On the evening of April 8, I will have the pleasure of presenting "Training Request: Ask Questions First" to the Greater Atlanta chapter of ASTD.  This presentation helps trainers interact with their clients as consultants and not be perceived as order takers.  This sixty minute session presents eight principles for reframing a training request.  I will use a video role play to demonstrate how the principles are used in a reframing meeting with a client, and then I will ask two participants from the audience to do a live role play.  The rest of the participants will have the opportunity to provide feedback based on the eight principles. The business reason for the reframing meeting is best summed up by Emily Wilkins in her comment on last week’s blog.  If I may quote you again, Emily: "Organizations aren’t interested in training, they are interested in performance.  They just don’t know what else to say when a performance problem arises other than, "We need training."  It’s time trainers have the courage to say, "Maybe…but let’s do some digging."  The outcome of the reframing meeting is to do exactly what Emily suggested.  We are not trying to arrive at a new solution in the reframing meeting.  We are merely trying to get permission to gather some more data.  With better data, we can complete a gaps map which will point out the gaps and causes, which in turn will help us design better solutions.  Keep in mind, these solutions may or may not include training. The reframing and gaps map process I use is based on the work of Dana and Jim Robinson of Partners in Change, Inc.  Dana and Jim are recipients of the Lifetime Achievement Award from ASTD. They have been an inspiration to me and are great friends.

April 13th, 2013 - The Gaps Map Workshop April 15th, 2013 - The Gaps Map Concurrent Session ISPI International ConferenceTHE Performance Improvement ConferenceReno, Nevada See the Events page for more information.

It’s time again for THE Performance Improvement Conference from April 12 - 14 in Reno, NV. My schedule this year will be very similar to last year. I’ll be conducting a full day pre-conference workshop on Saturday the 13th called, "Analyzing Performance gaps - The Gaps Map. This workshop is based on the work of Dana and Jim Robinson. I will explain how to complete the various portions of the gaps map in order to analyze performance gaps in an organization and prescribe appropriate solutions to achieve business goals. The workshop will feature a video role play of a sample meeting with a client to gather information to complete a gaps map. Following the video, I will have other sample scenarios for participants to complete their own gaps maps while meeting with me as their client in the prepared scenario.  Sunday, I’ll be meeting with other chapter leaders for the annual Chapter Leaders’ Workshop. On Monday morning April 15th, I’ll be presenting the same topic of Saturday’s workshop in a 90 minute format. After a brief explanation of the gaps process, I’ll show the sample video role play and we will conduct as many role plays with volunteers from the audience as we have time for. Asking for volunteers for the role plays, is risky because I never know exactly what will happen, but that makes it that much more fun and interesting.  Finally, at lunch on Monday, my friends Jim and Dana Robinson who are responsible for whatever I am able to teach others about Performance Improvement will receive the much deserved Tomas F. Gilbert Distinguished Professional Achievement Award. This award recognizes outstanding and significant contributions to the knowledge base of Human Performance Technology. Dana and Jim have published seven books in the field and helped dozens of clients through their company, Partners-in Change.  Before I met Jim and Dana, the world of Performance Improvement seemed complicated. It did not seem within the realm of an instructional designer to be able to practice successfully. What they did in their seven books and countless workshop and presentations was to give all of us easy to understand principles to use performance improvement in our companies and with our clients. They gave us tools, like the gaps map, that put performance improvement within the grasp of many practitioners in the training and HR fields. Dana and Jim are happily retired and living in the warmer climate of Raleigh, NC. Since I live in Charlotte, NC, I get to see more of them now. I will also be watching and applauding as they receive their award in Reno. Thank you Jim and Dana for all that you have given to all of us.

Please take a few minutes and review our new company website. The website offers some great new project case studies about real training and results! Let us know what you think and what else you would like to see or have access to on our website. Our team stands ready to work with you on your design and development, performance consulting, or custom technology needs!     www.handshaw.com

