This is me in my CADDI offices in 2000 looking at one of several “wall poster charts” of the inventory of gap “Modules” from a Curriculum Architecture Design (CAD) project for a client I had been serving (under about 3-4 different names) since 1983.
Modules in a CAD – Curriculum Architecture effort are equivalent to chapters in books – as they are the components of Modular Events in a Modular Curriculum.
In my PACT Processes for T&D/ Learning/ Knowledge Management – a modular curriculum is not a collection of modules (which I have seen too often in the last 30+ years) – it is a modular design of T&D Paths, Events and Modules.
Clients liked this set of charts – as it gave them a large visual to share with others as to the development/acquisition steps post-CAD needed to address (only) the priority gaps. Many had them on their walls – marking off Module after Module as they were developed/acquired. And marking the “priority level” on that chart too – so others could see what was deemed important – by the client – and what was not.
“Modules” in the PACT Process become “Lessons” in MCD – Modular Curriculum Development/ Acquisition (the ADDIE-like) efforts of PACT – “IF” they are a priority “to close the gap.”
Not every Module of every Event – or every Event on the Path – is “worthy” of development/acquisition. Those are business decisions – not ISD decisions. All the Events that “could be” are on the Path – and on this Module Inventory visual. If it’s not a priority to resource – then it remains Un-Structured OJT – something akin to guided Informal Learning in today’s parlance.
Those Events/Modules that “should” are the top priorities that fall within the “budget parameters” of the client – and targeted for “will be” when resourced – Note: many CAD efforts lead to multiple years of multiple MCD-like efforts – although many of my clients end the PACT Process efforts and turned the CAD results over to their own version of ADDIE. unfortunately that often led to a blurring of the boundaries of content as “specified” by the CAD design outputs – as developers did their own ISD-Thing – resulting too often in redundant and gapped content – something the CAD effort was intended to avoid in the 1st place.
The sheer amount of data inherent in the typical CAD effort – cover all of the T&D (Formal/ Informal/ blended/ etc.) is simply too overwhelming in the binder of Event Specs and Module Specs – and long ago I provided both the mind-numbing details in those Design Document binders – plus the visual aids of large poster-size charts: for the Paths and the Module Inventory.
The charts were always a good place to start – to provide the BIG PICTURE – before diving in to reviewing the details in the binders – some of which had perhaps 50 to 150 Events – each with perhaps 1 to 15 Modules. Geary Rummler used to joke about selling projects by the eventual binder size – I took that as a serious warning about what to avoid. So the posters were an advanced organizer – and I provided smaller copies on 11×17 paper – and had those in those Design Document binders too.
Oh – another point: creating Paths and Event Specs and Module Specs and these visual posters can be a meaningless exercise – unless there is solid analysis data informing all. Making it pretty when there’s really nothing to it – behind the curtain – is a sham – and an extreme example of poor Stewardship in the T&D/ learning/ Knowledge Management space.
# # #