The FGP in a CAD Design Meeting

The FGP – Facilitated Group Process

The secret to success in the design of the “ideal” T&D Path is having

1- the right data, and

2- the right data processors, and

3- the right process.

When you are dealing with data in your design – you want a data handling process that facilitates a quick analysis of the data and then in making design decisions – in a predictable process. Predictable in terms of touch time and cycle time and quality of the output.

In PACT’s Curriculum Architecture Design (CAD) methodology…I teach designers at the CAD level to trust the process – just as I taught analysts learning to run Analysis Team Meetings – and trust the process. I then teach them how to facilitate the analysis steps and the design steps – PACT processes – in such a way so as to anchor the design to performance – and to provide “as much flexibility as feasible” and “as much rigor as required.” And to have the Design Team assembled be the “owners” of the design – and not the designer.

cad dtm 7 steps

The 7 Design Steps of CAD Design Meeting are framed in 7 steps:

1- Establish the Path
Talk with the Design Team about T&D Paths – will there be one, two, seven different Paths? What does the Target Audience data suggest? How many definable populations in the Target Audience – where each might need a slight variation here and there to address the true differences in requirements, processes, environmental materials, tools that exist; or varied/flexible to account for the incoming knowledge/skill profiles being hired.

What does the front end look like?

I suggest that we think Modular…and initially see the T&D Path as having three segments: Beginning – Middle – End. As a device for sorting our analysis data. I ask them to trust me, trust the process.

And then we start discussing the Beginning of the Beginning of the Path – that will have content that orients one to the entire Enterprise, and then it’s sub-component organizational entities – be they Divisions, Business Units, Segments, etc., answering:

  • What are they, what products/services do they render and to/for which customers? Who are our customers’ customers and what are their requirements? Who are our competitors? What are our processes, locations, partners/value chain members? Who are all the other stakeholders beside our customers? And other “typical” Company Orientation content.

Then the “B of the B” continues orientating the learner/Performer to the function (Sales, HR, Finance, etc.) that they work in (and “for” and “with” too — depending on the sophistication/richness of the T&D Path’s content). Then the Path’s content orients the learner/Performer to their own job and it’s processes, it’s AoPs and the high level output/tasks of each AoP.

In the Middle of the Beginning I see deeper orientations to the specifics of “My Job”, those “advanced organizers” that I have reflect the AoPs (Areas of Performance) structure – because IF it worked as an organizing framework for the analysis data gathering and review efforts – it should work to organize the content – both Instructional and Informational – need to enable Performance Competence development – as framed by the analysis’ framework of AoPs.


Then in the End of the Beginning of the T&D Path I tell them, I see all of the Immediate Survival knowledge and skills being addressed – addressed to the “how to” level. Deployed in a blended manner.

And here in “establishing the T&D Path” with the Design Team, is where I introduce the first decision point for them – a decision that they make later – this is just their Advanced Organizer for that later step – that they will have to decide what content goes before the “End of the Beginning ends” and where the T&D Path “Beginning of the Middle begins.”

In other words, what are the “lines of demarcation” of the Path’s Beginning, Middle and End? And what time frames do they represent? We may guess right now – but as we shape the T&D Path with content and decide how to deploy the content we’ll see how our guesses at timing of the progress a learner/Performer and how long it might actually take – might change once we see what is truly practical/realistic?

I am not afraid to talk “ahead of ourselves” with the Design Team – so that they see how we’re going to approach this task, the design of a performance-based T&D Path – in logical steps – so that they see that there is a process (a method to the madness). I talk our way through the 7 steps and bring up what we as a team will be doing…and what I the designer will be doing as a both a Facilitator and as an Instructional Designer – and what they as a Design Team will be doing as the “facilitated.”


I tell them we are going to sort all of the analysis data “that you generated in the Analysis Team meeting” – sort the Outputs/Tasks and then sort all of those enabling knowledge/skill items – all (tell them the number of enabling K/Ss from the analysis effort here), as well as the assessment data for Existing T&D that we might use “as is” as well as ‘after modification.”

Then I ask them how that modular front-end (the beginning/ middle/ end of the Beginning) of the T&D Path accommodates the sub-types in the Target Audience. We review the TAD (Target Audience Data) together. I talk about the flexibility requirements of the “front-end” of a T&D Path. So – if “new target audience” members come from inside the Enterprise – they should be able to skip content and target new content unique to their incoming K/Ss (Knowledge/Skills).

We need to create a design of information and instruction that is “robust” to all of the variants – to work within all of the constraints and meet the requirements – which should be to assist all motivated learner/Performers in becoming Performance Competent. Performance Competent = ability to perform tasks to produce outputs to stakeholder requirements.

Perf Req Analysis - Much More Than Task Analysis

I get large flip chart paper and lay that out on a long conference table and mark off the Beginning and the Middle and the End on the T&D Path – which is now three or more flip chart pages taped one-to-another, end-to-end on the table. And I mark off the Beginning/Middle/End of the Path’s Beginning – to remind them of what we’ve discussed will go into each of those sub-segments of the T&D Path. To make this much more visual for them.

Then we discuss what is safe to assume and what is not safe to assume about the Target Audience. I usually let them talk this out until they are off topic. Once we have gotten a pretty shared understanding of the target audience or audiences by discussing what was captured during the analysis phase about them in the Target Audience Data, we can begin to process our other types of analysis data.

*** *** *** *** ***

For the rest of the 7 steps – please see my 2008 Blog Post on that – here.

And Here Is a Related PowerPointShow

pact processes – phase by phase review 2019-01 – January 2019 Review of the PACT Processes for T&D/ Learning/ Knowledge Management.

# # #

One comment on “The FGP in a CAD Design Meeting

  1. Pingback: T&D/PI: The Facilitated Group Process | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance

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 )

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.