The CAD Project Plan Template and Link to the PACT Interview Guide

In a prior post I covered the PACT Interview Guide for the “alpha phase” – the phase that precedes a “potential” Phase 1- Project Planning & Kick-Off – for a CAD effort or an MCD effort, or an IAD effort.

Because the Interviews “could determine” that Instruction/Information isn’t going to “move the needle” so to speak regarding performance improvment. Note: I use “alpha” and “omega” phases to bookend Client PACT Projects’ typical phase structures.

The Interview Guide frames the questions needed to elicit most of the information needed by the “planner” for producing an “aligned – to the Client/Customers/ Stakeholders’ needs, desires and constraints. Form follows function – in that the Interview Guide is in sync with the Project Plan – for CAD, MCD and IAD efforts – of the PACT Processes for T&D/ Learning/ Knowledge Management.

When one starts the Interviews one should be open to the effort to be planned being any one of the 3 – or multiples: CAD and IADs – as in a CAD leading to the development of performance-based Qualification/Certification “Performance Tests” – as one example.

That allows the narratives of the Project Plan TEMPLATE (later/ below in this post) to be edited for review/ approval/ rejection/ modification at the PST GRM – Project Steering Team’s Gate Review Meeting.

The Task-Roles-Schedule Charts are also then edited to align to the needs of the effort and the constraints of the Client. That too is reviewed at the Phase 1 PST – GRM.

I’ve been using this format for Project Plans and Proposals since Ray Svenson introduced to me his format/template back in 1982. I evoled our SWI Project Plan template for CAD – as well as for our ADDIE-level ISD project efforts.

I also created the Interview Guide for the training sessions I was doing with our Clients’ ISD staff on the CAD methodologies going back into the late 1980s. Here is the cover page for the Interview Guide from SWI in 1995. A newer version of the Interview Guide was posted 4 posts earlier than this post.

And here are J-Pegs of the CAD Project Plan Template…click on each to enlarge and copy if you wish…

The Cover page…

Purpose – a short paragraph or two about what is is about and why.

Background – more about the why and other salient details that will/ have impacted the plan’s editing.

Explanation about the CAD Process’ Outputs…and the 5-Tier Inventory Structure

Details about Training Module and Event Specs and Paths and Planning Guides…and Scope of the CAD effort…

CAD Approach and Phases

More about each of the Phases…

Content of the key outputs…

More…

More about Phases and then Project Roles and Teams

More about the Roles…

More on Roles and then Project Deliverables

Deliverables and their software formats…and the SWI Consultant Backgrounds (as of 1994/5)…

More Clients and Target Audiences/Types of CAD…

Last of SWI’s CAD Client List…and Introduction to the Project Task/ Assignments/ Schedule

Task Charts for Phase 1…through Phase 4…to be edited by the PPM – PACT Project Manager…

This template in an updated format – plus many others related to CAD – is available for free use – updating – at The PACT Wiki. I have yet to upload all of the MCD items as I have done with CAD in 2007. Perhaps sometime in 2009.

These tools and templates and models and descriptions and training materials are intellectual property that I acquired when SWI dissolved in 1997. I brought those to CADDI when I started CADDI – and I licensed CADDI to use them – until CADDI was dissolved in 2002.
Now I use them via EPPIC. But they are still mine – despite the claims of some of those who I have employed/ trained/ developed and certified in these methods years ago. They “forget” to credit them appropriately – by crediting them to themselves as in “our proprietary methods” – which is a false claim.
And BTW: W. Edwards Deming had nothing to do with any of this. Despite one person’s claims – as they try to obscure the truth when asked directly.
I have been offering these proprietary tools/ templates to anyone who gives appropriate attestation.
Some have been using them without giving credit that is due. It would seem to be an ethics issue, if not a legal one.
# # #

Project Planning Presentation Delivered to Purdue University Seminar Series – September 6th, 2001

Dr. James Russell at Purdue has been a friend and colleague that I met through ISPI (back then it was NSPI). He was also an early book reviewer for me on several of my books, including lean-ISD and T&D Systems View. He invited me to come speak to students in their Educational Technology Program’s Seminar Series. It was early September 2001.

The objectives (in non-instructional terms) above followed by “all about me”…

Planning wiggle room – for recovery.

Recovery?

Yes, Recovery from Murphy.

Frame your project planning efforts using Phases…

And then think/plan for the activities your approach requires…

The following is the same chart format I wrote about in an article published in December 1986 by the Chicago NSPI Journal.

The importance of role organization and role clarity…

Think about these…

Best Practices – I think…

In summary…

Additional references/resources now available at http://www.eppic.biz/

CADDI is gone. I started CADDI in September of 1997 with Pete Hybert, who was an employee of mine since 1989 when he joined us at SWI – Svenson & Wallace, Inc. SWI’s breakup saw the partners start new business and took all of the SWI staff into one of them.

CADDI used my intellectual property – from SWI via legal agreements – to conduct our consulting practice. That included PACT, Qualification/Certification Systems and Tests – and all the methodologies and tools and systems that had been developed to support the consulting services. After CADDI all of that went to my firm EPPIC – where I continued the practice until retiring from the travel treadmill that was my life for 25 years – and the change I made in January when I joined Wachovia.

More…

Jim is retired now. But still active! Thanks Jim for giving me that opportunity to speak to your program’s students!

# # #

Curriculum Architecture Design and Formal Learning Vs Informal Learning in Various Learning Contexts

It’s another blend…

Either you see a Curriculum – a set of content – Instruction and Information – as something to be architected or engineered – or you see it as more of an art form/expression.

Either you see it leading to new and enhanced knowledge and skills that were defined beforehand – or you see it more of “going with the flow” of whatever is current – whatever is hip and happening! And whatever is learned is what got learned. And that was what was appropriate.

Either you have a common systematic process for defining and developing/acquiring the curriculum content that “covers all of the bases” – so to speak – or everyone just wings it and does it differently.

Either your process is predictable or it is not. Either you need it to be predictable or you don’t.

Which is right? As always – it depends. It is entirely situational.

Context is the Driver King/Queen

Context drives Content.

3 types of Learning Contexts for a Curriculum Architecture Design

  • Personal – Educational – Enterprise

To over-generalize the above: less rigid/specific required – to – much more rigid and specific potentially required. From left – to – right.

Where a Curriculum Architecture can be either much more “specified/tight” on one end – or “to-be-determined/loose” on the other. From right – to – left.

CAD for an Enterprise Context – should be more formal for all high risk/reward process performers – and that does not include all jobs – some have a higher Risk-Reward impact and should be addressed specifically and fully – and the design of that content should be in such a way so as to be able to share much of it with other Target Audiences (high priority and not).

That means modular – as in many components/offerings.

Here is where using Rapid Development authoring tools of many (endless) types and capabilities and costs – after the analysis and design of a CAD has configured the content – that it really makes sense! For it provides a blueprint to all development/acqusition efforts and staff to help manage the “divide -and-conquer” strategy to build/buy content and ensure that the current gaps are “addressed” and that current/potential overlaps are eliminated/minimized or intentionally placed “redundancy by design” – which is what a CAD effort straightens out and makes hapen – by design.

Otherwise everyone starts developing content per their own mental or otherwise model, and then there are gaps createss and overlaps created that no one really has a handle on.

Chaos. Curriculum Chaos.

Curriculum Chaos Has Its Costs

ROI for Curriculum Chaos can be a very high negative number in an Enterprise context.

One Client in the early 2000 had a large audience of inbound call center sales folks being taught via 7 different sets of curricula for 7 sets of laws/regulations/codes and products and product bundles – driven by the various state regulatory agencies and the feds. Each Curriculum averaged over 80 days plus several had 2-4 weeks of boot camps on-the-floor with a coach to really teach them how to do their jobs.

Later we reduced the average to 40 days – and with 75% overlaps between the 7 Regions. With no boot camps required – only a planned transition into the job – a baton hand-off, if you will, from the local trainers to the new supervisor for the learner/Performer.

That was all about ROI – increasing top line revenue and reducing costs to enhance the bottom line.

A CAD for an Enterprise context is about the specific awareness/ knowledge/ skills needed – Performance-based, to be actually able to “perform” in the workflow, in the processes. The content can be engineered, and then bought/built as rational prioritization by the Clients – who live with the consequences of what is made available and what is not. It is very much a business decision – all about making investments for probable returns.

