3
A Course Development Template

Q:	How can I remember what to do when?
A:	Follow a flexible, repeatable process for building a learning experience to drive performance.

Everything you built in the project charter pays forward to the plan phase—helping to construct a project schedule—which we discuss in more detail in the next chapter. Many people jump right to the schedule; however, this is a mistake because you cannot properly build the schedule unless you clearly understand the why, which is answered by the project charter.

Before building your project schedule, you’ll also need to create a list of the tasks that have to be done to create and implement your learning event. You can use a methodology, a strategy developed by an expert for building a training program, as your cheat sheet. You could certainly make up your own tasks, but starting with an expert’s list and keeping what works for your project is much quicker.

Most standard methodologies are created to consider all possibilities, which means there are far too many tasks for a single project. It is your job to figure out which tasks are needed for your specific project so that you only schedule tasks that contribute to the project. Novice developers often try to follow standard methods blindly, spending valuable time on tasks that are not pertinent to their projects. Some methodologies are written with very confusing terminology, so it is wise to either ask an expert what the tasks mean or ask to see a completed project schedule and start from there.

Some developers may not have a standard methodology available and may be open to trying a different approach. Years ago, when all learning occurred in a classroom there was only one approach to creating learning and development (L&D) programs: ADDIE. But things have changed and there are now many technology options that allow for synchronous and asynchronous online learning, in addition to the traditional in-person classroom. As a result, we now have additional methodologies, including SAM, Agile, and Design Thinking.

Regardless of the delivery vehicle (computers or people), we must honor how people learn best. Well-thought-out project tasks drive that goal. For that reason, this book also includes a variation of ADDIE called the Learner First Approach, which is based on accelerated learning and emphasizes experiential learning over lecture. The Accelerated Learning Fieldbook (Pfeiffer, 1999) is a great resource to learn more about this approach.

The following sections discuss ADDIE and the Learner First Approach in more detail. In addition, three experts in the field give their perspectives on three other methodologies: Richard Sites discusses SAM, Megan Torrance discusses Agile, and Angel Green discusses Design Thinking.

ADDIE

ADDIE stands for analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. Originally designed for creating instructor-led training, ADDIE is a traditional waterfall methodology. It’s called that because it is designed to move things forward—imagine a group of people working on the analyze phase and then passing their work down the waterfall to the next group who will work on design, and so on (see Figure 3-1). It’s easy to find detailed ADDIE methodologies complete with the tasks that could be done, but it can be overwhelming. Here’s a quick overview of what each step strives to accomplish.

Figure 3-1. ADDIE

Analysis

During the analysis phase, you are in discovery mode, so more information is better. Don’t worry, you’ll trim it down to what is realistic and appropriate to the business in the design phase. You’ll seek the answers to questions such as:

• Who are the target learners? What is their skill and experience level now?

• What will the learners be able to do after the learning experience that they can’t do now? (Align this with your draft learning objectives in the project charter.)

• What resources will be available to the learners to continue applying the learning to their real job? Where will they come from?

• How and when will you measure that the performance goal has been met? (This should be through the learning objectives.)

• Is everything you’ve learned about this project represented on the project charter?

Design

The output of the design phase is a complete blueprint of all the pieces of the learning experience. You will have different components depending on the delivery medium. Think about what goes in a blueprint for a new house—all the pieces that are built, where they go, and what supplies are needed. Within reason, the entire house is completely defined before anyone lifts a hammer. For learning and development, poor developers wing it by designing as they go in development. This can be a useful approach when prototyping with the customer, but when done without the learner it creates an ineffective learning experience. In ADDIE you have to sketch out exactly what you want to build before you build it. Here are some items you may draft:

• finalized learning and performance objectives to use in the evaluation phase and to audit the quality of the design

• a high-level overview description for marketing the workshop

• a detailed agenda with timing

• case study, exam, and activity descriptions

• learner manuals

• recommended tools to be used (such as Microsoft PowerPoint).

