The picture is me in 1995 taken from a video of me speaking to the T&D staff of Eli Lilly – one of my 49 Clients between 1982-2007.
My message is the same today about performance-based ISD as it was in 1995 as it was in the mid-1980s when I started to codify my approach to ISD – which operates at 3 levels – with my ADDIE-like approach in the middle.
I needed to codify and standardize an ISD methodology for the consultant staff at R. A. Svenson & Associates – which later became SWI – Svenson & Wallace Inc. I was a partner there and led the T&D/ISD practice of our firms.
My specialty has been CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design within the world of ISD – and I developed the PACT Processes to address and link and commonize instructional project planning & management, instructional analysis, instructional design (at 3 levels), pilot-testing (at 2 levels), and evaluation/qualification/certification in terms of: Can THEY Perform?
Don’t like Knowledge Tests – they really don’t count. You can know and still not be able to do – so what’s the point of that? That’s why the Performance Testing is one component of the overall methodology – and the development of those tests – based on Performance Models and Knowledge/Skill Matrices is at the 3rd/lowest level of PACT: the Instructional Activity level of design of PACT. It’s all covered in my book: lean-ISD.
And I don’t like Generic Corporate Competencies. Which is how most “Competency Models” – but not all – are done. They are generic, vanilla, worse than worthless – in my humble opinion.
“Why?” you ask.
Find your version of Competencies and then imagine the “application” (called Appos for short in PACT) which would follow the Infos and Demos of such things.
An Appo in PACT can be a quiz, knowledge test, simulation, role play, game, case study, real work, etc.
Did your Competency Appo have “high fidelity” to the real-world application of the knowledge/skills of that Competency?
Probably not. If it did – excellent!!!!!! Your shareholders and stakeholders win!
Otherwise they lose. Because research shows that without “prior knowledge” only 15% of learners can transfer a learning from one context to another – their own. Of course a “highly motivated learner” can typically trump that (they’re probably in that 15%). Assessing your learners – how many of them truly fall into THAT category?
I’m guessing that most executives are in that 15% too. Which is why they might buy into Generic Competencies as it has always worked for them as they climbed the ladder.
But I digress.
My point here – and the excerpted video coming up – is to focus on how PACT avoids the general and gets specific but then can find a way to use the generic as well.
Consider the next graphic as part of your advanced organizer for the video that follows – take a good look at it – and pay particular attention to the bookends that are “bookending” the content in the middle…click on it to make it larger…
Modules in PACT are not all 2 hours long – they are modular content of Instruction and/or Information that are each the “appropriate” length. The necessary length – not arbitrarily/ coincidentally / magically: 2 hours each. How does that happen? That’s kind of your first clue – I’m thinkin’!
Here is the video segment on that – just over 12 minutes:
The slide graphics that you can just barely see in the video are covered in Chapter 9 of lean-ISD – which is available as a free 404-page PDF at www.eppic.biz – and is also available as a hardbound book and a Kindle book from Amazon.com. Note: I hold the inventory – so if you need a volume of books, contact me and we’ll cut out the middle man/middle Internet.
The key slide is of the 5-Tier Module Inventory framework – which is the key to the modular approach to creating definitions of Modules in the design process of CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design – by “processing” the analysis data – analysis data of Performance and Enabling K/Ss.
The joke about the book is: “how can a book titled lean be so thick Guy?”
My retort is that:”it’ll hold a door open in a windstorm.”
For the questioner isn’t thinking about what it really takes to make any process lean. It’s not about skipping steps or short-cutting everything. It’s about getting all the unnecessary steps out of the “paper process design” – all of the “iterations” – unless by design – and then putting all of the infrastructure (tools, data, methods, techniques, etc.) into place to enable people to accelerate the process. And then ensuring that people have been trained or have learned “how to.”
I didn’t want PACT to be an iterative process – unless it was to revisit those things that are now important so that we can detail them further. I defer detailed analysis for example – so as to not “boil the ocean” for a cup of sea water.
In fact analysis starts in the Phase 1- Project Planning & Kick-Off phase, continues in Phase 2- Analysis, and continues through Phase 3- Design, and into Phase 4-Development/Acquisition, and is “still tickin'” in Phase 5- Pilot-Testing. And depending on how well that Pilot-Test went – which by design is a “full-destructive-test” – there might be some in Phase 6- Revision & Release (release to the LMS/LCMS, whatever).
It’s also true about “design” which runs through all of the phases of the MCD – Modular Curriculum Development/Acquisition (referred to in the video as CCD: Customer Curriculum Development/Acquisition – the ADDIE-level of PACT).
This confuses some people who are used to thinking about ADDIE as a linear process – and even those who claim that ADDIE is iterative. I would never say that – it’s an iterative process – to a Client – for they’d want me to “lean it” first. Which is what I have done!
We don’t go back to square/step 1 or 2 and redo. Never! We leverage what we did in all the prior squares/steps and then add to, embellish – not to be confused with “embellishing the spec” – a step in MCD and IAD’s Phase 3 post-Design Team Meeting.
Improve specific – not generic – Performance not Competencies. I use the phrase:
Performance Competence – the ability to perform tasks to produce outputs to stakeholder requirements.
Know the stakeholder requirements, the outputs of the process, the tasks necessary – and then enable that!
The Full Video – 2 hours
One of my mentors over the years, the late Geary A. Rummler, reviewed the book before it was published – and he redesigned my cover, surprising me with his specific generousity – and gave me this quote:
“If you want to ground your fantasy of a ‘corporate university’ with the reality of a sound ‘engineering’ approach to instructional systems that will provide results, you should learn about the PACT Processes.
If you are the leader of, or a serious participant in, the design and implementation of a large-scale corporate curriculum, then this book is for you.
This system could be the difference between achieving bottom-line results with your training or being just another ‘little red school house.’ ”
I’ve tried to be generous myself – and enable you by making many PACT tools and references available – for free – and all that is required is that you keep my copyright markings in place and give appropriate attributions – these are all registered copyrighted materials! Fair enough?
# # #