Conducting Instructional Analysis and Avoiding Paralysis

A colleague was lamenting recently that her staff needed to start doing task analysis prior to their eLearning development. I didn’t ask about whether of not they were doing these “rapidly” or not. I just assumed so.

This was partially the topic of my ISPI Cracker Barrel session at the ISPI Conference in Orlando last month. That session was on my quicker-than-quick, leaner-than-lean PACT Process: RADD – Rapid Analysis Design Development. Lean-er-ISD so to speak.
















As I kicked off each of the 3 Cracker Barrel sessions, I told all sitting at the round tables that I hated development sans design and sans analysis. Then at least once I said I hated all of that sans project planning – at least most of the time. I don’t really mind a lack of planning EVERY time an instructional effort is undertaken – especially when we have a solid, valid “patterned approach” is use – and especially when the effort is one of many in a chain of efforts post Curriculum Architecture Design. And I don’t mind a lack of planning for the occasional “Instructional One-Off” – when they are rare and are not the default patterned approach.


















I usually explain the PACT Processes “top-down” from CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design to MCD – Modular Curriculum Development/Acquisition. RADD is a quicker approach to MCD – when appropriate.

When is RADD appropriate versus when is MCD appropriate? RADD is appropriate when the effort will produce a short module – which in PACT we refer to as an Event – the order-able/accessible set of content that one might get credit for completing. PACT produces modular content – not to be confused with a Module – which is the language of almost everyone else. Which I am fine with - not being in sync with everyone else on this. MCD is for longer outputs/products – Events. 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 day Learning Products. I still call them Training Events, or Training & Development Events.

A rose is a rose is a rose. Right?





















In both RADD and MCD as well as in CAD and IAD – Instructional Activity Development/Acquisition efforts I use the same 4 types of Instructional Analysis to produce 4 types of data to influence and/or be used directly in PACT’s design efforts.:

-Target Audience data

-Performance data

-Enabling Knowledge/Skill data

-Existing T&D Assessments (for reuse potential) data













In a recognizable RADD situation - for those short modules (T&D Events) where I have been called into a client’s office to discuss their real pressing need – I have on occasion begun the RADD process right there – skipping my typical (in MCD efforts) project planning steps – because of their urgency and the lack of time. Plus it always makes a client happy to see action – and I will accommodate their bias for action when I feel it won’t blow up in “our” faces later downstream and send us off to ReWork City.

More on that - ReWork City - later.

So here is a story of me walking in to a client’s office and after they tell me what they want I jump up to their flip chart or whiteboard and begin. As a greybeard I have remembrances of doing this with flip charts before the became white boards became de rigor. Either format works – unless the white board is small. I like those that span an office wall. Clients with cubical walls most likely resulted in “we should go find a conference room” with a white board spanning its wall.

Target Audience data
I clarify who the target audience or audiences are. What are their backgrounds in experience and in education. The key point is to determine what can safely be generalized, and what cannot. I’m looking for variances to determine the incoming K/Ss likely and to determine the need for multiple entry points in the instruction so some who should can skip things they already know.

Less critical in Instructor led forums as I would then use their incoming K/Ss in some information or demonstration or application exercise. But is eLearning it only makes the Learner upset to have to wade through things they already know – unless I can branch them past that stuff to get more immediately to what they don’t know. I also want us to both think about how many immediately are to be trained and how many later after we’re through the existing population and then will deal with new hires, etc. “Who and how many will be coming through the training door?” I ask.

This quick exercise with the client allows them to tell me what they think I need to know and lets me get what I need. I write it down on the flip chart or white board - or even on paper in my notepad folio and then I show them what I wrote so they can correct me as needed.

Performance data
Usually short modules (Events) only have what I call AoPs – Areas of Performance – which is a bit of an arbitrary chunking devise for me. However an AoP is never a “topic” but is always a “task” or “task-set” – such as each of the letters of ADDIE represent a task-set.

If I were to identify the task-sets for the A in ADDIE I’d minimally be talking about the 4 AoPs of:

-Target Audience data generation

-Performance data generation

-Enabling Knowledge/Skill data generation

-Existing T&D Assessments (for reuse potential) data generation

I hope that makes sense. Not a “topic” spin – but a “task” spin. If my short module (Event) were on “analysis surveys” (which I don’t do but you might) then that is a single AoP. From there it’s a matter of teasing out the Output or Outputs within this AoP, and then all of the tasks that need to be performed to produce that output or those outputs. And then we would identify all of the key measures or standards for each Output – which might involve using my stakeholder hierarchy to tease those out.

This is a place where the client might decide that they don’t know this well enough and they decide that we need to involve others.

Master Performers are my preference over SMEs for completing this part of the analysis. After all, they should know the tasks – but in reality they don’t. They all too often operate on “unconscious competence” and it really takes working with a group of them to fill in each others gaps of insight into what they really do to do this well.

And then we – the client or the group of Master Performers assembled - would define all of the “roles/job titles” involved and defining their responsibilities per task. This will enable “role clarity” later in the Instruction (module/Event/modular Event). That documents ideal performance.

The terminal objective of the Instruction: be able to perform tasks to produce outputs to stakeholder requirements. Then I prefer to conduct a gap analysis. That is done by identifying where outputs don't meet measures/standards "typically" and then determining the probable cause and the type of cause..

This could all be placed on the whiteboard in a handwritten version of the Performance Model – here is a Performance Model chart prettied up after word processing.













Here is one from a photo of a flip chart page containing the Performance Model chart.














This is then used to systematically derive the enabling Knowledge/Skills.

Enabling Knowledge/Skill data
I have 17 categories of K/S that I use in PACT. As I have these memorized after using them for over 20 years it’s easy for me to use them in a client meeting “off the top of my head.” You might need a job aid.


Those 17 categories are:

















Definitions for each of them can be found in my book: lean-ISD which is available as a free 404 page PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/ or from Amazon as a hard bound or Kindle book.

I literally point to each Output-Task cluster on the white board and ask, “are there any “XXX” knowledge/skills needed to perform these tasks to produce those outputs to the measures/standards?” Where the XXX stands for each of the 17 K/S Categories of PACT.

So I drag my client quickly through each of those 17 categories and they tell me if there are any and I write them down. This is often another place where they decide that they don’t know this well enough and they decide that we need to involve others. Master Performers again are my preference over SMEs.


Here is a K/S Matric "typed-up."














Here is a flip chart version:















Once we are done with the Performance data and the Enabling K/S data we are ready to assess any existing T&D for its reuse potential.

Existing T&D Assessments (for reuse potential) data

By reuse I mean “as is” or “after modification” or “not applicable.” We review what they know about what exists and decide whether or not it can and should be used “AI” or “AM.”

My goal since the early 1980s was to avoid paralysis in analysis - and - to avoid wasting the shareholders’ equity developing content that already existed.


Then What After Analysis?
Design of course. And done quickly too. And then Development following that design. Which should go quickly too given the analysis informed design efforts. And then on to Pilot-Test (or just the 1st delivery). And Revisions after that as necessary – a quick trip to ReWork City as needed. As planned in your ADDIE-like process. As in mine.


ReWork City
A terrible place to live. All too often too many Instructional Designers seem to live at work in ReWork City. They are always reworking their content because it is never close enough to ideal to move to the next step. I believe it is often because they didn’t know how to do analysis – or didn’t get a chance to do analysis - leading to design - leading then to development.

Avoid ReWork City if you can.


Unless it is by design to be a quick trip.


The PACT Processes are covered in my book: lean-ISD.





















# # #