In the prior post I presented two videos – and links to their source on Google Video for those who may want their own copy – from 1995 and 1997 – about The PACT Processes for Training/ Learning/ Knowledge Management.
The 1995 video is of me making a presentation about CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design – to the professionals in several of the many T&D staffs of Eli Lilly.
As I wrote in the prior post, I had thought that I had lost both videos (on VHS tape) long ago. So it was interesting to see what I was saying about CADs back then.
The video is 2 hours and 3 minutes in length – good for a long airplane ride via your iPod?
At one point, very well into the 2 hours, I talk about the ability to see the whole set of Knowledge/Skill needs via the K/S Matrices collected via the analysis methods – and then being able to better choose media – the various blends including the use of books, brochures, videos, “e” such as CBT – Structured-OJT (S-OJT) – and even targeting some “potential content” as U-OJT: Unstructured OJT.
U-OJT is unstructured on-the-job-training – my term for what later became Informal Learning.
The analysis proved its need for on-the-job PERFORMANCE. The Business decision to not “bring it to market” – to not build or buy it – left it to chance. By design. The learners/ Performers would have to learn it I say, “by hook or crook.” In other presentations I would salute the audience and add: “Good luck!”
Tagging potential content as U-OJT meant that not another nickle would be spent on it – as decided by the customer and other stakeholders on the PST – Project Steering Team. But the CAD effort did the “value add” thing in at least naming it.
How much U-OJT/Informal Learning is not even named for the Informal Learner trying to figure it out? Or for their managers/peers to whom the responsibility then falls? Because if Guy doesn’t learn it – how to perform – they’ll have to carry me – or in their own defense – teach me. Otherwise my performance is a burden to them. And to my customers.
How efficient – or not – is that approach?
Leaving even Informal Learning “to chance” – for me – is problematic. I’d rather that be “by design.”
At least for the critical learners/Performers that a CAD would address – the PUSH Target Audiences. Other, less critical to the mission needs of the Enterprise, the PULL Target Audience learners/Performers might have everything left to chance – by design.
It’s a business decision to invest in learning. It’s a business decision to not invest also.
But one thing a CAD does if done well, is produce specifications of modular content for those PUSH Target Audiences in such a way that many PULL Target Audiences can also get some of their needs met. More R’s for the I’s without investing deliberately in those PULL Target Audiences. Gravy!
If it were all your money, if you owned the Enterprise, how would you invest?
# # #