When creating instructor-led workshops, you can draft facilitator guides, supplies needed, and recommended classroom facilities; webinars require producer and facilitator guides. E-learning courses require storyboards, audio and video, learner guides, a learning management system, and other technology interfaces, all of which you will tackle in the design phase.

Development

You build the finished learning experience during the development phase. This is the phase most likely to have people working on different pieces in parallel, so the big challenge is to keep everyone aligned. In addition, it is not unusual for new requirements and ideas to emerge, so staying on schedule and within scope can be difficult.

Implementation

The implementation phase is done best when the initial learning experience is tested before being rolled out. In traditional ADDIE, there are two types of testing:

• alpha: implementing the class for a group of experts in the topic for feedback (beware of new requirements sneaking out here)

• beta: implementing the class for a group of learners from the target audience for feedback (this is likely just tweaking to the audience).

Roll-out is the transition of the learning experience to its final resting place where it is offered to the learners. The output of this phase generally includes:

• all the artifacts built (slides, e-learning source)

• train-the-trainer materials

• marketing material

• guidelines on how often maintenance occurs.

Evaluation

Determining the end of an L&D project is not always easy. Does the end occur after the build? After the pilot? After the course is no longer useful? At what point does the product of this project (the training) transition to a logistical staff? The managers and learners may define “done” as completing the workshop, but good L&D practitioners know that value comes from reviewing the quality and development process. This is what the evaluation phase is for. It is tough to get everyone together to discuss the value of a course months down the road, but the learning will drive future learning improvement. Resist the temptation to skip it.

The Learner First Approach

ADDIE has long been the methodology of choice, but after I was exposed to the concept of accelerated learning, I tweaked ADDIE to change the order within the development phase. The result is the Learner First Approach (described in The Accelerated Learning Fieldbook), which is illustrated in Figure 3-2. The primary difference between the two methods is the criticality of managing the politics, creating the exercises before the lecture material, and sequencing the learning objectives.

Managing the Politics

The reality of learning and development isn’t as clean as we’d like it to be. The biggest determinant of a successful L&D project is the project manager’s ability to influence others. The stakeholders on your project scope diagram will all require communication with a heavy dose of influencing. Consider five critical groups and some questions to ask to better understand their perspective:

Figure 3-2. Model of the Learner First Approach

• The learner: the person who needs to learn. What’s happening in their area right now? What are their perceptions of what performance change is needed and will it require training? What other priorities are taking their time?

• The project sponsor: the person who writes the check for the event. What’s most important to the organization right now? What are the sponsor’s perceptions of what is needed, including training? What other priorities are taking the sponsor’s time? What compliance issues do you need to be aware of?

• The training manager: the person who manages the logistics of what you are building. What else is being rolled out? What is the schedule? Are there any conflicts? Will there be any new platforms, tools, or releases in the near future? What are their guidelines for deliverables?

• The managers of the learners: the person your learners report to. What’s most important in the team right now? What are their perceptions of what is needed in the training? How involved will this manager be? What compliance issues do you need to be aware of?

• Your boss: the person you report to. What’s most important in your team right now? What are their perceptions of how much effort will be required for this project? What other priorities will be taking your time? Will you have help?

Create the Exercises Before the Lecture Material

Regardless of whether your learning event will be delivered by a facilitator or a computer, learning by doing is the most effective way to learn. Some traditional course development methodologies encourage course developers to create slides with lecture notes before coming up with the exercises. As in all projects, the items that are left for last are done least well.

This approach is slightly different. In the design phase, the blueprint has placeholders for interactive exercises including case studies, reflection, games, and simulations. The first thing you should map to the learning objectives is an interactive way to self-discover the learning through hands-on practice. You learn what you earn—you can read as many books as you’d like about golf, but you won’t become a golfer until you pick up a club and swing.

