I Was Lamenting Just Last Week…

That I hadn’t seen one mention of Analysis from anyone attending the L&D Conferences going on these past several weeks.

I even asked about it on both Twitter and LinkedIn – with this graphic.

The Response: Crickets

Note: I have 2572 followers on Twitter and 2793 on LinkedIn … and yet … Crickets

Then the next day – last Friday – one of my Blog Posts went live – one that I had almost forgotten about – with a set of example outputs from 2 of my 4 types of Analysis – for a Sales Rep – done in 1986.

I hadn’t forgotten about the Post exactly – I’d had just forgotten when it would post. At the moment I have 95 Posts scheduled to post over the next 9 months – most in the next 60 days – and sometimes I cannot recall if they’ve already posted or not. Or when they are coming out. :)

So I decided to throw another log on the fire with my second (recent) intended post of Analysis examples (from the past) – which just needed some fine tuning before posting.

I say recent because back in 2016 – I posted a full set of project examples from a CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design project (for the USN – paid for by the US taxpayers) from 2003, including: the Phase 1 Project Plan – the Phase 2 Analysis Report – the Phase 3 Design Document – and the Phase 4 Implementation Plan – so that one could see the kind of rigor – and at what kind of speed – these projects could be done. Check the dates in these examples.

The secret sauce is using a Facilitated Group Process for all key Analysis, Design and Project Management events.  See that post with all of those CAD examples – as PDFs – here.

With all of the online lamenting about L&D and “what’s to be done” – and how to make it relevant, and individualized, and as micro as possible … it seems that most are missing the boat – the boat of analysis. Without the paralysis, of course.

Without that – Analysis – you won’t get L3 Transfer and L4/5 Results/ROI — regardless of your Level 1 and 2 scores. They – L1 and L2 – don’t really matter if L3 doesn’t happen. L4/5 is more an issue of targeting – than the design IMO. Not that we can’t screw that up as well.

And engagement? Help me learn to do the real world job I gotta do and I’ll be engaged. I’m not engaged when it seems at first blush that this is training/learning for someone else’s job. Not mine.

Scroll down if you want to skip my lengthy preamble to get to the Sales Rep and Sales Management Analysis data from 1993. Because I’m not done yet.

The Capture Format Is the Same As the Reporting Format

By design. It makes it much easier for the Analysis Team to review what they produced if the consultants don’t change it around. IMO.

The outputs of the Facilitated Group Process (FGP) always look a lot cleaner than they do when initially generated/captured on flip chart paper, and posted on a wall.

As I have taught hundreds: Neatness doesn’t count. Legibility does.

Some of our staff at CADDI Inc. – back in the day – with my business partner Pete Hybert.

Mapping Straw Models

Here I am back in the day (1998 I think) in my office mapping a T&D Event Map – based on the Analysis data I had, which included Existing T&D Assessment (ETA) data for ReUse of Existing Content from a previous project.

I call that a Straw Model – which a highly offended OD person once renamed it to be a Straw Dog Model due to the bayonet origin of the reference – when the Analyst or Designer jumps out ahead of the Facilitated Group Process to create a first draft – to keep in their back pocket unless the group finds it difficult to start (it happens).

Maybe he didn’t like Dogs.

Anyway – what I’ve found is that either the Straw Model is close enough to be edited by the assembled Team – or it gets thrown to the floor in disgust and redone by the Team. It primes the pump – so to speak – either way – for the Facilitated Group Process.

I’ve been using the FGP since forever. Back in 1979 I did my first – in total frustration – in a Design and Development effort – and I posted an article – on my website in 2007 or so – that I had written in 1999 (yeah, 20 years later) about that 1979 experience, which is here.

My next article was written with my fellow travelers (my business partners and one of  our staff) in 1983 – to be published 13 months later in September 1984 – about using the FGP on a CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design effort.

Yeah – things were different back then. Slower.

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.

Then 2 months later another article was published about the FGP in Analysis efforts in NSPI’s Performance & Instruction Journal. NSPI is now ISPI. That took even longer as we had submitted the article on Analysis long before submitting the one on Design.

