It’s all about the data – regardless of the approach used to generate it IMO – and that is what you are/will be dealing with in your attempts to get it Accurate, Complete, and Appropriate – something my latest 3 books go after – from 3 different perspectives.
I prefer the Facilitated Group Process – but have done 20-30% of my ISD consulting projects since 1982 using the more traditional methods of Interviews, Observations, and Document Reviews. That latter approach just takes longer – and costs more.
But getting the right people together to do the right things at the right time – isn’t always feasible. So you roll with the punches (reality).
2 Articles Published Waaaaaay Back in 1984
These are about ISD using a Facilitated Group Process (FGP) – something that’s become somewhat popular nowadays with Agile and Design Thinking approaches to LXD.
Curriculum Architecture Design via a Facilitated Group Process – 6 page PDF– published in Training Magazine in September 1984. –This was the first publication about Curriculum Architecture Design. Plus – the original manuscript (30 pages) – How to Build a Training Structure That Won’t Keep Burning Down.
Models and Matrices – 5 page PDF, published in NSPI’s (ISPI’s) Performance & Instruction Journal, November 1984 – This was the first publication of the Performance and Enabler Analysis methods for ISD using a Facilitated Group Process that I have been using since 1979 and as an ISD consultant starting in 1982.
The toughest part of the latter approach – using what I refer to as the Facilitated Group Process – but I have done something like 20-30% of my ISD projects using the more traditional methods of Interviews, Observations, and Document Reviews – is getting your data Complete – which I don’t worry about until my Development phase – as I covered in-depth in my 2020 book: Conducting performance-based Instructional Analysis – in Every Phase of an Instructional Development Effort.
See all 17 of my books on my Amazon Authors Page: