Can we use training to motivate?

19 May 2013 By 9 Comments

In my previous post, I showed a flowchart that could help you find the best solution to a performance problem. Thanks to your comments and questions, I’ve improved the chart to make clear two of my opinions:

  • Training is rarely the solution for low motivation
  • When training could help, it’s best to let learners become motivated through experience (decision-making scenarios) rather than preaching at them (presentations)

First, you might want to download the revamped flowchart. Here’s how the motivation bit looks now:

Motivation section of the action mapping flowchart

I’ve added a new loop that sends you back to the main analysis node because low motivation is usually a side effect, not a core problem. It’s often caused by one of the other three problems in the chart.

  • Environment: High pressure, a poorly managed organizational change, user-hostile software, heavy-handed management … these can all lead to low motivation. Training is unlikely to help, unless you can train away the environmental problem, such as by improving managers’ skills.

  • Knowledge: If the employees who do the data-entry drudgery for the TPS reports don’t know the painful results of their screwups, they’ll be less motivated to avoid errors. For example, we could show them that a rejected TPS record can mean that a client doesn’t get the check she needs to buy medication. If this is included in the results of a branching scenario that we’re also using to practice entering TPS records, then I’d be willing to call it training. However, if it’s just a finger-wagging exhortation divorced from any application, it’s not training in my book.

  • Skills: If I don’t have the skill to quickly and painlessly parametize widgets, I will dislike having to parametize widgets. Give me training!

When low motivation can’t be blamed on anything else

I’ve heard several reports of “lazy” workers. “They just don’t want to do it,” the client says. “They don’t care.” [Read more...]

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: , , ,

Is training really the answer? Ask the flowchart.

7 May 2013 By 27 Comments

Here’s a flowchart that will help you identify the best solution to a performance problem, whether it’s a job aid, a workflow improvement, training, or something else. It’s based on action mapping, my streamlined approach to instructional design.

First, download the flowchart. Then consider watching the following 8-minute video, which walks you through a short discussion with a client, showing you how some quick questions can save you days of unnecessary training development.

Blurry? Click the little gear and choose HD. Not allowed to watch YouTube? Here’s the video on Vimeo.

What happens after the video?

So far, thanks to our questions, the client has identified ways to:

  • Make important reference information always up to date and available at the point of need
  • Make the rules for flagging easy to scan and apply at the point of need

These are permanent workflow improvements that avoid the need for training. At this point, the only training we’re going to develop is a very compact activity on identifying last names. It could probably be posted on the intranet with a link sent to everyone through email.

If we hadn’t used the flowchart and had simply obeyed our client’s request for training, we’d spend a lot more time developing something a lot less useful. We’d probably create an online course that starts with “Welcome to the course on completing TPS records.” We’d list objectives like, “At the completion of this course, you will be able to enter the correct XR code…” We’d probably “motivate” the learners by talking about the importance of completing the record properly and describing the costs of having our records rejected.

Then we’d tell people what they already know — that they have to log in to the annoying server to see the XR codes. We’d probably walk them through it “to make sure everyone knows how” and lecture them on the importance of using the updated sheet.

To “teach” the rules for flagging records, we’d probably display a chart of rules, give some examples, and then quiz the learners on whether they can remember the information that they saw five seconds ago and which they will forget by tomorrow if not later today. Finally, we’d include a little activity to help them practice identifying last names.

Within a month, we’d discover that people are still printing out the XR code sheet and failing to flag records properly.

Instead, just by asking some questions, we’ve helped the client identify permanent improvements, and we’ve freed up enough time to do a good job on the little name activity. The time that we don’t spend on creating unnecessary training becomes time we can invest on designing much higher quality activities.

What do you think? What did I miss? When the flowchart is all it can be, I’ll put it in the Elearning Blueprint, which this summer I hope to expand into more of a training blueprint.

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: , , , ,

What to do if they just want “awareness”

12 December 2012 By 14 Comments

“We just need everyone to be aware of the policy,” your client says. “I’ve sent you the 97 slides that we use in the face-to-face training. Could you have it ready by next Monday?”

Which of the following should you do next?

      a) Clear your schedule and open your PowerPoint converter software.
      b) Ask the client some questions.

If you want to avoid cranking out yet another information dump, you’ll ask questions. The questions will be designed to:

  1. Uncover the client’s business goal — discover how the project will measurably change the organization’s performance.
  2. Identify what people need to do on the job with their “awareness” and why they aren’t doing it.

The answers to these questions will help you design realistic, challenging activities that help learners apply the policy and improve the organization’s performance.

1. Uncover the goal

To find out how your project will improve the organization’s performance, try asking questions like these:

  • How do you know that people aren’t already aware of the policy?
  • How is that lack of awareness affecting the performance or earnings of the organization?
  • What are you currently measuring that could be affected by awareness of the policy? (sales, lawsuits, etc.)
  • How will that measure improve when everyone is aware of the policy?

For example, a client might say that they want to increase awareness of the information security policy. To the above questions, they might answer:

  • “We know people aren’t aware of the policy because we’ve had some leaks of confidential information about clients and employees.”
  • “I guess this affects our earnings as a business — it’s expensive when someone sues us, and sales could go down if customers decide they can’t trust us.”
  • “I think the information security people can tell us how many leaks they’ve seen in the last year.”
  • “When everyone is aware of the policy, we should have fewer leaks.”