In the development phase, you will build out the exercises first, and then surround the exercises with minimal content and lecture notes. This way, if you run out of time, the experiences, which are the most critical for learning, have received priority over the slides. Building exercises requires keeping an eye on many types of learning styles to ensure that everyone can learn in a way that’s best for them.

When creating interactive activities, work backward from the learning objectives and design the debrief questions at the same time. The debrief is where learning actually occurs, because people are too busy doing to learn during the exercise. Reflection through a well-designed debrief activity is what drives learning retention. Here are two great debriefing questions (starting with the negative and ending with the positive is intentional):

• What did you struggle with, and what would you do differently next time?

• What went well for you during this exercise?

The best learning occurs when learners discover knowledge through an experience and then have time to reflect about what took place.

Sequence the Learning Objectives

The next step is to determine the order of the learning objectives and the exercises for each. This is more of a design activity, leveraging your intuitive and creative ability to sequence the optimal flow of learning objectives. The intuition about sequencing comes from experience in development. Backwards chaining and multiple intelligences are two distinct approaches to sequencing learning material.

BACKWARDS CHAINING

Although it seems rational to start with the basics (such as terminology and introductory material) and then move on to complex learning, it is usually more effective to begin with a comprehensive example and then present the pieces, referring back to the example. Learners respond to seeing the big picture first—the context—because it makes it easier for them to connect the terminology and concepts into a cohesive whole.

When writing about backwards chaining, Bill Brandon, managing editor of eLearning Guild’s e-magazine Learning Solutions, uses Microsoft Word as an example of how difficult it is to comprehend all the drop-down menus, buttons, and shortcuts before you know what you’re even trying to accomplish. Here’s an adaptation to his approach:

1.   Students enter the PC lab, and one to three people share a computer.

2.   There is a letter on the screen written to them in Microsoft Word sharing the learning objectives. The facilitator shows them how to print this letter.

3.   The facilitator shows the students how to add a line to the top with “Dear …” and their names. She’ll ask them to print again (without help).

4.   Next the facilitator shows the students how to insert a picture into the document, and then have them change specific text and print again by themselves.

5.   This progression continues with new instruction, reinforcement, and feedback.

6.   At the end, the students start with a new document and write a letter about what they learned to the facilitator. Print, sign.

This approach begins with the facilitator demonstrating how to perform the last task (printing the letter). The students then build on this newly developed skill step by step. The approach ends with the students putting all the skills together to accomplish their goal.

MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

Another strategy for sequencing learning can be found by leveraging Howard Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences, presented in 1983 in his book Frames of Mind. When people learn using an approach that is a strength for them, it is easier and burns less energy. When their strengths are not honored, it is exhausting to learn. Gardner initially identified seven criteria that all learners use to process information, solve problems, and innovate. These Multiple Intelligences have become a baseline for good instructional design. The good news is we can grow our competence in each; these strengths are not fixed and most of us are strong in three or four. Here are the original intelligences:

• interpersonal: an aptitude for understanding other people and thinking through interaction with them

• logical/mathematical: an aptitude for analytical thinking, calculations, and problem solving

• spatial/visual: an aptitude for designing, envisioning, and creating visual things

• musical: an aptitude for performing, listening to, and singing music

• linguistic/verbal: an aptitude for reading, writing, and speaking

• intrapersonal: an aptitude for personal reflection and thinking alone

• bodily/kinesthetic: an aptitude for processing and thinking while moving.

Gardner proposed three additional intelligences in his 1996 whitepaper:

• emotional: an aptitude for identifying and regulating your emotions (now popularized by Daniel Goleman and others as EQ or emotional intelligence)

• naturalist: an aptitude for being in and with nature

• existential: an aptitude for knowing and leveraging the purpose of your life.

Each of the 10 intelligences behave like an appetite that has to be filled. As an instructor, try to work as many intelligences in every experience that you can, regardless of the delivery method. This is not always possible for all of them, but many can be included with a little effort. Figure 3-3 provides an example of how a brainstorming exercise held outdoors on a beautiful day could feed each intelligence.