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.

Finally – The Sales Performance & Enabling K/S Analysis Examples

First – here is a 84 page PowerPoint Show of the full set of examples – to download when you click on it – that will allow you to do a more thorough review without the run-up/preamble to it in this Blog Post: Example 2 of Sales Performance and Knowledge & Skills Data

Note that the 2 types of Analysis presented here are not all inclusive of what was captured – see the PowerPoint Show for that. And – the other 2 types of Analysis in my PACT Processes – Target Audience data and Existing T&D Assessment data – are not presented.

The Performance data and Enabling K/S data is sandwiched in between those – in terms of sequence/when you do them.

These following examples are for 3 Target Audiences – the Sales Rep and 2 levels of Sales Management – 4 Target Audiences if the “Assistant Division Sales Manager” counted (it didn’t if I recall correctly – a ReEngineering effort took care of that role) and was done in 2 separate Performance Modeling analysis sessions and then in one for systematically deriving the Enabling K/S analysis data. Done back in the day – in 1993.

You can compare the look of the Production outputs between the 1986 outputs in this Blog Post from last Friday – with these from 1993. From the IBM Selectric typewriter to the Apple Macintosh and laser printing. Oh boy – technology!

Example AoPs

Sales Rep AoPs

Sales Manager AoPs

Example Performance Model Charts

Sales Rep Performance Model Chart Examples

And another…

Sales Manager Performance Model Chart Examples

And another…

Example K/S Categories

Example K/S Matrices

Example K/S Matrices…

BTW: GP is Group Paced — SP is Self-Paced — and S-OJT is Structured OJT (Coached/Mentored) – the 3 Deployment Modes of PACT. The V is for Video.

Media decisions (other than for Video – which was hot back in 1993!!!) within those 3 Modes are decided if/when the client decides to really fund the development or acquisition efforts, post-CAD.

In PACT we defer a lot of detailing until it’s really needed to avoid paralysis in both Analysis and Design. Some struggle with that because they learned different.

You may have noticed that Task Frequency is not identified during Analysis – because the decisions it informs, will be informed by the Design Team “live” in design efforts – if/when that decision is to be faced if funded.

Note the linking of each K/S Item back to the AoP it enables. We link back to the individual Output/Task Clusters (of data) as I call them … later … during Design … when we are sequencing these in a Lesson, or in an Event, or on a Path – depending on whether the Analysis data is feeding a Path design effort, or a modular L&D Content design effort (CAD or MCD in the PACT Processes).

And a 2nd example…

And a 3rd example…

For the full enchilada – of data – 84 pages or so – see that PowerPoint Show referenced above.

PACT Analysis Is a Subset of EPPI Analysis

In case the client wants to go beyond Instruction to deal with the Probable Gap Causes uncovered in the FGP for Analysis of the Performance and the Enabling Knowledge/Skills.

I designed my ISD methods to easily move to the Performance Improvement methods – by design.

Have Analysis & Design Pathing & Mapping Will Travel

Here I am (below) in 2013 doing another CAD effort – with the modular Events on the Path – at the end of Day 2 of a 3 Day Design Meeting – before my Production Support person cleans all that up into a pretty looking L&D path – a Marketing Poster for the client’s wall.

The L&D Path was augmented – as almost always – by the Individual Planning Guide – another output of the CAD design effort – to help the learner and their supervisor “down-select” what is really needed, accounting for the real job assignment, and the possible incoming K/Ss, and to enable them to resequence the L&D Content … to make it individually relevant – and timely.

Email or Call Me

…If you’d like help on a Project or in Learning How To Do Instructional Systems Design (ISD) “Analysis” in a similar manner.

Analysis of both Performance and the Enabling K/Ss for an entire job is typically done via a 3 day FGP meeting, with some production and clean-up time afterwards.

The Analysis Team of Master Performers (Star Performers, Top Performers, Exemplars, etc.) is usually 6-12 people. Sometimes it takes 4 or 5 days. If interested – let’s discuss.

guy.wallace@eppic.biz    ——    704-  746-  5126

# # #