Certainly, the highlight of this year’s ISPI conference for me was the awards luncheon at which Dana and Jim Robinson received the Thomas F. Gilbert Distinguished Professional Achievement Award. The Robinsons have received many awards, from organizations including ASTD, SHRM and ISA. It was especially nice for me to see them receive this award from ISPI to recognize their achievements and contributions to performance improvement. They began their business, Partners in Change in 1981 in Pittsburgh, PA. By the time they retired in 2010, they wrote seven books and spoke at numerous conferences for ISPI, ASTD, Training Magazine, CLO Magazine and ROI Conferences. They have left a lasting contribution to the performance improvement profession over their 30 years in business together. I first met Dana and Jim in 1995 when I was introduced to them by one of my best clients. By that time I had been running my business for ten years. We were happily taking orders for training, sometimes asking a few questions about training goals but usually, just developing the best learning solutions we could. For the first time in my career, a client challenged me to align training goals with business goals. Fortunately, the client also introduced me to Dana and Jim and they taught me how to do that. In 1996, I hired Jim to do a performance consulting workshop for my company. Our shift from training to performance improvement was not immediate, but it has been lasting. Since, that workshop I have never been able to listen to a training request without asking questions. Over the past 18 years, Jim and Dana became mentors and also great friends. I’ve had so many people who have influenced my career and helped me throughout my life, but no one else has had as much influence over my career and business as they have. As they retired, I found myself writing and speaking more and more about the things they have taught me. I attended every keynote, every workshop, every conference session I could as they traveled and spoke. I bought every book and incorporated their processes into our work at Handshaw. I have recently begun helping my clients transition from training to performance improvement, all based on what I learned from them. Even more than learning their processes and tools, I have tried to emulate their generosity and their integrity to the profession. They offered their processes and tools freely in their books and conference sessions. They always made time to help anyone who was interested in learning from them. They are staying very active in their retirement and it was good to see them at the ISPI conference reconnecting with their friends and colleagues. I’m hoping for the sake of the profession that they will stay connected from time to time. We all owe them a great deal! Thank you Dana and Jim for all you have given us. You have left a great legacy!

I believe instructional design is part art and part science. I have always liked both science and art, so maybe that’s why I’m still fascinated by how instructional design works after using it for 35 years. Let’s take a look at the science part of instructional design first. Instructional design, as I learned it, is based on the field of behavioral science. B. F. Skinner’s principle of Operant Conditioning explains a lot about learning and motivation. The principle says that animals and humans are motivated by and learn from a stimulus from their environment followed by a response from the learner. One of my professors illustrated this point beautifully by asking us if we knew the key to the universe. Now there’s a question that will get your attention. We didn’t know, but he did. He explained that the field of cybernetics, invented by Norbert Weiner in 1948, was in his opinion, the key to the universe. I believe he is right about at least one thing. It is the key to how people learn. He explained it this way. If a plane takes off from New York to fly to Los Angeles, the pilot doesn’t wait until he thinks he is in Los Angeles to check his position. In fact, he and his navigation equipment are constantly checking position and sending back corrective feedback messages throughout the entire flight. And that, he said, is how people learn. Instructional design today is influenced by cognitive science in addition to behavioral science.  But since cybernetics is a study of systems, its basic principles still hold.  The human mind is a system and if we want to make a change in that system (by having someone develop a new skill, for instance) we have to understand its inputs, outputs, and controls.  Weiner himself explained that cybernetics was a way for humans to control their environment through communication. He says that "when a human sends a message, they are only aware that it has been received once the recipient replies, either verbally or non-verbally." If you think about a lot of training events where information is merely transmitted to a group of people, this strategy doesn’t really fit Weiner’s model. When there is no communication and no corrective feedback, there is much less learning. This underlying philosophy of cybernetics is something to keep in mind if you are asked to do rapid e-learning development.  Now let’s talk about the "art part" of instructional design. One of the things an artist does as he creates a work of art is start with a design in mind, but the artist is willing to change and improve the design as the piece is created. The artist allows the piece to evolve by critically viewing the piece or even getting feedback during pivotal points in its creation. I learned this during my undergraduate years of fine art training and have found it invaluable as an instructional designer. This is why developing prototypes and getting feedback from learners can be one of your most valuable design tools. Instructional design models give you another opportunity to approach your craft as an artist and a scientist. When it comes to choosing a model, I think there are number of very sound instructional design models in use today.  It does not matter as much which one you use as it does how you use it. The reason some people become disillusioned with instructional design models is that they try to use them as a cook book approach so they can do the same things every time they approach a new instructional solution Instructional design models are intended to make the design of instruction systematic and therefor more efficient. Because the output of one step becomes the input for the next step, they also make a logical progression that does not rely on what worked last time and keeps our design decisions relevant to what we are trying to achieve. They are not intended to be used exactly the same way in all situations. So we could say that instructional design models are developed in a systematic or scientific way, but the use of them often has to change in a more creative or artistic approach. 

