Happy action mapping users say that the model helps them create lively elearning. But would it fit into your design workflow?
Action mapping makes stakeholders work together to analyze the performance problem, commit to the same measurable goal, and agree to focus on activities rather than information. This can be a big change to the typical course development workflow.
Without action mapping:
- The client says, “I need a course.”
- You say, “Okay.”
- The client gives you a pile of content, the phone number of a subject matter expert (SME), and a deadline.
- You create a detailed storyboard or script, getting information as necessary from the SME. The structure of the information determines the structure of the course.
- The client and SME approve the script and you go into production.
- The course is made available and your job is done.
Using action mapping:
- The client says, “I need a course.”
- You say, “Great. Let’s get together to make sure we all understand what you want the course to accomplish.”
- You schedule a two-hour meeting in a space with a whiteboard or in a virtual meeting room where you can share a mind-mapping screen. You include the client, at least one subject matter expert, and possibly others from the table below.
- In that meeting, you identify your business goal and how you’ll measure success. You also identify the behaviors needed to reach that goal.
- As a group, you analyze why the behaviors aren’t happening, confirm that training will actually solve the problem, and identify how the training will be supported by managers, workplace changes, and other improvements.
- After the meeting, you work with the SME and possibly others to brainstorm and prototype practice activities for each behavior needed to reach the goal. Ideally, you test the prototypes on learners.
- You get approval for the prototypes from the client.
- You work with the SME and possibly others to identify the minimum information necessary to complete each activity and decide how it should be provided.
- You create a storyboard or script. The content has already been identified in the action map; you’re just filling in the details and arranging the material. The activities determine the organization of the course.
- The client and SME approve the script and you go into production.
- Once the material is being used by learners, you or the client begins measuring its impact, and you revise it as necessary.
The above list makes it look like action mapping takes longer, and it will take longer if you’re not doing much analysis now. However, the rest of the process can actually go more quickly than conventional course design. You save time by:
- Not creating a course when it isn’t necessary or won’t help
- Addressing only the specific behaviors that need to change
- Excluding unnecessary information
- Taking advantage of easily updated job aids
- Designing activities that test multiple areas of knowledge at once
- Creating tightly focused materials that don’t waste learners’ time
Who should be included?
The table below lists the four steps of action mapping and identifies who you might consider including at each step. The first two steps can often be covered in one two-hour meeting, if the client and SME are familiar with the learners and the performance problem.
One of the goals in action mapping is to identify what information needs to be memorized (put in the course) and what can be referenced on the job (put in job aids). Often, existing job aids are created and “owned” by someone in a different department. That person might be your SME, or they might be someone else. They need to be included in some of your planning to make sure the job aid can be used as you want, to approve any changes to it, and to offer their ideas about incorporating it into practice activities.
| Step | Client | SME | Job aid owner |
Learner | Graphics/Flash person |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1: Set goal | Yes | Yes | Maybe | No | No |
| 2: Identify behaviors & why they’re not happening | Yes | Yes | Maybe | No | No |
| 3: Brainstorm practice activities | Approve prototypes | Help brainstorm or at least approve prototypes | Help brainstorm or at least approve use of job aid | Provide ideas, feedback on prototypes | Help create prototypes |
| 4: Identify necessary info | No | Yes | Approve use of job aid or changes to it | Maybe, as tester | No |
What works for you?
I’ve added the above information to the Elearning Blueprint, where it’s easy to update. So please tell me: What did I forget? What processes have worked best for you?
Also, a reminder: I’ll be leading a two-day certificate program in instructional design for elearning on Feb. 11-12 at the Training conference in Atlanta. Use code CATMN to get a $150 discount on your registration. I hope to see you there!
Hi Cathy
Obvious way to work – but so often we go for the first scenario – why? Maybe because to do it properly (second scenario) means we have to actually get involved and involve those ‘troublesome’ SME’s.
However, the action mapping model is clear, simple and most importantly, after implementation, we can measure and prove our worth. As trainers/designers, when we measure, we should be bringing more into the organisation than any sales team can do!
Thanks for the step by step guide – Excellent (I’ll tweet this to my followers)
David Gibson
Eureka!
David, thanks for your comment. It reminded me of a cultural issue I sometimes think I see. I’ve gotten the impression (or erroneously imagined!) that some instructional designers get most of their satisfaction from organizing and presenting information. If an instructional designer chose this field because they enjoy the mostly solitary work of organizing info and explaining it, then it’s understandable that they’d be uncomfortable with and maybe want to avoid the messy, collaborative work necessary to include business strategy and stakeholders. Maybe the degree programs could help prepare them for this messier work.
Cathy,
I love your Action Mapping process. What I didn’t think about before (because I think we seperate e-learning and classroom learning in our heads) is that this process will work for ALL kinds of instructional design. It’s a step-by-step process of what I also do when I am designing short ILT courses and workshops. I just have to understand the medium…understand that the activities will be different in their design. It should all work the same way, really. The main idea of all training/learning design is to have measurable goals and get there! Thanks!
(It’s easier for people to create junk learning as e-learning because they don’t have to endure their learner’s emotions as they teach the class….the feedback there for the ID is immediate!)
