addie? isd? hpt? – adapt or die!

6 11 2006

the november the big question is an interesting and potentially volatile one.   are isd / addie/ hpt relevant in a world of rapid elearning, faster time-to-performance, and informal learning?   i think the answer is rather obvious, sure thOrange_no_drawerey are.  at least to some extent.

but i think the bigger issue is what about them will remain relevant and what needs to change.   also what must be kept in order to preserve our professionalism and content developers, designers and deliverers.  will those particular sets of letters be what we are being certified in the use of 25 years from now?  it all depends on if they can adapt.

the future holds a number of pressures that will put our current models to the test.  they include:

greater amounts of and more sophisticated technologies

what does this meanbusinesses will have more capability to conduct and measure their products and processes. everything will become more transparent.

what does this mean for learning – we will have to know when and how to implement tools for which we understand their specific impact in any given situation.  there will be no more hiding behind the black box of roi calculations or the "fact" that there are too many variables to really understand the specific impact of learning.

more learner independence and responsibility for their own learning

what does this meanperformance management, organization design and learning will be integrated to provide every employee with a clear understanding if what is required for them to be prepared for the future and the options available in their particular situation.

what does this mean for learning – we will need to have a deep understanding of where the business is heading and what the workforce needs in order to meet those needs.  the requisite learning situations  will need to be in place prior to employees coming to the point at which they will need the information, skills, or abilities.

greater need to guide and shape the direction of informal learning

what does this meantrue competitive advantage will be gained by companies who can develop knowledgeable, skillful, and empassioned workforces.  the drive to excel will be fueled by open, collaboarative environments where each employee has the resources they need or knows how to find or create them.

what does this mean for learning – a constant and pervasive learning environment is vital to such an environment.  we will be required to maintain standards of excellence, focus on drivers of intrinsic motivation.  we will need to know our businesses and the employees who constitute them as intimately as possible.

the need for our models to incorporate aspects of the business models of our companies

what does this meansystems across the enterprise are being merged and unified to create more efficient and effective workflows. 

what does this mean for learning – it will not be sufficient for our processes and technologies to integrate with the HRMS or ERP systems.  we will need to understand the various systems and technologies used throughout the enterprise to the level that we can identify opportunities for learning and have the ability to create the mechanisms to seamlessly deliver that learning.

the speed of business is accelerating

what does this meanthe time from identification of a need or opportunity to the moment that that need must be fulfilled or else failure occurs or the window of opportunity closes is getting shorter and shorter to new global competitors who can out flank us and processes which are being refined to their bare minimal states.

what does this mean for learning – demand for the creation of learning programs in shorter and shorter periods of time with greater expectations regarding quality and execution seem headed for an critical point of impossibility.  what will be required is a radical shift to building from what is already in place and, when able, preparing and repairing for known but yet unspecified needs.

learner-generated content and experiences will be more of the mix

what does this meanmanagers will be more and more responsible for the development of their employees and will be expected to meet this objective on an ongoing activity – often day to day.  In the process they will create materials to augment, replace or create what the learning function provides.  In addition, as learning becomes more embedded with the employees work, their work product will become their learning content, their work area will become their learning environment.

what does this mean for learning – we will be expected to understand these intimate workspaces and understand the work product of our learners.  This understanding will need to be so deep that we can insert ourselves and our content with little impact on the workflow.

obviously, the impact up on each of us as learning professions will be tremendous.  it will mean learning radical new ways of thinking and behaving.  many of us will not be able or willing to make such  radical changes.  but i’ll maintain that those of us who are able and willing will be able to draw upon the core characteristics of the current instructional models.  The specifics will  certainly change, but i don’t see the core concepts of needs assessment; utilization of appropriate content, tools and context; and constant and thorough evaluation of both actual change versus desired change and of the effectiveness of learning programs changing.

in the end, i have no doubt  that instructional models will exist.  The question is, will we?



7 responses

14 11 2006
Karl Kapp


I think your comments about our need for models and to tweek the models have a common theme which is “alignment with the business needs of the organization.” As you stated, we can’t have blackbox ROI because it is too complex and confuses our customers.

Instead, we need to have an understanding of the business. Too many times training is done without thought and without consideration of the business and, in regards to our models, without Analysis or Evaluation. I often tell my students that when the ADDIE model is applied in business, it becomes the DI model (Develop and Implement). We really need to, as an industry, work on restoring the lost letters or we will not be aligned with the business units we are supposed to support.


16 11 2006
dave lee

I’m in agreement with you Karl, but I know that where many of us struggle is getting our internal business partners to look beyond next quarter’s qoals. Needs assessment and evaluation do take time. And crisis management seems like it will never cease to be a major component of business life.

My gut feeling is that a portion of the solution is to establish needs assessment and evaluation systems that are overarching and somewhat independent of particular learning interventions. Ongoing monitoring of enterprise knowledge, strategy and he resultant learning needs.

As long as we remain caught in the DI, it won’t matter what model we use, we’ll always be trying to justify ourselves against criteria we’ve not been a part of setting.