Figure 3-3. Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences

Keeping this multiple intelligences approach in mind while sequencing the learning objectives can result in a more-balanced learning experience for learners that takes into account all the different ways they learn. And coupling it with backwards chaining can go even further to meeting the needs of each learner.

Trouble in ADDIE Land

Here’s the problem with ADDIE: It is designed to be sequential—as in, do all of the analysis, then design, develop, implement, and evaluate. There is no option to go back and revisit an earlier phase. How the learning pieces are sequenced is established in design.

Sequencing these chunks is a critical part of maximizing learning. There are few stand-alone learning chunks that don’t influence other chunks. If a change gets added when you’re finishing up design, you have two choices: start over with analysis, or jam it in somewhere and move on. Clearly, every time you jam something in with little analysis, you’re degrading the quality of the initial design strategy and thus the learning. The more time that passes, the more likely that something new will be discovered in design and development.

So, should we just throw ADDIE out? Some industry professionals are saying that right now, but that’s not a valid option. ADDIE is the easiest and most effective methodology for learning experiences when:

• The requirements are crystal clear (for example, compliance training).

• The duration of the project is less than a month.

• You have free reign on the design and treatment of the learning experience (for example, no one wants to help you design the best PowerPoint slides).

• It’s a small learning event (for example, a 30-minute webinar).

But assume you are asked to build a very important new product e-learning workshop for the salespeople. You have more than 20 stakeholders on your scope diagram. It is a highly politicized project, and everyone wants their hands on it right now. Time is tight (six months), but cost is unlimited. What would be the problem with using ADDIE for this? Here are a few:

• A highly political situation with many stakeholders and only six months likely means lots of changes. It will be very difficult to ever complete the analysis and design phases and move on to development.

• The requirements are not clear; the product is new and will continue to evolve.

• You have an opportunity to manage the partnership with subject matter experts to build an innovative solution.

It seems that a more effective approach would be to have stakeholders engaged in helping with the project all the way through, not just at the end when it’s too late. The longer the project takes and the less involved the stakeholders are, the more likely there will be major changes and disruption at the end. New methodologies seek to mitigate this by involving the stakeholders earlier and throughout the project. The Successive Approximation Model (SAM), used primarily for e-learning development, is the most popular example of this approach in the learning and development space. But remember, no one methodology works perfectly for all projects.

SAM

Building instructional products is not an easy task. Regardless of the makeup or number of individuals involved in making the project happen, it is complex and there will be constraints. But the one target that should always be the driving force is the construction of a quality learning experience delivered on time and within budget.

With quality, time, and budget serving as targets, the project manager is challenged to achieve three basic activities:

• Define quality. Whether it is stated or not, there is always some measure of quality for the output of any instructional design project (really any project for that matter). To ensure that project efforts are on target, it is necessary to define quality. Because a learning project involves many people, the definition of quality will likely be a compromise between multiple definitions.

• Work efficiently. No project is considered successful if it does not adhere to some form of time expectation. The ability of the team to work together efficiently is critical to the project’s success.

• Avoid risks. Probably the most fundamental job of the project manager is to avoid risks, whether through good planning or seasoned insight. Risks to the project can come in all forms, shapes, and sizes. The project manager must be able to keep the project moving even when certain risks are realized.

Traditionally, instructional design projects have followed the ADDIE approach, the primary instructional systems design model used, or at least referenced, by nearly every instructional designer in the world. While ADDIE provides a logical pathway for learning and development teams to create instructional products, the types of products this approach typically creates are content focused, boring, and ineffective.

Realizing the limitations of ADDIE, Michael Allen, CEO of Allen Interactions, developed an iterative and collaborative process that provides L&D teams the greatest opportunity to produce the most effective learning experiences possible within given constraints. He endeavored to develop a process that supports the creation of meaningful, memorable, and motivational learning experiences. Thus, SAM was born.