A CAD in this context is actually easier – less arbitrary – an issue with the less rigid requirements of the other contexts – because in an Enterprise context the performance requirements can be specified – which means the instructional and/or Informational content typically can be made very specific in terms of enabling measurable workflow/process via the business’ goals, metrics, etc. – and really target the key enablers of the human performers in terms of “what did we make available to them and when” and how did that play out in actual work performance?CAD for Education Context – can be both very formal or very informal – and as the terminal objectives for learning are either not fuzzy or very fuzzy – as in: exactly what job will this learner/student be asked to perform after graduation?

If that is crystal clear – as for fairly clear for Chemistry students – and less so for English majors – it’s more about the enabling awareness/ knowledge/ skills needed – without knowing the actual “applications contexts” down the road.

Here a CAD has to be more Competency-based than Performance-based. For we can only roughly generalize the terminal objectives for the educational degree. Which is what a Competency approach is compared to a Performance-approach.

Here learning is not so directed as it is in an Enterprise context.

In an Educational context it often includes let’s explore where practice and research are taking this field/topic/task. Here there is much more need for exploration than in an Enterprise context – unless the shareholders are OK with paying for it – and then it is usually contained – to control costs – which is frustrating to everyone coming out of an educational context where there are less mandated goals – because in an educational context the goals are decided by the Professors and their departments. Not by the work/jobs that the learner/Performer is headed to.

CAD for a Personal Context – can be either very targeted – or less so – to “not even.” Unless you really prefer Web Meandering – and don’t mind your own efficiency being low – then developing a rational. flexible plan for your learning in this Context is a smart approach.

Otherwise it’s pretty much “whatever.” Have fun! I’m not sure that is learning that could be covered in any way by the concepts of a CAD.

It, a CAD, still starts with goals. And in a Personal context that is dependant on the topic/task and the person. Either I am a hobbyist and can target knowledge and skill goals – or just want to be a sponge for a while.

Or I am a volunteer somewhere – to make a difference – and I want to be as competent as I possibly can be – because I am serious about it.

Or it’s for my second job (then see the Enterprise Context). Or it’s a future career/field that I’d like prepare for and eventually “move to.”

Where Am I Coming From?

My background and experiences in CAD and ADDIE-level ISD/ID/SAT efforts began in 1979 after college when I became a Program Developer for Wickes Lumber at headquarters in Saginaw Michigan. Then after 2+ years there I went to Motorola’s Training & Education Center (MTEC) for another 2+ years. Then I joined Ray Svenson and my wife at Ray’s firm in 1982.

Beginning in 1982 when I did my first CAD project and then my most recent (2004) which was #74. I’ve also done more than 50 MCD (ADDIE-level) projects between 1979 and 2008.

I co-authored the first article on CAD using a group process in Training Magazine – September 1984 – and also on the analysis methods used in CAD in NSPI’s P&I Journal in November 1984. The I presented the first national presentation at NSPI in 1985 – I had done it prior at the Chicago chapter the year before.

Details of those CAD projects – target audiences and companies – are provided via 3 graphics and also links to the EPPIC web site – and are at the end of this post.

My focus for the past 29 years is less on development/ deployment/ access tools and technology – and more on the enterprise process performance to be enabled and on the enabling knowledge/skills’ content architecture to most effectively and efficiently achieve that: Peak Performance.

But I get the “development/deployment/access” issues and needs. But I do not focus on the here and now of that. For that buffalo will always be on the move/be ever-changing. And I’m glad many others are focused there – on those enabling tools for performance – that learners need to learn how to use for their performance for an Enterprise context – and on those same tools labeled as learning tools for the Enterprise and Personal contexts.

So I see, from my Enterprise-focus – the Informal-Formal thing as a continuum – from by design to by chance – all driven by an understanding of the Risks and Rewards at stake.

CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design

CAD is an engineering approach to defining the “whole of instruction/information” needed in the first place and then rationalizes (accepts/rejects) existing content for its use in this set-of-content: Curriculum – which is all fairly dependant on being able to describe the “terminal performance” required/desired – and thus the Performance Competences – the ability to perform tasks to produce outputs to stakeholder requirements. Perhaps many tasks and many stakeholders.

The ability of getting crystal clear on those three sets – the tasks, the outputs and the stakeholder requirements – differs in our 3 learning contexts: our Personal context, our Educational context, and our Enterprise context.

