It’s been well over a decade now since I and my staff conducted this performance-based ISD project …
7 Regions and 7 Sets of Training
That’s pretty much the Problem Statement.
7 sets of content built independently – for the same job.
Wasted first costs, other than for the fact that my client, Verizon, had recently been formed from GTE and Bell Atlantic.
So it was an inherited situation.
Their Consumer Sales Center for landline sales and services (phone lines, handset, call-forwarding, etc.,) employed over 3500 Sales Consultants in 7 regions (plus a special group within one region for NYC).
Their goals were $ 750 per day.
The actual, average, was $ 450.
A “loss” of over $1MM per day … from the goal.
Do that math to rough out the R in the ROI to get everyone even just half way to the goal.
Oh – and there were a handful at each Regional Center where some Sales Consultants sold over $2000 a day.
Do THAT math.
Wanna talk about the cost to put the training in place?
The client didn’t want to once we calculated these 2 sets of calculations on a flip chart easel at the Project Steering Team Gate Review Meeting.
Our goal was to redesign the entire set of curricula with a focus on Performance – with a super focus on sales skills development,and to reduce the length from the 80-some days each Region had in place – along with another 2-week Boot Camp for most (but not all) of the 7 Regions.
We did a combined CAD-MCD effort … skipping Phases 1 and 2 of the MCD – as our client intended to cover it all – and leave nothing to chance… performance-wise.
We got it down to well under 40 days at each location – and no Boot Camp required anywhere.
And all of the stakeholders on the Project Steering Team saw the incremental build of sales skills from start to finish – in the lock-step design of the Learning Path – Performance Competence Development Path.
But that’s just what their situation called for.
We reduced the total curriculum length for all seven regions from 338 days to 187
days, designing 1,888 content objects where 447 were shared, and 1,441 were unique to
one of the seven regions.
And over half of the unique content object – Instructional Activities – were derivatives because Call Forwarding is Call Forwarding except for the language, prices and script REQUIRED from one state Public Utility Commission differed slightly for most of the other states.
Not always. But often enough.
Our client wrote a testimonial for us:
“The speed with which (we had) completed the project was truly amazing, but
what is more important is the outcome.
The design reflects the strong sales focus that my client required; the overall time was significantly reduced; and because skills application is frequent, I believe the performance and preparation for the job will be significantly improved.
I, and more importantly, my clients, couldn’t be more pleased with the outcome.”
Our Performance Model data helped them identify other non-instructional issues to address as well.
Some Content Can Be Shared In an Authentic Approach
But the goal is not to generalize the content so that “it” works for everyone – when everyone probably needs something different – because their applications on-the-job might be different enough.
A CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design effort establish the “Architecture” for the enterprise – that “should” be leveraged in all future undertakings – to really build an architecture of Content and Tool that enables Performance.
Then in the MCD – Modular Curriculum Development (a.k.a: ADDIE/SAM/SAT/etc.) we designed the content of the 7 Paths for our client’s people to develop and deploy/make accessible.
Do your own math.
Here an article one of my associates wrote for my company’s (at the time) newsletters – that highlighted our efforts for this client – here – see the article beginning on page 8 of the PDF.
# # #