SAM was a labor of love. By drawing on the successful techniques of other processes and strategies beyond the field of instructional design, Allen created a more agile, effective, and flexible process that challenges learning designs early—and throughout (see Figure 3-4). This approach directly contrasts standard linear approaches, which rely on endless analysis, voluminous documentation, and late review of the learning product. Additionally, SAM focuses more on learning experiences, learner engagement, and learner motivation than content organization, presentation of information, and summative posttests (although these components get full and appropriate attention when and where it’s necessary).

Figure 3-4. SAM

Define Quality

While traditional instructional design processes primarily seek to ensure the accuracy and completeness of content, SAM works to uncover engaging and interactive learning events. For learning experiences to be the most effective, they need to be meaningful, memorable, and motivational—the three Ms:

• Meaningful learning experiences are based in a relevant context and in situations where the learner is expected to perform.

• Memorable learning experiences create the greatest opportunity for the learned skill to be transferred back into the learner’s daily work.

• Motivational learning experiences demonstrate the value of the learner’s time within the learning experience and the opportunity to improve his performance and capability.

To effectively create these types of learning experiences, SAM further provides four key components of design: context, challenge, activity, and feedback. The learning experience places the learner in a realistic context that is relevant to where the expected performance will occur. Next, the learner is challenged to accomplish a task. An activity, the functional event the learner uses to achieve the challenge, closely resembles the authentic performance event. As the learner makes choices, she receives feedback.

Work Efficiently

SAM seeks to achieve these design goals through an iterative prototyping model. Working through small steps and frequently taking measures to ensure that work is proceeding on the right path, the team is able to better identify and design effective learning events. There are three phases of SAM that keep the team focused on the design goals: preparation, iterative design, and iterative development.

• Preparation. Starting with a quick review of the training requirements, past training efforts, organizational expectations, and existing materials, teams jump into design during the Savvy Start. The Savvy Start is a meeting where team members and key project stakeholders come together to brainstorm, sketch, and prototype interactive learning experiences targeting key performance needs.

• Iterative Design. Following the Savvy Start, the iterative design phase begins. Further prototyping and review of instructional treatments occurs. Content is collected and written to address the learning experiences that have been designed. Project planning and re-evaluation of the learning objectives also take place during this phase.

• Iterative Development. The iterative development phase begins with the construction of a design proof, which provides the team with an opportunity to confirm all design decisions through the evaluation of functional applications. This deliverable contains sample content for each design treatment along with representative media. Design proofs are used to identify potential problems early to avoid last-minute emergencies.

Once the design proof is accepted, final development begins. The alpha, beta, and gold deliverables occur in the iterative development phase. The design has already been reviewed and accepted, so these iterations, each one being a more completed version of the previous, allow the team to review and confirm that the development is on track.

You can find more information and an in-depth description of SAM in Leaving ADDIE for Sam: An Agile Model for Developing the Best Learning Experiences (ASTD Press, 2012).

Avoid Risks

Regardless of the instructional design process, real risks to the budget, timeline, and scope are always present. Training development projects most often go off track not because of a lack of management, but because of unforeseen risks associated with the lack of participation of subject matter experts, continual addition of new content and reviewers, indecision, or lack of clear understanding of the final product.

While an experienced project manager likely has witnessed and anticipates these types of risks, a traditional instructional design process still provides little remedy to anticipate and minimize the impact of these risks. Let’s take a moment to review two of these challenges and the different approaches offered by ADDIE and SAM.

Challenge 1: Focus on content. In today’s busy workplace, projects that begin with a focus on content (what learners need to know), tend to have a long and often delayed analysis phase regardless of the methodology. This is more true in ADDIE to ensure that all possible content and information is identified before the design of instruction.

SAM seeks to start the process in reverse order by focusing first on the definition and design of specific performance events, then identifying the relevant content and information necessary to support the learner in their performance efforts. This reverse approach greatly reduces the tendency for extended and delayed analysis activities.