To perhaps over-generalize a bit.

As stated above – here are 3 graphics that list my CAD projects from 1982 until 2004. An overview for each project can also be found – starting here.

More information and resources are available at the EPPIC Web site and at other Guy W. Wallace Blogs, Wikis, and SNs created for all PACT Practitioners wishing to master these methods. I encourage you to do so. Please respect my copyright markings – for your use as is or after modification!

Beware Curriculum Chaos Costs.

And be aware of those potential Curriculum Chaos Costs.

What “the costs are” for chaos or control certainly depends on the context. One size does not fit all. Formal Learning is sometimes the absolute best approach – and sometimes Informal Learning (guided or not) is the best approach.

Just remember what research tells us about “learning out of context” and “unguided instruction” – that it works for only about 15%. Due to their motivation and/or prior knowledge. And that Motivation can even trump prior knowledge. But not all learners are so motivated, correct? Or is your situation different?

Yes Informal Learning makes sense some of the time. But it is generally rare.

As a business strategy? And to resource it for all? That makes no sense to me. Not for Learning.

But for Performing? Well, yes. Resource what’s needed for performance per the ROI.

The R for the I.

I strongly believe that we should determine performance requirements and then enable those – ROI insight guiding decisions about – the right people capabilities needed, the right infrastructure needed, and the right balance of consequences that are needed to enable and then encourage performance – by design. Not by chance.

Unless your context is less demanding – as many are.

Then, adopt less and adapt more! Be more flexible than rigorous. Have end-outcome criteria but not process criteria. Or no criteria at all.

Context depending of course.

# # #

1st Three School of PACT Video Podcasts Now Available.

The School of PACT – is “in VIDEO PODCAST session” – anytime you need it/ want it/ gotta have it!

We begin the series with a Podcast Introduction to The PACT Processes. Then a Podcast overview of the 4 Phases of a CAD effort. Then another Podcast with an additional level of detail about “7 Steps for processing of the analysis data” in the Phase 3 – Design – DTM: Design Team Meeting.

All are presented in Blog Post form: with instructional design wrapped around the Video Podcast in terms of preparation for viewing, and what one might do post-viewing. To learn and master and someday coach others. And all are available on Google Video so one might download their own personal copies.

There are over 12 planned in the series.

PACT is: ISD/ ID/ SAT – Instructional Systems Design/ Instructional Design/ Systematic Approach to Training. PACT includes and is much more than A-D-D-I-E.

PACT is based on a data logic, reducing the wasted efforts at unfocused analysis and design and development – reducing/eliminating “unnecessary costs” – both first costs and life cycle costs.

My book: lean-ISD covers the PACT Processes for T&D/ Learning/ Knowledge Management – and is available as a free 404-page PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/

A PDF copy of the first national presentation of the CAD methods using a Group Process, from 1985, is available here.

Cheers!

# # #

School of PACT 02- Lesson & Video Podcast – CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design

The Video Podcast below is merely a component to a blended approach to mastering PACT.

There are 6 steps if you will…but do it any way you choose…

1- Pre-Video Reading Assignments
2- Video Podcast Review
3- Post-Video Readings Assignments
4- Post-Video Application Assignments
5- Review Free Resources Available
6- Lesson Self-Debriefing

You’ll need the book lean-ISD – which is available at Amazon.com as a hardbound and/or as a Kindle book – and/or free as a 404 page PDF here. There are also many PACT resources at the EPPIC Web site and at the PACT Wiki.

I’ve been writing/publishing since 1984 on CAD and presenting since 1983 (Chicago NSPI) on these CAD methods and the other two methodology-sets of MCD and IAD – and the use of a group process to develop Performance Models and K/S Matrices for Curriculum Architecture Design.

The Target Audience Data, the Performance Model and the K/S Matricies and the ETA: Existing T&D Assessment elements are my contributions to the analysis portion of PACT.

The CAD-MCD-IAD Design models, methods, templates/tools are also mine as well.

I cleared all of that with the late Geary Rummler in 1999 when we met for two days to review the book and the methodology – for his approval/sanctioning.

The first Video Podcast in this series includes his review of both.

School of PACT # 02 – CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design

Lesson 02- Objectives-
You should begin to “get/see” the CAD level of ISD in PACT – and can explain its purposes and its 4 Phases. You should begin to see how the approach to processes the analysis data in this one level of ISD in PACT’s 3 levels of ISD. The systems engineering/architectural level of ISD in PACT.

