Revisiting a Curriculum Architecture Design Project From 2003

I was recently contacted by a participant in a 2003 CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design project.


I hope this email finds you doing well and still in business.  I have recently returned to (shipyard) from an overseas assignment and am in the middle of a proficiency crisis.  The Shipyard has experienced considerable churn in both retirements (old CSRS System), attrition from promotions, and an influx of new hires (onboarding).  This has resulted in a degradation in proficiency at the deckplate.  The SY is working to address this internally (I have suggested that you might be a resource) and when I attended a recent “Competency Summit” with the shops and codes I remembered working with you to develop a model for Supervisor and Zone Manager development.  I have often spoken of how exciting that project was.  It is without a doubt the most process driven, disciplined process I have ever personally participated in.

I am not sure how this all works, but is it possible to retrieve an electronic or hard copy of the results of that study/development project to share here at (shipyard)?  I do not like to re-invent and I believe that not only can we revisit these two areas, but I would like to convince Senior Leaders that it would be money well spent to engage you in additional development along the same lines:  Onboarding – New Hire to Productive Employee, Review of Career Development Programs such as the Apprentice Program and the Helper-trainee program, Engineering Development program, etc.

I have discussed this with Lisa (She is now the Code XXXX for the SY) and she has a positive impression of this project.  Art has retired and Jonathan is no longer at NNSY.  As I introduce a new generation here at NNSY to your processes, I would like to have some good product to demonstrate what was accomplished.

Thank you.

I just sent over a PDF of the Phase 2: Analysis Report – the Phase 3 Design Document – and the Phase 4 Implementation Plan (with a name change to better reflect and resonate with the client’s internal processes and people).


The Game Plan was to conduct Performance Analysis and the Curriculum Architecture Design on two levels of management, and then continue up the chain and do the next two while simultaneously moving across to another Department and doing the same for the first two levels of management. This was going to be performance-based Management and Leadership Development. This was being done for the Norfolk Naval Shipyard – run by NAVSEA on behalf of the US Navy.

slide2 (1)

A common framework that reflects PROCESS PERFORMANCE and not Competencies – which are simply enablers. Without understanding the performance context – specifically for each target audience with a different context – it was unlikely that any Instructional/Learning Solutions would actually impact performance in the desired manner. If the content is not “authentic enough” – it will not develop new knowledge and skills. It will be a waste – as they say. Not totally. Only about 85% – because about 15% can learn out of context and apply in another context. Such as their job.


Does most of your management and leadership development focus on the authentic contexts of your managers and leaders?


This effort and the overall “architectural” approach – was covered in depth in a 2010 Post – here.

Systematically Conducting the Analysis and Design for Management Development Learning Paths

CAD Path Supervisors

As a former USN sailor I have to help.

Go Navy!

# # #

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.