Challenge 2: Design documentation does not provide an effective description of the final product. Typical development processes employ phases that produce deliverables requiring review and approval before proceeding to the next phase. While each phase builds on the previous one, the final product is not reviewed until late in the process. This places a great burden on early design documentation to accurately describe the final product. For a design to be effective, it takes considerable time and effort, which often leads to project delays. Even if the documentation clearly describes the design strategy and related content, it is nearly impossible to accurately describe functional events and media necessary for an effective review, especially in experiential e-learning.

In contrast, the design, construction, and implementation of learning experiences focused on performance change require a more responsive process. The process must employ design events that are iterative, so early design evaluation takes place. Early functional prototypes allow the design team to challenge the design and address any issues before final development begins. Additional prototypes for other components such as media, content, and navigation provide further insight into the final instructional product. This continual and representative insight into the final product greatly reduces the risk of late process revisions or changes.

While no process can address or overcome all the challenges that project managers will face during an instructional design project, taking a more agile, iterative approach to design and focusing more on performance than on content will certainly provide project managers with more opportunities for success.

Richard expresses some valuable goals for learning—focus on performance, involve the stakeholders, and emphasize iterations. SAM works well when:

• The delivery method is e-learning, or something that can be prototyped easily.

• The stakeholders who know the performance gap are fully involved with all three phases and all prototypes.

• The time scheduled to complete the project is realistic to the complexity of the delivery technology, graphic design, and execution.

• An experienced project manager exists who can prevent the prototype iterations from continuing forever. SAM specifies three iterations, and that’s hard to enforce inside a company.

• You are a consultant doing custom development for clients. Note that the implementation is trivial (it’s left to the customer), and having a contract helps you control the iterations.

How great would it be if you could lock everyone you needed in a room for some defined period of time and do nothing else but build a solution to a performance gap together? The Agile approach, which emerged from the IT field in the 1980s, is striving to do just that.

Agile

The requirements for a training solution are always changing. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to any seasoned project manager. No matter how much time you spend on the front end defining requirements, you will find that they are either incomplete or change as you go. Agile is a method designed to both expect and accept change throughout the project.

Agile is a set of techniques that relies on transparency, simplicity, and iterative development. There are several approaches to using Agile, but in each the team constantly adjusts to new information from the customer. And small pieces of value are created with the customer in iterations. Agile seeks to keep pace with change, rather than predict, control, or prevent it.

LLAMA—the Lot Like Agile Methods Approach—applies techniques from the software world’s Agile frameworks and adds in the instructional systems design we need for training projects. It reconciles the ADDIE model’s more linear (waterfall) approach with Agile’s iterative development.

Agile means more than just being flexible. When you use Agile, you’ll define units of scope in very small chunks called stories. User stories capture scope in terms of who needs what and why, and their primary source is through brainstorming sessions with the client. Think of stories as defining the deliverables or the work that you will do on the project—they are small and defined enough that the work effort can be estimated. User stories can then be grouped into larger bundles called epics. The INVEST-U rubric helps you write good user stories.

• Independent: Each story can be implemented without another one. They stand alone. (You might not want to implement them that way, but you could.) This also helps you build very modular, flexible training so it works in your favor that way, too.

• Negotiable: You could bargain one story for another, along the lines of “I can’t get you all of X, but I could get you Y and Z. Will that work?”

• Valuable: If no one places any value on the story, it shouldn’t be worked on anyway.

• Estimatable: There should be enough known about the story that the work effort associated with it can be estimated. This helps you define and negotiate scope. If business decisions about the story will be made at some future date, and those decisions will drive your work effort, then the story is not very estimatable, at least not now.

• Small: Stories should be small enough that you can get a handle on them, and small makes them more estimatable, too.

• Testable: In the training world we think of giving tests or assessments to learners, but this rubric comes from the software world where the testing involves ensuring that the work has been done, done correctly, and done in such a way that it fits with the rest of the system. If no one can tell that the work is completed, then the testable criterion fails.

