L&D: Tuesday L&D Processes Audit 33: T&D Physical Property Management Process

T&D Process 9.2: T&D Physical Property Management Process

Note: In my 2001 book I continued my decades old name for the profession as T&D – Training & Development.

Convert for your use as necessary. I will use both T&D and L&D in this weekly series for 2018.


Not all loose processes need to be tightened up.

You should only do that Investment if the Returns warrant.


Learning By Design vs Learning By Chance

When the Cost of Non-Conformance of poor Process/people Performance warrants the Investment in T&D/ Learning/Knowledge Management Content – then make those investments.

And – just because an L&D profession can determine a valid Learning Need and gap in Content – does not in and of itself warrant meeting that need – in any manner.

It’s a Business Decision. 


The L-C-S Framework View

I use both views…


Overview of the Big Picture


T&D Process 9.2: T&D Physical Property Management Process

Process Purpose

The T&D Physical Property Management Process accounts for physical property assets as driven by the enterprise’s policies and procedures, as well as federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and codes.

Process Description

Most organizations of any significant size probably have a set of policies and procedures and tools for inventorying (accounting for) the enterprise’s property. Follow those. If you don’t have such rules and tools, software is available in the marketplace.

For More About This Process In the T&D Systems View

See my 2001 book: T&D Systems View.


Click on image to link to the download page.

T&D Systems View is also available as a $15 Paperback book – and $7.50 as a Kindle – for more information and/or to order – please go – here.

This 2018 Weekly Series Continues Next Tuesday

For Past Series Posts search this site using: “Tuesday L&D Processes Audit”

# # #

EPPIC w Gopher Logo


L&D: My Micro-Micro Training Series for L&D/T&D Professionals

Micro-Monday’s Quick Tips From My Decades of Practice in Training

MMTS W1- (20)

And there’s even more in my 1999 book: “lean-ISD” – available as a Free PDF and as a Kindle or Paperback: here.

# # #

T&D: Getting That Old Time Performance Religion

In Use By Me Since 1979

I was lucky. Very lucky. People showed me in 1979 how to conduct Analysis to establish Performance as the foundation for Performance-Based Training. Something that others seem to be rebranding as Performance First or something.

I’ve been teaching staff and client staff “How To” conduct such analyses since 1983.

It’s not new school – to some of us – it’s old school.


Performance Models

Beginning with the “End in Mind” the Performance Model chart starts (on the left) with the Outputs & Measures. Or “Outcomes” if you will.

Outcomes are Outputs that meet Stakeholder Requirements (or not).


Then Tasks – those overt Behaviors and covert Cognitive Thinking – necessary to producing the Outputs to the standards of the Measures established by the Stakeholders.


Then you can define who does those Tasks – individuals or teams or what.

Don’t Forget the Gap Analysis

Then you can identify the Typical Gaps – or every Gap ever experienced or conceivable – depending on your need for such – which are the Barriers to the ideal Performance on the left of the PM chart. I use the Measures to systematically review and derive such gaps.

Then you can derive the Probable Causes – or every Root Cause ever experienced or conceivable – depending on your need for such.


And then I like to quickly Categorize those Causes with the Analysis Team so that it’s clear which can be resolved by Training or not.

However – just because Training cannot resolve Root Causes doesn’t mean we cannot capture the Tips & Tricks of the Master Performers on “How To” avoid these barriers in the first place and “What To Do” if unavoidable in the second place.

Have some Empathy for the learners/Performers.

Then Leads to Enabling Knowledge/Skill Analysis

Once you have the foundation of Performance Requirements established you can systematically derive the Enabling K/Ss.


I use up to 17 Categories of Enabling Knowledge/Skills.


That Then Leads to Assessment of All Existing Content for Potential ReUse Purposes

And once you have the foundations of both the Performance and the Enabling K/Ss established you can systematically assess the Existing Content – Instruction & Information – for its ReUse potential.


Then you can go to your Design in ADDIE steps or your iterative SAM steps.

Past Post: My Performance Modeling Roots Examined – Quickly


# # #

New Geary A. Rummler Website

With Lots of Resources



Excerpt from the Website:


Geary was a pioneer in the application of instructional and performance technologies to organizations and brought this experience to the improvement of organization effectiveness. His clients in the private sector included the sales, service and manufacturing functions of the aircraft, automobile, steel, food, rubber, office equipment, pharmaceutical, telecommunications, chemical and petroleum industries; as well as the retail banking, and airline industries. He also worked with such federal agencies as IRS, SSA, HUD, GAO and DOT. Geary’s research and consulting took him to Europe, Asia, Canada and Mexico.

Personal Note

Geary was a mentor and friend. My career owes much to him and what he freely shared – before I met him in 1980 and certainly afterwards.

We did this video in 2008.

RIP Geary. RIP.

# # #

T&D: Unstructured OJT

That’s What I Called Informal Learning 

Back in the early 1980s. After a CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design of a Path or Paths – showing what job-relevant Content already existed and what job-relevant Content was currently a Gap.


The goal was to organize a Path or Menu or Roadmap, etc., to help the employee focus on learning to be Performance Competent.

The Path was to be “As Rigorous as Required and As Flexible as Feasible.”

And the Gap Content was Unstructured OJT – Informal Learning later became the Industry phrase – until it was upgraded to something more Formal.

I would counsel clients that it was OK to leave some of the gap content as gaps as the ROI for addressing it might be nil or negative. I’d tell them that some things are currently being learned by hook or crook, and that that was probably just fine.

But that they – the designated PST – Project Steering Team – should target investments where the returns were sufficient and addressed performance of high risk and/or high rewards and address the gaps in the Path.

That advice still holds true.

Webp.net-gifmaker (2)

# # #