APPENDIX A

Responses to Exercises

Chapter 3—What’s Wrong With These Input Objectives?

1. For this objective, more definition is needed. A specific date or perhaps incremental deadlines should be set.
2. This objective is nonspecific and contains two items that should be separated and defined with more detail. Inexpensive is an imprecise term; a budget amount should be given. Latest technology should be defined, at least to the extent that someone reading the objective can identify the specific type of technology and make a smart financial decision.
3. This is more a reaction objective than an input objective. It defines the desired stakeholders’ reaction, not necessarily what goes into the project. It also is imprecise.
4. Employees needs further definition. Does it refer to frontline sales representatives? If so, is it restricted to those with direct contact with sales? What about sales support and marketing? What about customer-complaint and call centers? Specific details are needed.
5. This needs more definition, such as the number of hours and even the amount of disruption over time.

Chapter 4—What’s Wrong With These Reaction Objectives?

1. The word like has many interpretations. Like should be better defined.
2. Understood is vague and not necessarily a reaction objective. It fits better in the learning category.
3. Again, more precise wording is needed. Overall satisfaction is an often-used phrase, but provides little understanding of project or program success. If participants are not satisfied, it’s difficult to understand why unless other objectives are included. It might be important for some organizations to recognize participants’ overall satisfaction, but by no means should this be the only measure.
4. The word stimulating is vague. However, if the word stimulating is to be used, the scale should read from “not very stimulating” to “very stimulating.”
5. The wording is awkward, and the range of difficulty is not defined. The objective could be scores ranging from 3 to 4, for example. A scale, perhaps from 1 to 5, with 5 being “very difficult,” should be noted.

Chapter 5—What’s Wrong With These Learning Objectives?

1. This objective has several problems. First, the one-hour module is not a condition. It describes a procedure, not the conditions under which the performance will occur. No specific performance is stated. The statement needs an action verb.
2. The statement has little meaning, except that participants will learn something. The result of the learning is unclear—no performance is identified.
3. This is a goal and not necessarily an objective. Understanding is a vague word, and leadership is a broad subject.
4. Although it involves an important issue, the meaning of this objective is unclear and not performance based.
5. The objective is vague and not performance based. Also, two different issues are addressed.
6. Demonstrate is a trap word that often leads us to believe it is saying something specific when it is not. This objective needs more specifics about how knowledge will be demonstrated.
7. This objective is not performance based. Underlining a word does not necessarily add emphasis. More specifics are needed.
8. While this is an important statement, it is not an objective because it lacks specifics and a basis for performance.

Chapter 6—What’s Wrong With These Application Objectives?

1. This is not specific. The topic is too broad. It would be difficult to have any accurate assessment with this objective.
2. This objective is actually a Level 2 (Learning) objective and not a very good one at that. The word understanding is weak.
3. This is still a Level 2 objective, as the participants are demonstrating what they know or what they know how to do. It is not an on-the-job application. A simulation is replicating a task, process, or procedure. It’s not the real thing.
4. This is not very specific. The phrase much better does not help the situation. More detail about communication is needed.
5. This is a Level 1 (Reaction) objective, although it occurs two months after the program.
6. This is a vague objective. It does not detail what the supervisor is doing that employees perceive to be effective, a potential consequence of supervisory behavior.
7. This is still a Level 2 (Learning) objective, although the customer is live. The participant is being observed, so the performance might not mirror what would happen in an unobserved scenario. Actual job behavior is needed at Level 3.
8. While this is a Level 3 objective, it lacks specificity. What type of meetings? How will necessity of a meeting be defined? What timeframe is attached to this objective?

Chapter 7—What’s Wrong With These Impact Objectives?

1. This lacks specificity in terms of the amount of the increase and the time in which it should occur. The amount of increase could be left vague if individual objectives are set for all those involved in the project.
2. This is vague and perhaps misleading. What exactly is the leadership profile? If it is leadership behavior, it is more appropriately a Level 3 objective and may be measured by a feedback instrument, such as a 360-degree feedback process. If it is the perceived effectiveness of the leadership team, then it alludes to a Level 4 objective, but it is too vague to measure. Specificity is needed.
3. This is a misleading objective. If capability is defined as the knowledge and skills of employees, then this is a Level 2 (Learning) measure. All the learning that has occurred in the project collectively increases the capability of the organization. If the objective reflects what the employee does with the capability, then the objective represents Level 3 (Application). If the intent is to measure the consequences of that application, then the objective should reflect this intended impact— Level 4 (Impact).
4. Two objectives are combined. Neither objective is clear. Specificity is lacking in terms of the amount of decrease and the time in which the improvement should occur.
5. This is more than likely a Level 3 objective. More definition is needed for user performance profile. If the profile suggests how individuals are performing, it becomes a Level 3 measure. If it also includes consequences, such as error rates and productivity, then it is Level 4, as well. It is best to separate the objectives. Again, they need to be specific.
6. This objective is Level 3 (Application). The word implementation usually means the process is being used, people are involved and are working on projects, actions are on schedule, teams are being trained, and so forth. Also, implementation should reflect a time requirement. If implementation also means having success with a cost savings in green-belt and black-belt projects, then it is an impact objective. The key is to define the implementation measure.
7. Again, this is vague. Effectiveness should be defined. Most definitions would focus effectiveness on Level 3—employees are performing in a particular way. However, if effectiveness is defined as the impact employees are having in their work units, then it would be pushed to Level 4. The key is definition.
8. The meaning of efficiency needs clarification, as it has many different definitions. Is it time based, such as how quickly things are being done? Is it per-person based, such as how much is accomplished per employee? Or is it merely the cost of something? Definitions are critical.
9. This is a Level 1 (Reaction) objective, not a consequence. There could be a fine line of interpretation. A consequence of the project would be, “As a result of this project, the workforce perceives the technology function as highly valuable.” The consequence is that employees have changed their perception of the function. Merely measuring the perception of a project in terms of its success is measuring a reaction.