• Understandable: The story needs to be defined well enough to be understandable by others. It fails this criterion if the card is too vague or rests upon too many assumptions.

Once your stories are defined, you have to decide which ones to work on first. With Agile, the client will determine which stories have the most value and are a higher priority. The priorities can shift whenever the client wants them to, as the underlying business needs shift and change.

Each story can be broken down into the individual tasks that it will take to deliver the learning. The developers then estimate the work effort it will take to complete each task. Here are the key rules:

• The person who does the work estimates the work.

• The tasks should be estimated based on the work effort it will take to complete them. With a dedicated client and team, focus is possible and effort is easier to predict.

• Larger tasks should be broken down into smaller ones to get better estimates.

• It’s only an estimate.

Finally, Agile projects run in short bursts—usually two to four weeks—before they release a working deliverable (finished product) for review. These iterations or sprints allow the team to get feedback from the real world before moving any further or deeper on the project. While some project sponsors may bristle at the thought of being so involved in deliverable reviews, this frequent review helps to:

• identify where assumptions were incorrect

• find out what requirements were missing in the original list

• get feedback from actual learners (or representatives) before finalizing

• provide a forum and regular communication so you can keep pace with changes in the underlying business need for the project.

Of course, each time you release an iteration you’ll have an opportunity to gather more requirements (in the form of stories) to consider as you plan the next work iteration. Agile projects continue on this way—working, releasing, gathering feedback, and starting over—until they run out of time, budget, or meaningful changes worth making. In all cases, it’s the client or project sponsor who determines what “done” actually looks like.

Megan describes a world that is not familiar to most of us—developers and clients who spend uninterrupted time together to build small pieces until the client determines that enough value has been delivered. This is a very symbiotic process. Clearly, aspects of a corporate environment will make this approach challenging, regardless of how powerful it is. These include:

• Multitasking on multiple projects is not conducive to this kind of approach. The power is in dedicated focus.

• Corporate budgeting processes tend to dictate the “complete budget” for a project before the start. In this case, the client determines when enough is enough based on value for investment.

• As in IT, another question is “Is this scalable?” When you build little chunks, do they all work together cohesively at the end? How do you watch out for that as you keep your focus narrow?

However, the benefits of Agile are great if you can structure it properly. This method works best if:

• The delivery method is e-learning or something else that can be built in small pieces easily.

• The clients are sitting right there with you when you need them.

• The developers are willing and able to build whatever the customer wants without adding in their own interpretations of the “best way.”

• Project scope is loosely determined at the start, and changed mindfully as the iterations proceed and the customer wants to change them.

• The developers do not have a long history in ADDIE or something similar that makes it hard to adjust to the new approach.

• You are a consultant doing custom development for clients. Note that the implementation is trivial (it’s left to the customer), and having a contract helps you control the iterations.

There is new buzz about an approach called Design Thinking that is growing in popularity as a way to drive innovation. While it has been used in some training companies, it is not yet widely discussed. Think of this metaphor discussed by Design Thinking supporters: there are two kinds of projects—puzzles and mysteries. Puzzles are projects that have all the pieces, and getting more information from people is helpful. They have a right answer, and it’s just a matter of time before you find it. Mysteries, on the other hand, are projects that have not been done before. Getting additional information from others is not useful and can actually hinder your ability to innovate. These types of projects require a different approach and structuring of tasks.

The goal of Design Thinking is to examine four questions: What if? What else? What wows? and What works? The motto: “Use small pieces to learn; fail early and often.” Like ADDIE, there are steps that eventually converge to a solution. Like SAM, there is iteration in the development approach. Like Agile, there is collaboration between all stakeholders.

Design Thinking

Like many people I know, I am a huge fan of TED Talks. Recently, however, I heard a TEDx Talk that frightened me. In the TEDx Talk, “Are droids taking our jobs?” Andrew McAfee speaks about non-industrial jobs being replaced by computers or droids.

