L&D: Who and How Is Targeting Done for Determining the 10 and 20?

The Right People Doing the Right Things at the Right Time?

As All Learning Starts As Informal – it is critical IMO  as to “the Who” and “the How” the targets are established for moving some of the Learning to the 10 and the 20 – and then “the Who” and “the How” Instructional Design Decisions are made as to “What to Cover” and “How to Cover” it.
Expecting ISD folks to do so, with only their “surface knowledge” gained from traditional Analysis interviews, observations and document reviews, should be displaced with a Facilitated/Collaborative Process that brings the various Voices of the Customer into the effort – the Right People doing the Right Things at the Right Time.
To address the Critical Business Issues and not the low hanging fruit.


All Learning Starts As Informal

Yes – you may have inherited some Current State Content.

But should you keep investing in it?

Who says so?



Do You Need a More Formal Alignment with Your Stakeholders?

And does that alignment need to impact most all of your other internal processes and outputs?
How do you tie all of that together and manage it?

TDSV w Callouts

All of these sub-systems of T&D/L&D interlink.

Or need to.

One Model for a Formal Alignment System

Your model might look a little different.

Adopt what you can and Adapt the rest.


Facilitating a Collaborative Group Process for Both Analysis & Design

I have been using Master Performers and other SMEs – and on occasion, Supervisors and New Hires (Novice Performers) in both Facilitated Group Processes Analysis and Design efforts since 1982.
They help me make the right decision for the Target Audience in terms of what, when and how – based on their insights – insights I would never have with a traditional approach to interviews, observations and document reviews – in an attempt to make me The Sage (on a Stage or otherwise) in Analysis and Path Design and Content Design (Lesson Mapping for example) … and then in Development.
Not that Master Performers are always right.
But who else would you ask?
And … I always try to ask them in a Facilitated Group Process – as SMEs can miss up to 70% of what a Novice Performer needs.
Should you be approaching your efforts in a Facilitated Group Process approach?


1984 NSPI (now ISPI) article on a Group Process for Analysis:
Models and Matrices- NSPI PIJ -1984 – 5 page PDF – the first publication of the performance and enabler analysis methods for ISD, from NSPI’s (ISPI’s) Performance & Instruction Journal, November 1984.
1984 Training Magazine article on a Group Process for Design of what are now called Learning Paths:  
CAD – Training Mag – 1984 – 6 page PDF – the first publication about Curriculum Architecture Design via a Group Process – published in Training Magazine in September 1984. Original manuscript (30 pages) – How to Build a Training Structure That Won’t Keep Burning Down.
1985 NSPI Conference Presentation on the Group Process for Design of what are now called Learning Paths: 
CAD – NSPI – 1985 – 21 page PDF – this is the first national presentation on the Curriculum Architecture Design methodology which Guy Wallace delivered at the NSPI Conference on April 24, 1985 (the 1st presentation of this was done by Guy for the Chicago Chapter of NSPI, the previous fall).
Free 1999 Book PDF that covers both Analysis & Design: lean-ISD: 
Free 2001 Book: T&D Systems View:
More recent (2011) book 6 Pack – and more:



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.