You and your team may crank out a bunch of modules – but how do they work together as a system of instruction and information – during the moment of need and/or before that moment of need? Do they work together as a system of instruction and performance-enabling support?
Is it all about impacting the individual’s authentic performance contexts – their Performance Competence Requirements? Or is it generic coverage on a Topic?
Is your inventory gapped and overlapped – at what unnecessary initial cost and at what unnecessary life cycle costs?
Are you producing modules of content for a modular curriculum – or for a collection of modules for a collection of content? Where is the architecture in that?
On what basis was your Path for On-Boarding and On-Going development designed? Topics – or – Tasks?
Was a performance orientation – linked to how the business looked at itself – using their language – at the front end of any Path design effort?
Is the content designed following some set of “Rules or Guidelines of Modularity” so that it can be built or bought over time and work seamlessly – and reuse content “as is” or “after modification” – and then track all of the derivatives?
Are your design efforts of the “Plug ‘n Play?” approach – to increase authenticity and therefore learning and performing – for key critical target audiences – at reduced costs? Or is everyone getting the Active Listening content – because after all their performance contexts for Active Listening is so much the same. (Not.)
Are you doing object oriented design below the Lesson Level? Or are you stuck there – forced to offer generic content – or derivatives that are not similar one to the next? Where’s the architecture in that?
Can you get agreement on the Measures at Level 3 and 2 using the client’s own measures of Performance, formal and informal?
Oh, and can you help them codify all of that formally, while your at it?
Sure. That too. That comes with the standard data outputs. Of CAD.
# # #