A LinkedIn exchange earlier this week brought several waves of reflective thought about various ISD methodologies to mind.
It was about my recent posts regarding Design Thinking applied to ISD. I didn’t see much new in it – and someone took me to task for being stuck in my past in old ADDIE methods.
AS IF all ADDIE approaches were the same. They are not.
It’s as if I wasn’t “hip enough” to embrace the new DT applied to ISD. Which, again, to me, wasn’t very much new – based on my readings.
It’s been 40 years this month since I entered the field – and learned one particular ISD method – based primarily on the work of Rummler and Gilbert – and what was, as I learned to call it, a performance-based approach. I evolved their approaches to create mine – which I branded as the PACT Processes for T&D.
I posted about that back in 2016 – here.
Here is an excerpt from that 2016 post:
The Performance Model is my frame for capture and reporting … the Voice of the Work Process Performance. I’ve been using a version of this since 1979.
But first before the current version – the version since the mid 1990s – here are the original formats I helped create and use back in 1979…
That set of data was connected to the Knowledge Map where the enabling K/Ss are captured and reported out … here is that format … from 1979… with explanations of the content of the columns.
Having thus been spoiled – I was critical about various approaches to ADDIE and particularly to Task Analysis that I witnessed beginning in 1979 at NSPI Conferences and chapter meetings – where others would do what’s now become Share Your Work.
Most Task Analysis – which were being promoted as “the way to go” – were seemingly random lists of Tasks that might as well have been alphabetically organized. I always thought – “how can a client look at these and not approve them?” They were valid.
Valid – but useless – IMO.
When I left Wickes Lumber after 18 months and joined the staff at MTEC – Motorola’s Training & Education Center – I began forming my own versions of the Performance Model and the Knowledge/Skills Matrix – as I began to call them – in parallel with MTEC’s efforts to create a performance-based ISD methodology with the help of Geary A. Rummler, PhD.
Then when I left MTEC after 18 months and joined with Ray Svenson’s consulting firm I was freer to create new formats for those two “tools/formats” – and what was important to me was that they would be both serve “capture” and “presentation” – using my Facilitated Group Processes – that I had begun to use at MTEC before leaving.
I had always disliked methods where what was presented when the dust settled was so different from how it was collected that the client – and those who contributed – couldn’t exactly see their contributions – and that we analysts had it right.
And then we’d ask them to approve it.
What I saw as better than most ISD approaches to analysis was our/my focus on Performance – outputs and tasks and gaps – before deriving the enabling knowledge and skills. Both sets of data – linked – both sets generated by a designated Analysis Team.
Designated by the client and a Project Steering Team of key management stakeholders.
An Analysis Team from their Master Performers, Other Subject Matter Experts, Supervisors of the Target Audience, and sometimes Novice Performers.
The members of the Analysis Team would become the members of the Design Team when we completed the analysis efforts and were ready to move into Design-Before-Development.
This team approach ensured a performance orientation of the Instructional Content in formats that made sense given the Performance Contexts of the performers.
Here is another excerpt from that 2016 post…
The Performance Model
That data/insight/shared understanding … allows one to then capture the Enablers – via the continued Voice of Work Process Performance … via the Master Performers.
Enablers of Work Process Performance
About the Measures…
Measures reflect – or should – the Requirements of all of the Stakeholders.
Balanced – if in any conflict.
Back to the Enablers Addressed By Learning – Formal to Less Formal
My Awareness/Knowledge/Skill Categories
My use of this type of structured approach to ISD goes back to 1979. I learned it at Wickes Lumber in Saginaw Michigan. Then I took it to my efforts at Motorola. And then as an external consultant in 1982.
The Capture Format for K/Ss
The updated format of the Original Knowledge Map…
Here is the first article published about these methods back in 1984 (written in 1983).
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.
This is an article – also from 1984 – of the application of Analysis via a Group Process – in Design via a Group Process.
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.
In capturing the Voice of Work Process Performance – one begins to address all of the issues with how most seem to approach ISD – Training – Learning – Competencies – Performance Improvement.
Designing for the ISD Life-Cycle – ISPI PIJ – 2002 – 13 page PDF – my reaction to the latest critique (at the time) about the value or lack-thereof of ADDIE.
In 2006 I had the honor to provide chapter 11 of this book:
Modeling Mastery Performance and Systematically Deriving the Enablers for Performance Improvement – by Guy W. Wallace, CPT – Chapter 11 of the Handbook of Human Performance Technology – 3rd Edition – 2006. This methodology was first published in this 1984 article in ISPI’s (then NSPI’s) PIJ in November 1984.
In 2009 I finally published this book – started in 1983.
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.
And Some More…
Perf Modeling & Enabler Analysis – HR-Com – 2003 – 17 page PDF – an online publication at HR.Com in 2003 covering the analysis of both Performance Competence Requirements and the Enablers – part of my ISD (PACT) and Performance Improvement (EPPI) methods.
CAD – ASTD – 2004 – 5 page PDF – an overview of when to do a Curriculum Architecture Design effort, the outputs of the effort by phase, and the 4 phases of a Curriculum Architecture design effort, published in ASTD’s Links in 2004.
In 2011 I updated several of my books into this 6 pack…
For more – please go – here.
It’s All About the Performance Logic of Work
Here is a diagram that is perhaps more akin to the architectural renderings of some mid-level set of blueprints … all exist at higher and lower levels – less and more detail.
This is where the Voice of Work flows… beginning on the left … flowing to the right.
The PACT Processes
These processes go back to my adaptations of Performance analysis methods of Geary Rummler – and the extension of that and its use downstream was/is my value add.
Use the PACT Processes for Analysis …
… to Capture the Voice of the Work Process Performance.
Collaborate – and put your Customer and Stakeholders in position to make all the business decisions in your efforts.
Here are some of my former clients collaborating back with me at a conference in 1998.
# # #