Laura, that’s an excellent point. It’s easier to create bad elearning because we can’t see the suffering of our audience. I also agree that action mapping can be used with all types of training, and I’ve used a similar process to plan how to reach big goals in life. A program called Goalscape is great for that — you put your goal in the middle, and then use outer rings to identify what you need to do to reach that goal, breaking down each action into small steps that you can check off as you complete them.
Hi Cathy, I want to address your question of what’s missing and what’s worked for me. I am a proponent of needs analysis a la Allison Rossett’s model of First Things Fast. I think the Learner should be included in Step 2 — Identify behaviors and why they’re not happening. The Learner may not be at the table/whiteboard, but a quick survey to learners will uncover the gap between optimals and actuals and WHY they’re not performing at optimal levels. Since they’re the ones closest to the work, I think their voices should be heard early on. They also provide a perspective the SME does not have and can readily pinpoint reasons why optimal behaviors are not happening. Obviously, they may not know how, and thus a learning solution is needed. But they also might identify problems with the incentive system, lack of tools, resources, etc. that contribute to the problem. My two cents and a plug for the learner’s perspective.
Jeanne, thanks for your comment. That’s an excellent point, and I’ll change the version of the post in the blueprint to include that. It’s not safe to assume that the SME has recent experience in the job or can represent the learners’ perspectives, and while in the blueprint I tell IDs to talk to and even shadow learners, those points aren’t clear in this post. Thanks!
Cathy – I like the Action Mapping Process. Engaging the client in the “think tank” will make a big difference in the partnership, creation and ownership of the training solution. Too often “training” establishes the objectives and the client signs off and sends designers on their way to create the magic solution. Identifying the goal and measure of success helps to determine if there is a need is training, or if its a communication, management or operational issue. As far as what might be missing, I have found observing the learner in action and/or asking for their perspective validates whether it is a training issue and what is getting in the way of performing that behavior now, as well as things to take into consideration as you work toward achieving the goal.
Hi Cathy,
Great article. It’s nice to know others actually follow a similar methodology to me! For me, I also add in:
1 Not just how – but when will change be measured?
2 What needs to be learned formally, what can be learned informally and what learning will take place osmotically? (I find this neatly sidesteps the ‘we need a manual and eLearn / class on every single point’ discussion)
3 What underpinning knowledge and skills are required to meet the goals? Do the learners actually have these?
All too often, training fails because the change needed is actually ‘doing the job’ and getting sufficient practice and experience in the real world. Employers often have realistic expectations that learners will be magically perfect as a result of training or be able to reach the same KPIs as those that have been doing the job for year.s
For example, if the goal is for them to process 100 widgets an hour with 95% accuracy. Do we expect them to do this immediately after the learning or do we expect this after a period of time? If so are we going to measure this periodically to ensure learners are on track and identify anyone who needs coaching in the meantime?
For example, perhaps we expect them to procees with 95 % accuracy:
- 30 widgets immediately after training
- 50 widgets after two weeks on job
- 80 widgets after three weeks on job
- 100 widgets after after 4 weeks on job
What if to process the widgets they need to be able to type at around 65 words per minute – can the students already do this? What if they can’t? Can they realistically ever get to 100 widgets with 95% accuracy. Do we need to work on their typing skills first? What if actually, we’ve been hiring on the wrong skill set? Does the system actually allow them to process 100 widgets with 95% accuracy?
Hi Cathy, I agree with the posts commenting on involving the learners early on. I like the Action Mapping approach a lot, but I think the target group mapping aspect needs to be underlined. The key question “who are we doing this for” should always be asked. For example, I think a basic level target group analysis should at least conclude if the target group are beginners or not. Or if there is a mix.
Keep up the good work, Cathy!
Best regards,
Anders
Thanks for your comments, everyone. To clarify, this post is a high-level overview of what might happen when and how the process could fit into your workflow. It’s not a detailed description of the analysis that I recommend should happen at each step.
For example, here are only some of the questions that I suggest should be answered during analysis of the learners in step 2:
Knowledge:
• What do learners know now?
• What new information do they need to perform the required actions?
• What information should they memorize, and what could they look up?
• Where is this information now?
Skills:
• What skills do learners have now?
• What skills do they need to perform the actions identified?
• How can they develop these skills?
Motivation:
• How do learners feel about the topic now?
• Why would they want to perform the needed actions?
• How can we show them those reasons?
Environment:
• Does anything in the workplace prevent the learners from taking the required actions?
• Do they have the right tools, enough time, and supportive managers?
• What can we change about the learners’ environment to help them meet our goal?
I also recommend visiting the learners’ work station and, if possible, shadowing them as they work. I cover this in my recorded presentations, which are available here, and in the Elearning Blueprint.
Hey Cathy! As someone new to the field, I’m truly enjoying here what you veterans have to say! I will be following your blog closely throughout my degree program!
I’ve noticed that when it comes to any kind of system training or EAT type courseware, most eLearning shops opt for method one. Almost any other type of courseware follows the action mapping process, I think – whether its behavioural or skills training or management and leadership. As an ID, you want to know about the business objectives behind the requirement so you can address any pain points and ensure that the courseware adequately addresses the stated need. The common assumption is that system training needs come from critical business needs and therefore need no more probing. In fact, it’s hard to convince sales guys to allow us to ask any further questions of the business. Its a battle I often fight although now I have some sneaky work-around strategies to help me get the information I need