Seriousness & Likelihood
And P of E plays out in Time Management and Problem Solving and Risk Assessment, and even in establishing estimates and actuals for ROI, RONA, etc. It applies in your job most likely. It applies in lots of places, lots of Performance Contexts.
For it’s all about THE RESULTS.
Or should be.
And their Seriousness and their Likelihood.
Or should be.
I learned about this Seriousness and Likelihood thing a long ago, from each of several Problem Solving (PS) training sessions that I attended back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and from my learning from my role in many different training sessions where I did project planning, the analysis of the performance requirements and the enabling Knowledge/Skill Requirements, and then designing some learning intervention thing – typically using a Simulation – an Application Exercise approximating Real Work – if Real Work wasn’t available for the APPO – the application exercise.
The APPO often follows the DEMO which follows the INFO – in my Lesson Mapping tool/technique. But I digress.
What’s It All About?
Seriously? It’s about the Results.
And it’s about the Risk Assessment and/or Reward Assessment – for making any change to get those results or avoid those results – for determining the R in ROI if your targeted improvement opportunity competes for time, attention and money with other opportunities – which requires looking at both the seriousness of the problem/opportunity, and then if worthy, looking at its likelihood.
If it’s not Serious, then why bother with Likelihood?
Unless you need to exercise some of your extra your resources on something so they don’t get stale from non-use. Because you’ve got sooooooo many resources You aren’t constrained. Maybe.
Sometimes – most of the time some would argue – while others would insist that it’s always – you have more to do than you can shake a stick at – as that saying goes.
You might be resource constrained in the face of more demand than you can shake a stick at. And so you need to prioritize.
Many jobs require an application of this S&L thing – in Problem Solving within their own jobs, such as your own job, and a generic approach to teaching never gets authentic enough to actually have that prayer of transferring back to the job, for the attendees/ participants/ learners/ Performers. That authentic thing is big, right? Required, right?
And that that unless the generic approach just happens to fit the attendees’ real-world applications close enough you are wasting your time and everyone else’s time, and someones money. Some owner or shareholder.
And if your learning thing isn’t authentic enough – well, that means the level 4 evaluation will be negative – as for me, since 1979, the level 4 in evaluation has always meant ROI and not just any Results – why bother with measuring for levels 1 and 2?
If you aren’t going to be authentic enough in the learning experiences, it’s isn’t going to transfer, that level 3 of the popular 4 or 5 Levels of something, evaluation for learning (and anything else related to change).
Doing level 1 and 2 evaluations when you can predict that it won’t transfer is spending good money before bad, predictably.
You would be adding to the negative-ness of the ROI, the more you waste additional first costs and other opportunity costs.
An Adaptation of This For Learning/ Training & Development
Can you see this application?
Protect and Improve the Enterprise
In that order. First things first.
# # #