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: , , ,

How action mapping can change your design process

18 January 2012 By 40 Comments

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:

  1. The client says, “I need a course.”
  2. You say, “Okay.”
  3. The client gives you a pile of content, the phone number of a subject matter expert (SME), and a deadline.
  4. 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.
  5. The client and SME approve the script and you go into production.
  6. The course is made available and your job is done.

action mapping for instructional designUsing action mapping:

  1. The client says, “I need a course.”
  2. You say, “Great. Let’s get together to make sure we all understand what you want the course to accomplish.”
  3. 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.
  4. In that meeting, you identify your business goal and how you’ll measure success. You also identify the behaviors needed to reach that goal.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. You get approval for the prototypes from the client.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. The client and SME approve the script and you go into production.
  11. 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!

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: , , ,

Technical training: What do they need to DO?

1 August 2011 By 16 Comments

Here’s a common question:

All employees have to know how to use our software. Why isn’t that a good enough goal for instructional design? Why should I go through action mapping?

My answer: If you don’t identify what people actually do with the software and design your training around that, you could create an information dump that helps no one and can’t justify its own existence.

Identify what they need to do, not what they need to know

People use software to do things. If you know what those things are, you can design easily updated job aids or online help for the most common tasks. Then your elearning, if it’s necessary at all, can use realistic scenarios to give learners a safe place to practice using the job aids.

For lots more on this and a before-and-after example of software training, see the Technical training section of the Elearning Blueprint, which is public and free.

Photo: (c) iStockPhoto

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: ,

How to design action-packed elearning

9 June 2010 By 9 Comments

Need to design lean, lively elearning? You might get ideas from this recording of a webinar that I gave today for the Baton Rouge ASTD.

It’s about 45 minutes long and shows how to use action mapping to quickly identify which content and activities will be most useful.

Information dump leads to cognitive overloadThe webinar shows how to:

  • Choose a goal that leads to a measurable business improvement
  • Brainstorm realistic activities that help learners apply their new knowledge on the job
  • Identify what content really needs to be included—and what can be cut
  • Decide what should information should go in a course and what should go in a job aid

You can also download a PDF of the slides, but they don’t make a lot of sense on their own.

I’ll publicize future webinars in this blog and through my Twitter account. I didn’t announce this one because it was my first time flying solo as both a presenter and moderator in Elluminate.

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: , , , ,

How to design elearning that’s memorable and budget-friendly

19 May 2010 By 19 Comments

Need to make an impact on a budget? You might find some ideas in this presentation.

It shows five decisions you can make that will help you save money and create more memorable elearning. It’s split into five short videos for easy idea-snacking and to meet the restrictions of YouTube.

Highlights include a matrix that helps you decide if training will solve the problem (part 2) and an example of a storyboard that emphasizes activities, not information (part 5).

Here’s the first part.

These links go to YouTube:

Part 1

  • Super-quick overview of action mapping
  • “Awareness” and “tracking” aren’t good reasons to create a course

Part 2

  • Handy matrix to help you answer, “Why aren’t people doing what we need them to do?”
  • Will a course really solve the problem?
  • Example of a multiple-choice question and feedback that simulate the real world

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Instructional design, Scenario design Tagged With: , , , , ,

The big mistake in elearning

10 May 2010 By 48 Comments

Here’s a short presentation that includes:

  • The one powerful change that will make our elearning a lot more effective
  • A quick demo of action mapping
  • A fun example of the type of information that should go in job aids
  • How to get people to stop telling you, “Turn this information into a course”

To see a bigger version on YouTube, click the movie when it’s playing. Can’t access YouTube? Here’s a Flash version.

To practice steering your client away from an information dump, you might try this challenge. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Featured instructional design, Instructional design Tagged With: , , ,

How to steer your client away from an information dump

13 October 2009 By 21 Comments

For a quick overview of the Action Mapping process described in this interaction, see Be an elearning action hero. For in-depth help with applying this process to your own materials, check out the Elearning Blueprint.

How I designed and built the scenario

Some people avoid creating branching scenarios because they seem too complex. In case it’s helpful, here’s the approach I took. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Elearning examples, Instructional design, Scenario design Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Why you want to focus on actions, not learning objectives

4 August 2009 By 62 Comments

Two fire fighters look at a fire
Pop quiz!

1. What do these people need to do?

A. Put out the fire

B. Describe the techniques used to extinguish a fire

 

 

 
Woman working at flower shop

2. What does this woman need to do to stay in business?

A. Sell flowers

B. Explain the principles of the flower-selling process

 

 

 

volunteer
3. This young man wants you to give him money. Which objective are you more likely to fund?

A. Build a home for a displaced family in Sudan

B. Describe how to build a home for a displaced family in Sudan

 

 

Learning objectives are wimpy

A typical learning objective focuses on what each person supposedly needs to know, ignoring whether this knowledge will actually lead to useful action.

Instead, to create elearning that changes real-world behavior, we have to first identify what people need to do, and only then decide if there’s anything that they need to know.

Identify the action, then the knowledge

Many people start their design by writing learning objectives. Instead, it’s helpful to first choose a business goal for your project and then identify each “action” needed to reach that goal. (See action mapping and the Elearning Blueprint for lots more on this.)

What’s an action?

An action: [Read more...]

Filed Under: Instructional design Tagged With: , ,
« Older Posts