In order to do better, maybe we need to do less, not more. If we focus on the learning initiatives that are linked to important corporate initiatives and leverage good design principles, like doing the proper amount of analysis before we jump into content, maybe we could just do things better. While it may not be possible to only develop learning for important corporate initiatives, if we can successfully reframe some of those requests that don’t really require training, we will have more time to do the right things right. Once we have identified only those projects that can benefit from learning, we can also use our instructional design skills wisely. The "art" of instructional design is in knowing which techniques to employ and to what degree of rigor based on the needs of each new situation. Instructional design used correctly doesn’t cost time and money, it saves time and money. All businesses do things to make or save money, but it is not just activities that make them successful. Successful businesses achieve real results. Many learning organizations today are focused on activities by taking orders for training programs and not pausing to focus on business results. The very notion of "doing more with less", an often quoted corporate mantra, is part of the problem. If a learning organization is charged with doing more with less, there is even less chance they will pause to make sure they are doing the right things. Too often the emphasis is on hurrying to get started, putting something online or in the classroom and moving on to the next project. While it is good to do things efficiently, it is more important to do the things that achieve business results. Instructional Design is a systematic process for designing effective learning in a very efficient and structured manner. The science of learning psychology and adult learning theory are important components of successful instructional design as well. The outcome of good instructional design is observable, measurable and replicable. If your instruction is well designed, you should be able to observe that particular behavior in the work habits of your performers. You should be able to measure the results of your learner’s performance against a predetermined standard. Whatever learning programs you design and develop should be able to achieve the same results over a large audience, if implemented properly. In the end the most important aspect is not the training program itself or even a positive experience as reported by the learner. The only thing that really matters is that your learners achieve a desired business result.

For years numerous people have suggested that I should write a book. My answer always was that if I could write about a subject that hasn’t been written about at least 400 times, I would write a book. It happened. I have something to say that hasn’t been said a lot—at least not in the confines of one book. Performance Improvement and Instructional Design are both large topics by themselves and cover a lot of content. There are lots of books on Performance Improvement and lots of books on Instructional Design. There are not, however, very many books that tell you how to do both in the same methodology. The idea for the book content occurred years ago during a client consulting engagement. I was teaching instructional design to the client employees and Jim Robinson was teaching them performance consulting. The client complained that we were confusing them because they couldn’t tell where performance improvement ends and instructional design begins. We got together and designed a single methodology which is what my company has been using since. The working title for this book is "Designing for Results" and it offers a strategy for identifying business, performance, and learning needs that will help achieve business results. The book describes Handshaw’s approach for performance consulting which is called Performance Partnering. Performance Partnering helps you take the outputs from your internal client interviews into your overall instructional design when a training program is called for. The book also describes how to leverage our approach to analysis and design to achieve observable, measurable and replicable results in our efficient design of instruction. If you have been keeping up with this blog, you will see many familiar concepts in the book. I would not have been able to write this book without having had the experience of writing in this format first. The book is not finished yet, but at this point it is almost writing itself. My publisher AMACOM, the publishing arm of the American Management Association intends to make the book available in the spring of 2014. I hope you will read my book and have as much fun reading as I am writing it…  

Oct 17, 2013 Presentation - "Doing More with Less" Click here to register.

Seems in our industry there are a number of buzz words and terms that may mean generally the same thing, and at times are used loosely, depending on individual preference.  Of course, buzz words can be overused and possibly misunderstood. Here are just some examples we all deal with in conversations with clients or potential providers, at industry or social events, or at a family gathering when someone asks, "What is it you really do?"   Training versus Learning is a good example.  Is "Training" the event during which learning occurs and is "Learning" the outcome?  It seems Learning and Training is used in some cases in the same context.  Does "Performance Consulting" have the same meaning as "Performance Improvement"?   In some circles, Performance Improvement is a methodology used by industry professionals to establish improvement goals, processes, tools, and so on that will impact individual and group performance.  For others, Performance Improvement is a corporate buzz phrase used in the context of, "you need to up your game."   In some organizations consulting is not always viewed in the most positive manner.  At times it can be viewed as something you’re forced to deal with when your management team hires consultants to help you do your job better.  In other organizations, a Performance Consultant is a well-respected title.  We like to use the term "Performance Partnering." Another area that gets plenty of buzz is the notion of aligning business goals with training programs, or tying in the business goals when building training in order to achieve performance improvement.  We’ve found that in some cases, when you ask for the exact business goals, they are not clearly understood or identified.  Thus, there may be training programs developed because a manager or line of business decide they just want a program developed to fix a problem.  In the end, the programs or consulting engagements may not be completely aligned to the business goals and thus may not achieve the desired positive impact to the business.        So, how can we put these industry terms into proper context?  What should we do as a common practice? How can we move forward with designing quality training programs and improving employee performance with minimal confusion?   Use your interview and partnering skills to determine the exact business goals and put them in writing.   Make sure you are consistent and clear with the terms you use during this process to minimize possible confusion with your client. If the business problem or issue can be fixed or improved with a training program which supports the stated business goals, then do it.  If a training program is needed, follow a systematic process to determine the requirements for the training solution, and then build it.  If a training program does not seem to be the complete answer, do additional interviewing and consulting to uncover more details on the current situation, along with the business goals and the desired outcome.  The identified gap becomes the target for the overall program.  Also, keep in mind there are situations where a complete training program and a consulting engagement are both appropriate and are required to close the performance gap and bring results.