CAD design methodology. Learners were to be assigned responsibilities for the training implications of a major change initiative, a consolidation, and a BPR project.

Eli Lilly
1996
Curriculum Management Workshop. Guy worked on the design, development, and delivery of a two-day workshop on using PACT Process principles for curriculum management within a large corporation.
1995
Presentation to HRD Staff: Curriculum Architecture Design. A three-hour presentation of the current CAD (ISPI version) to members of the corporate human resources organizations.

Note: staff from Bandag attended several of the Amoco sessions – empty seats made available to my other Clients by my Amoco Client: Katie McSporran (now at Eli Lilly).

And then in 2005 NASCO staff attended a session on the Analysis portion of PACT.

The latest group to be developed is my staff at Wachovia’s General Bank Group’s Curriculum Architecture Team (CAT). See the past Post about that session.

Sharing Via Many Means and Modes
To support these development efforts of my own staff and my Clients’ staffs, I and my business partners and employees wrote about the CAD methodology, and then later the PACT methodologies. Those then turned into sessions with Clients and then sessions at ASTD, or NSPI/ISPI, Training Conferences, etc.

We first published on these in 1984 twice, and started a long line of conference presentations. When we got our first web site we posted most all of these for anyone interested in accessing and learning more.

But – you can’t learn to ride a bike on Google, and you can’t master PACT methods and techniques by simply reading about them – unless you have a lot of prior experience in methods/techniques “close enough” to those of PACT.

I’ve seen people start doing without much instruction beyond some examples of the final outputs and a description of the methods/techniques – go forward and do. It’s rare, but not impossible. Many of my Client’s staff learned by participating in projects that they brought me and/or my staff in to conduct. They “lurked” and learned.

Is that “lurking and learning” Informal Learning? If it is directed/intentional? But not so formal?

And I also have the Formal stuff, the workshops, articles, presentations, needed to insure capability of the learners/Performers post-sessions/coaching. It’s almost never – but there are those exceptions – when formal instruction is enough.

Many times post-session Formal coaching is needed. Many times many projects need to be support by the novice with a master at the helm, so that most all of the learnings were “by design” and true to the realities of the enterprise context and culture meshing well-or-not with the PACT methods.

PACT doesn’t fit well in just any enterprise culture.

Personalized Learning for Performance Capability
I used to have my staff keep a Learning Log – where they would write notes as I took them through multiple projects on “my briefings” just before their observations of me conducting various activities in the projects per the plan, and then of my

debriefings of them about what they witnessed – so that I could confirm or deny and/or embellish the lessons that were meant to be observed/felt and learned.

Formal Learning of PACT
For the most intentional/formal approach to developing PACT capabilities and capacity – see more about the 5 Stages of a PACT Process Technology Transfer – covered in my book: lean-ISD

lean-ISD is available as a free 404-page PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/

# # #