1- Pre-Video Reading Assignments
I’d suggest re-reading chapter 3 of lean-ISD – and then watch this Video Podcast.

You could re-reads 1-7 or just chapter 3 – and then read chapters 8-13, and then watch the V-Podcast. But perhaps it would be better to read chapters 8-13 after the Video for you. Or do both!

The reading and /or the Video may help you mentally frame the CAD level of ISD in PACT and the common Analysis and Project Planning & Management aspects of the systems engineering/architectural level of ISD methodology in PACT.

2- Video Podcast Review
Here is the Video Podcast – 15:54 – minutes:seconds…

3- Post-Video Readings Assignments
If you did not do this already Step 1 – read chapters 8-13 of lean-ISD.
This is somewhat of an advanced organizer for CAD – the highest level of overview.

4- Post-Video Application Assignments
Start listing and organizing your questions. Build a table that captures your own questions, the answers and the sources for the answers that you found.

Start a personal Learning Log (or Blog).

Network with others. Start a club/social network – and/or join The PACT Practitioners Guild (a SN).

Find a buddy at work – or at a local professional society chapter!

5- Review Free Resources Available
At http://www.eppic.biz/ there is a related PACT Audio Podcast available. Also – there are articles and presentations in the Resource tab at that same site.

And check out that PACT Wiki for additional free resources/references, tools and templates.

Please maintain my copyright markings. You’d do so for Bob Mager or Joe Harless – wouldn’t you?

6- Lesson Self-Debriefing
You should begin to “get/see” the CAD level of ISD in PACT – and can explain its purposes and its 4 Phases. You should begin to see how the approach to processes the analysis data in this one level of ISD in PACT’s 3 levels of ISD. The systems engineering/architectural level of ISD in PACT.

If so – you are ready for the next Lesson and Video Podcast – coming soon!

And don’t forget to get your free PDF copy the book: lean-ISD…available at http://www.eppic.biz/

Adopt-Adapt?/Rigor-Flexibility?
Adopt what you can – and adapt the rest.Adjust as needed for each effort/application. Always.Be as rigorous as required – and as flexible as feasible!

Always do the smart thing given your goals, resources and constraints.

Future Additions to this Post and Others in the Series
Note: I will add addition Videos to each post in this School of PACT series over time. These will tend to add additional details – or dig deeper into the details of the PACT methods.

I will put them here – at the end of every SoP Blog Posting.

Final Note: The SoP – School of PACT Series will cover…

1- Intro to PACT – 3 levels of ISD and common Analysis and common Project Planning & Management concepts, models, methods, tools, templates and techniques

2- CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design – to design the performance-based learning continuum for a targeted job/process

3- MCD – Modular Curriculum Development/Acquisition – the ADDIE level of PACT

4- IAD – Instructional Activity Development/Acquisition -the Knowledge Management level of PACT

5- PACT Analysis -the 4 types of analysis required in PACT’s CAD – MCD – IAD “design” methods

6- PACT Project Planning & Management – common project planning and management concepts, models, methods, tools, templates and techniques

7- 5 PACT Roles and 5 Client Teams -defining the roles and responsibilities of the 5 Client teams and the 5 PACT Practitioner roles

8- PACT Process Technology Transfer -how to logically transfer/intake the PACT Processes

9- PACT is a Sub-set of EPPI – Enterprise Process Performance Improvement – a look at PACT as a sub-set of a broader improvement methodology – beyond instruction

10- Segue from Training to Performance via PACT and EPPI – how to move from performance-based Training/Instruction/Learning/Knowledge Management to Performanc eSupport and Improvement

11- T&D Systems View of the Processes of ISD/PI Functional Organizations – The EPPI organizational concepts – of the LCS Model of AoPs/Processes – applied to a T&D function/department.

12- Management Areas of Performance – A Framework for Analysis of Performance Competence Requirements From the Department Rolled Up to the Enterprise

13- Performance-based Employee Qualification/Certification Systems – Develop the System and Processes to implement and operate a function to qualify/certify targeted jobs/tasks for Risk/Reward reasons.

Plus others in the School of PACT series – beyond these first 13 – all TBD!

# # #