Aug 1 2021

Digging Instructional Analysis

I learned a “derivative of a derivative of a Geary Rummler approach” to Instructional Analysis back in August of 1979.

And my own specific methods have evolved from there, influenced by Geary Rummler, Neil Rackham, and aspects of the TQM movement early in the 1980s.

It’s All About the Data

And its ACA – its Accuracy, Completeness and Appropriateness.

I gather data in different manners, with a default favorite but with optional approaches in my back-pocket, so to speak. But the data is always the same.

Target Audience Data
Performance (Ideal & Gap) Data
Enabling Knowledge/Skills Data
Existing Content Data

My Approach Options include either gathering/generating data F2F or Virtually, with Individuals or people in Group/Team settings.

My favorite/default is Team via F2F meeting.

With Master Performers, Other Subject Matter Experts, and sometimes Supervisors/managers and Novice Performers.

I first wrote about this in 2 articles (co-authored) published back in 1984.

CAD – Training Mag – 1984 – 6 page PDF – the first publication about Curriculum Architecture Design via a Facilitated 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.

Models and Matrices- NSPI PIJ -1984 – 5 page PDF – the first publication of the performance and enabler analysis methods for ISD using a Facilitated Group Process, from NSPI’s (ISPI’s) Performance & Instruction Journal, November 1984.

And the Group Process is something that I’d been using since 1979 (and I wrote about that 20 years later in 1999).

Teaming for T&D GWW 1999 – 5 page PDF – on my story of inadvertently creating a team – out of frustration with too many revision cycles for a video script I was writing – for training development back in 1979 – and liking the approach for using a Group Process to shorten cycle times and improve the quality of the output.

Team Meeting F2F

I get people on a team feeding off each other’s comments, helping to bring non-conscious thinking about performance to the surface (In My Experience) and I get to do Face Polling as one of many ways to do Progress Checks (and sanity Checks).

Overview of The Key Data

Here I’ll focus on 2 Data-sets:

The Performance (Ideal & Gap) Data, and the Enabling Knowledge/Skills Data.

Performance (Ideal & Gap) Data

The Areas of Performance

Performance Model Charts

Ideal v Gap Data

Gaps – When Outputs Don’t Meet Stakeholder Requirements

Enabling Knowledge/Skills Data

The 17 Knowledge/Skill Categories

The K/S Matrices

Top-Down

This is my preference, and when working with a team it’s easier for me to use, as I own The Process, and they own The Data. I start with Job Titles, move into the AoPs, and then the details of the Performance Model Charts, and then the Enabling Knowledge/Skills.

Bottom-Up

I use this when that’s where an individual that I might be interviewing seems to want to start, despite my attempt to start Top-Down. They start off answering my questions about The Big Picture with some very detailed answer about some micro-Task or micro-K/S Item – and so I go with that Flow. I try to build up my picture – via the data – from there.

Side-to-Side

Sometimes an individual has one certain aspect of their job top-of-mind, and so they start there. It’s the equivalent of analyzing an ISD or LXD professional and starting with Development and the tools or process or practices – and then moving side-to-side and uncovering Design, Analysis, Project Planning, Pilot Testing and finale Revision & Release.

Topsy-Turvey

This has happened on occasion, with Individuals who are stressed, or frantic, and maybe nervous about being interviewed. They are simply all over the place.

I listen carefully, and do my best Active Listening, to calm them down. And then I try to get to a Top-Down, or Side-to-Side approach.

It’s All About Performance Competence

And meeting the Stakeholder Requirements.