And By ReUse I Mean Either “As Is” or “After Modification”

And I also mean ReUse at higher and lower levels of Design than the RLO levels – Reusable Learning Object level – which most often was the Lesson Level.

Engineering Content to Meet Customer Requirements

Back in the early 1980s while at Motorola’s Training & Education Center (MTEC) I was exposed to MRP – Materials Requirements Planning where “materials” that would be pulled into the manufacturing process for one or more uses/products – as is or after modification.

Soon I began to see the concept’s applicability to my assigned 3 target audiences: Manufacturing, Materials and Purchasing – where Content for one audience “could/should be” shared “As Is” or “After Modification.” When appropriate.

While almost every job might require the generic Competence of “Active Listening” (as but one example) – to aid “transfer back to the job” it would be necessary for the Training/Learning Content to go beyond generic content, applicable to all, to very specific content via authentic/job relevant “examples, demonstrations and application exercise” (INFOs, DEMOs, and APPOs).

So when I created my ISD methodologies (PACT) in the 1980s I wanted to create a Design process and tool/templates to improve potential ReUse after the first design/development effort at a reduced cycle time and cost in a “Plug and Play” manner – where all successive efforts for new target audiences whose Performance Context would differ, slightly or mightily, would involve simply “displacing” some content chunks with slightly or mightily edited sets of the original Content.

PUSH vs PULL Target Audiences

Even though you could – I don’t think you should customize Content for every Target Audience – as that wouldn’t always make sense from a “business perspective.”

In my approach you customize for critical, PUSH target audiences … and simply share every version that exists with PULL target audiences.

Not ideal – but who can afford ideal?

Sharing/ReUse As Appropriate

In PACT one could share modified Paths, Events, Lessons or Instructional Activities “if” they weren’t authentic enough in the original version – designed and developed using any approach.

My approach in PACT was to lower costs and cycle time while improving authenticity when/where modification would be needed to help and not hinder transfer.

In PACT the modifications happen in MCD – but are anticipated in CAD…

My Version of ADDIE – MCD

CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design

Where Paths are produced and existing content is rationalized as appropriately used “As Is” or “After Modification” or “Not Applicable” – given the analysis data on Performance requirements and enabling Knowledge/Skills required.

CADs Precede MCD Efforts

After All These Years

I found that very few T&D/L&D clients worried about the effectiveness or efficiency of their Product Line. Unlike how many of their internal customers might.

Too often L&D Content is a “one-off” and not a component of a System of Instruction.

Will that Circle be Unbroken?

I wish.

For More About PACT

I have newer books on PACT – but you might wish to start with lean-ISD…

My free PDF book: lean-ISD (1999)

Click on image to link to the download page.

Note: the cover design for “lean-ISD” was created by the late Geary A. Rummler.

Note: Guy W. Wallace’s book “lean-ISD” – was a recipient of a 2002 Award of Excellence for Instructional Communication from the International Society for Performance Improvement.

lean-ISD is also available as a $15 paperback book – and $7.50 as a Kindle – for more and to order – please go – here.

# # #