To Be As Rigorous As Required
Sometimes there are Requirements to be met. Self imposed and externally imposed.
Sometimes the Consequences are so dire that we fully address the Performance Requirements, we test for Performance Competence, and we use Spaced Practice to continually keep THAT saw sharp – so to speak.
And To Be As Flexible As Feasible
But where we can – we can make a Development Path (a.k.a.: Learning Path, Development Roadmap, Curriculum Path, etc.) as flexible as possible – and still get the job of people development – to the standard of THEIR Performance Requirements.
It Should Always Be A Blend
All “e” is as bad as all “ILT” – IMO.
And … as always – it depends.
The blend of Rigor and Flexibility that is.
At least – it can be – based on my 75 projects of this nature – since my first in 1982.
The development of a Path is done via the ISD methods methods for CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design.
That then leads to some content development process such as ADDIE or SAT or SAM or my MCD.
That follow on Process/methodology-set – needs to be in sync with the former Process/methodology-set.
If not – then what is needed downstream won’t be delivered appropriately by the upstream efforts.
When first developing the CAD and MCD methods back in the 1980s for my consulting staff and clients use, I was mindful of doing the upstream efforts as lean as possible but always meeting the minimum needs of my downstream methods, phases, and steps/tasks.
And what links all of it together includes an Analysis and Design set of outputs meant to expand if/as needed.
Not every Learning/Performance Need – should be met – IMO.
Only those with ROI potential – given the Risks and/or the Rewards in that context – should be addressed with Formal Learning.
Otherwise – leave it to Informal Learning.
Regardless of what the 70-20-10 model might suggest.
Because – as always – it depends.
On the Real Risks and Rewards.
And the Resources available.
# # #