Here is a snippet of what he said:

Throughout all of history, if you wanted something written, a report or an article, you had to involve a person. Not anymore. This [showing a newspaper clipping] is an article that appeared in Forbes online awhile back about Apple’s earnings. It was written by an algorithm. And it’s not decent, it’s perfect.

I did a little research and found that a company called Narrative Science released this particular article, and thousands like it. They use a technology called Quill, which according to their website is “an artificial intelligence platform that applies Narrative Analytics to give voice to ideas as it discovers them in the data.”

This TEDx Talk sent chills down my spine because in the future there might be a service like Narrative Science that could do the same thing for the world of corporate learning and development. McAfee discussed the concept that any time there is a formula, even a loose one, there is a way a computer program can do the work. In other words, courses that follow a set of rules could be created by a droid, potentially removing the need for an instructional designer altogether.

Some of the e-learning courses I have seen and taken feel like they were created by a droid. They are void of emotion, context, or anything remotely connecting to me, the learner. The good news is the droids haven’t taken our jobs yet. The thing we can bring to the table is what makes us uniquely human—our creativity, our innovation, our spark! It’s time for instructional designers to embrace the fact that we are, at least by our titles, designers.

There is a movement called Design Thinking, which is not new, but might be new to the world of instructional design. The basic principles revolve around an empathetic design generated by a hybrid group of people who come together to brainstorm many concepts before landing on one that sticks, and prototyping to test that design before moving on.

This approach takes a longer path to the end goal—allowing time for intentional attention for innovation and new ideas; not one, but many. Iteration of small tests of bite-size pieces of ideas evolves and strengthens the concepts. Diverse groups of people provide conflict and differing perspectives, while also strengthening the concepts. Design is a creative process; one based on making choices about one of many ways to create the end product. Creativity is feared and perceived as impossible in a stressed out, email-driven business climate. Using Design Thinking to go beyond the status quo will require moving out of the status quo, with small and collaborative steps.

Although it is not a traditional learning methodology, Design Thinking offers another approach to solving a performance problem. While experimenting with applying Design Thinking to some of my redesign projects, I have noticed a few things:

• Whatever you are hoping to build—cars, workshops, e-learning, droids—all could stand a little innovation and a bit less status quo. I have to be out of my office to get my head into a Design Thinking process.

• Teams of interested people who have diverse opinions are the best way to create new ideas. Save large chunks of time to pick their brains.

• This approach is the only way to build solutions to mysteries. Puzzles don’t need it.

• Project management is still critical—there are distinct phases to Design Thinking and these will likely be constricted by time. Time is still a valuable and rare asset, and it needs to be used wisely.

For more information on Design Thinking strategies I recommend checking out Coursera, and the courses from the Darden School at the University of Virginia. Even better, read a little and try it.

Summary

Development methods have their upsides and downsides. They provide a repeatable checklist that allows you to increase the speed at which you can develop quality learning events. Checklists mean there is no need to reinvent a list of tasks each time you start a new development project, and they reduce the chance you will forget a key activity.

But methodologies can tempt you into following a checklist blindly, which can cause turmoil in your project because you don’t really know why you’re doing each task or how to finish it. Learning development is both a science and an art—with steps that can be followed easily and others that need innovation and vision. Be sure to only schedule tasks if you can clearly explain why they are needed. Do not let a standard approach limit your flexibility. Every performance gap is unique, and each learning need is different. Learn to maintain a repeatable but flexible approach to development in order to meet the needs of your learners. Honor the sacredness of the work you do—you’re changing people’s lives.

Practical Exercise

Here is a chance for you to practice thinking about methodologies. Use the project charter that you created in chapter 2 and the appendix to think about which methodology you could use to identify the tasks of your project. For the purpose of the work you’ve been doing while reading this book, consider using ADDIE to practice. It will be easiest to understand because you are learning project management concepts. However, continue to think about how to create a better approach to development for your specific needs. In the next chapter, you will learn how to use ADDIE to work forward from a start date or back from a due date to create a project schedule.