Being collaborative in the ISD/ ID/ Learning Solutions rapid development processes, or the Training functions’ adaptation of ADDIE is either done with some consistency, using proven practices, or not.
Web 2.0 offers many collaborative tools. So many that it’s hard to choose one once you find them all.
I believe that form should follow function as in the form of my knowledge, skills, physcial/ psychological and intellectual attributes plus my data, tools and other environmental supports – either enables me to meet my performance requirements – or not.
The choice of tools for the learners to use back on the job is not an Instructional one. Those are the givens. Or, the missings from some other ideal state. But what is missing is still not a Learning Function responsibility or expectation.
No one is using a BlackBerry or other smartphone, provided by the buisness, because of it’s learning impact potential. It was provided due to it’s performance impact potential. Let’s not kid ourselves.
Thinking that every cool Web 2.0 tool that comes along is best for everybody is silly. Thinking that every cool Web 2.0 tool is best sold as a Learning tool, versus a Performance tool is also silly. Espcially in an Enterprise Learning context versus an Educational Learning context or a Personal Learning context…in my opinion.
Being collaborative in ISD is more than using collaboative tools. The methods and process need to insure that collaboration is guarenteed.
The 5 roles defined in PACT all require the ability to facilitate Group Processes in getting the key work to generate, review and further manipulate the DATA of the PACT Processes.
PACT is like many ISD methodsology-sets – but also very different. The process is different. What happens in Analysis versus Design versus Development is different than other ISD methodology models.
Collaboration is probably very different too.
CAD is very collaborative – see the teams in the next graphic. The ISD team isn’t present in the graphic (it’s not about us – it’s about them – the client’s learners and managers).
MCD is also very collaborative – see the teams in the next graphic. The ISD team again isn’t present in the graphic (it’s still not about us – it’s about them – the client’s learners and managers).
This is all covered in my book lean-ISD available as a free PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/
Here is what my mentor and friend, the late Geary Rummler, wrote in 1999 about lean-ISD…
That was about it’s Performance focus and systematic/ engineering/ architectural approaches.
BTW – Geary re-designed the cover and re-named the book during the review cycle in late 1998 and early 1999. And wrote that wonderful review.
Here is what NSPI/ISPI friend Miki Lane (now the president of ISPI) wrote in 1999 about lean-ISD…
lean-ISD does provide step-by-step guidance. It does focus on the people needs and the business needs an engages the client people and other stakeholders to participate in a process where I tell them demonstratively – that “I own the process and they own the content” – and that they also own the business decisions that are inherent in every ISD effort. That always resonates with them.
Here is what my client at Bank of America and at Fireman’s Fund, Randy Kohout, wrote in 1999 about lean-ISD…
Here is what NSPI/ISPI friend Jim Russel, and client John Swinney, wrote in 1999 about lean-ISD…
What is presented in the book will most likely not be completely ADOPTABLE as is in your context. It will require ADAPTATION. What will need to be adapted versus adopted? As always, it depends. There is no easy answer to that. All I can give you are some tools and resources that have worked for me, to help you chart your own course meeting your own unique set of requirements and expectations.
# # #