30 12 2006
Dave F.

Here’s hoping for better late than never…

(And hi, Dave)

I’ve often found myself working at what I see as the intersection between a group of people and their organization’s customers (e.g., Amtrak reservation agents; GE EDI salespeople). So the user-generated content and experience is (and I think has always been) vital.

On very short notice, I worked to create some initial-sales-call roleplays. I could never have done this without the product managers providing facts, indicators, and red herrings, or without the sales managers identifying plausible attitudes and background info for the people playing the prospects.

In the context of this discussion, the real point is that we did a highly condensed “design” — we identified the products, indicators of a good or poor fit with a prospect’s situation, brainstormed some likely objections or false leads, and agreed on the basics for each case (description for the salesperson, description for the prospect, background for the sales-manager observer) in just a few hours. I fleshed out the information, and the product managers and sales managers reviewed and revised it. Not exactly ADDIE, but not improvisational theater, either.

I want to endorse the ‘understanding the business’ viewpoint, too. I recall a sales rep coming in for a session saying to me, “This thing better be worth $15,000.” That was her viewpoint: she divided her annual quota into workdays, and needed to average that much business closed in the time devoted to the training.

She was not saying “this training is worthless,” or even “I don’t want to be here.” What she was saying is, “this is the investment being asked of me,” and expecting there to be a corresponding payoff.

31 12 2006
dave lee

always better to be involved. timing is secondary. great to hear from you dave. i hope all is well this end of the year.

i love your sales rep’s comment. often times the perspective of a seasoned sales professional is dead on. thank you also for the analysis that she wasn’t slamming the training at hand. although depending on what her previous experiences with had been, she may or may not have been voicing some skepticism that chances of $15,000 in value where unlikely.

no matter the case, as you point out she just wants to get her time’s worth out of the session. the question i have is were you aware that $15,000 worth of her time was an expectation when building the course?

31 12 2006
Dave F.

Dave —

Glad to be back in touch. I want to do more of that this year — I spent more time working on my own than I’d prefer. I learn (or discover) a fair amount by talking about what I’ve been doing or reading, but talking to myself doesn’t have quite the same effect.

Re sales training and the sales rep: I had difficulty working in sales training because my bias is there’s an enormous precedent of rah-rah stuff… motivation, “efforting” (in Ruth Sizemore House’s phrase)… and less emphasis on trying to analyze what works when, and why.

My goal when designing wasn’t exactly to make the training worth her $15,000 — but in a way it was to have her say at the end of the year that training she’d received was an integral factor in breaking quota. Training was only one part of the performance system, but it was the part I was most associated with.

In another effort to break the pep-talk and information-dump module, we had a group of new telemarketing people who had to learn quickly about three key products. The product managers were ready with their usual PowerPoint-driven pitches. I was able to get each of them to agree to cut the pitch short by 45 minutes. Then, a team of participants would work on their own pitch — presenting to the rest of the group what they saw as the presenter’s 10 most relevant points.

This did several things: one, stopped the poor newcomers from being talked to deal. Two, stopped the routine death-by-PPT. Three, got the newcomers talking with one another (and searching through resource material) and thinking about what in fact had been important. Forth, gave the presenters some strong feedback on how effectively they were communicating their own top points.

I hadn’t really thought about this as “informal learning” at the time — but it was a way to restructure learning that I could, well, sell to the sales force.

The following Monday, I found on my desk a handwritten thank-you from the VP of sales (who was no slouch in stepping outside the unexpected).

1 01 2007
dave lee

happy new year, dave.

yeah, i have to be careful not to fall into the trap of limiting my conversations to talking to myself too. fortunately i’m becoming fairly addicted to the give and take of the dialogue between colleagues here on eelearning, on learning circuits blog or on their blogs. The funny thing is i not only learn from them, but invariably, i end up learning things from myself as well.

You are right to refine my comment about being responsible for your sales rep’s $15,000 of worth. training is only a part of the equation. i like your way of making the point that you want her to feel the training was integral to her being able to make quota at the end of the year. however we quantify or otherwise measure it, my point is that i think all too often we get focused on the content and process of the training and loose track of what truly matters to the learners and to those who have sent them to us.

to your list of accomplishments i’d suggest that you also likely helped the newcomers understand what resources their peers would/could be. you also provided the presenters, if they were paying attention, with new insights into the qualities of their products. having done product presentations to sales reps for eight years, i fortunately learned early that i had as much to learn from the reps about my products as they had to learn from me.

whether you were doing informal learning or not isn’t as important, as you say, as whether or not you were successful in your mission to sell to sales people. which is as gnarly a challenge as you can find. i’ll share my thoughts on selling to sales people in a new blog post (it’s a bit off topic here).

dave, thanks for your insights. one thing i liked about you from the very moment we met last spring was your willingness to put yourself out there for the sake of starting a dialogue. it’s not an easy position to put oneself in and it’s often under appreciated. if you ever are for want of a dialogue partner, i’m always game!

29 08 2010

Very nice sharing.thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: 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

%d bloggers like this: