by Rachel Pledger
December 11, 2022

This past summer, my colleague “Shay”–an instructional designer–was working with an internal client to develop an eLearning about operational security. Unfortunately, priorities shifted before she was able to publish the course and when our client was ready to continue development efforts, Shay had already accepted a job at a different company. 

When our internal client requested we re-open training development, my manager asked me to take the reins.

During Shay’s tenure, we didn’t have any course development processes, requirements, or standards in place yet. As she was the sole designer at the time, Shay dove straight into development since, at that point, she felt there was no reason to document a process that only she would need to follow. 

Makes sense, right? 

Of course, hindsight proved that without any paper trail or warm handoff to illuminate our client’s training needs, I found that six months later I was very much in the dark on the project requirements. The only material I had to guide me was the unfinished eLearning. 

If you’re in the talent development field, it’s likely that you’ve been in a similar situation–or will be in the future. Like every profession, colleagues come and go and it’s our job to take any pending projects to the finish line. Sometimes that work can be ambiguous, giving us the opportunity to put on our investigator’s cap and do some sleuthing.  

Let’s get started.

Phase 1: Getting the Project Back on its Feet

Phase 1 is all about getting your bearings. What is this project all about? Who is it for? What is it meant to help achieve? It is the most time-intensive phase, but when done with integrity, pays dividends down the line both in terms of quality and impact. 

1. Engage in Due-Diligence Analysis: Whenever I take over any training development, there are two things I want to validate right away: (a) Who is the target audience? and (b) What do we want them to be able to do? This analysis work is foundational to learning science and rightly comprises the first step of our field’s most influential human performance improvement (HPI) process models—from Joe Harless’ (1973) front-end analysis [4]; to Rummler and Brache’s Performance Matrix [11]; to Van Tiem, Moseley, & Dessinger’s (2012) Performance Improvement/HPT Model [12]. That’s because, in order to solve a problem, it must first be properly diagnosed. Only after we can clearly articulate the gap between current state and desired future state for a given audience can we begin to fathom what learning solutions will best drive performance. 

But, before heading straight to the client to perform a brand new needs analysis, roll up your sleeves to see what you can discover given the previous developer’s already-created content. My favorite way to do this is to reverse-engineer the content by placing it into a course outline. I then annotate the text as patterns emerge or questions surface. Usually, I’m able to achieve a relatively confident sense of the intended audience and learning objectives which I can use as a springboard for more targeted and informed lines of query when I speak with the client. 

2. Meet with the Client: After sifting through the materials the former developer left behind, you will have collected a number of questions that require client validation. Schedule a working session with your key stakeholders to re-scope the project. This is your opportunity to meet the client if you haven’t done so already, ask questions, re-establish buy-in, inspire confidence, and make sure that your learning solution re-design will meet their needs. Be sure to gather the following information before you walk away:

• Target Audience
• Learning Objectives
• Business Outcome

You likely have a long list of questions generated from your work during step 1, but if you’re having trouble coming up with question prompts, you might want to take a look at Mager and Pipe’s (1997) Performance Analysis Flow Diagram [7] or Joe Harless’ (1973) 13 smart questions [1].

3. Develop a Revised Project Charter: You’ve now had a chance to do some of your own analytical work and cross-reference your findings with the client. The odds that project needs have shifted since its initial kickoff are high, but even if your stakeholders have the same exact requirements for you as they did for the former project developer, you may interpret things differently, recognize an additional or different root cause, or come up with a more instructionally-sound solution to bridge the gap. These changing variables require a slightly different trajectory and, therefore, a revised project charter. Spend some time sketching out your new proposal, including the business case, deliverables, milestones, and constraints. Once available, schedule another working session with your stakeholders to ensure you are aligned on project strategy, goals, and timelines. New to developing project charters? No problem. You can get started using this free template from Project Risk Coach [3].

Phase 2: Dusting the Dirt Off Its Knees

In Phase 1, you’ve done the hard work of getting the project up off the ground and back on its feet. Now, it’s time to dust that metaphorical dirt off its knees and prepare it to run. When I inherited Shay’s eLearning, there were a number of unknowns, including learning objectives and business outcomes. Now that I’ve had a chance to level set with the client, those key elements are no longer a mystery to me. And, I want to make sure they won’t be a mystery to my target audience either! To improve this eLearning experience, I would begin by incorporating the following strategies: 

1. State the learning objectives: Knowles’ (1984) sixth assumption about adult learners is that they need to be told the reason for learning something new. It is therefore critical to explicitly state both the learning objectives and what they can expect to get out of the learning experience. Explicitly stating the learning objectives and connecting those objectives to concrete performance benchmarks will enhance this learning experience. 

A great learning objective includes four ingredients: the target audience or learner, what behavior they will be able to perform by the end of the training, under what conditions they will perform, and to what degree they will need to perform or it. For instance, this framework might yield a learning objective that reads “By the end of this module, pipe inspector’s [audience] will be able to identify the coating type applied to a metallic pipeline [behavior] through visual inspection [condition] with 98% accuracy [degree]. This is known as the ABCD Method [2, 8].  

2. Explain “What’s in it for me?”: In addition to learning objectives, adult learners need to be able to answer the question of, “What’s in it for me?”, or WIIFM. Keller (2017) argues that learners are more likely to engage with the training if they can clearly connect it with their goals, learning styles, and past experiences [5]. By keeping a training program’s relevance top-of-mind, you are more likely to increases participants’ intrinsic motivation, connecting for learners how the time they invent in the training will have a direct impact on their improved performance and/or key business outcome. 

Keller (1987) recommends a number of strategies to direct learners toward a learning program’s relevance [6], including: 

• Finding out what the learners interests are and relating them to the instruction
• Asking learner to relate the instruction to their own future goals
• Providing meaningful alternative methods for accomplishing a goal

Phase 3: Sprinting Towards the Finish Line

The final phase is now upon you–and this is the best part! Because the instructional design is now squarely in your court. Knowing where your project has been and where it needs to go, you can let your creative juices flow. Here are some ideas to get you started: 

1. Enhance interactivity levels: The course I inherited was largely designed with Level 1 interactivity, asking the learner to read through the information, maybe look at some images, then select Next to proceed to the next chunk of information. To improve knowledge retention and job transfer, it would be critical to find opportunities to build in Level 2 and Level 3 interactions, by adding in things like 

• Scenario-based problems tailored to the learner’s work context
• Short animated videos with voiceover to explain complex topics in simple ways
• Inquiry-based drag-and-drop, click-and-reveal, or hotspot interactions we can lift it from its current Level 1 to a Level 2 or Level 3 interactive experience [10].  

2. Activate prior knowledge or skills: Knowles’ (1971) second assumption in andragogy posits that adults bring a wealth of lived experience into any learning context which can–and should!–be tapped as an instructional resource. If we develop training without considering the professional knowledge, experience, and background of our audience, then we make it nearly impossible to engineer a “teachable moment” during which this lived experience intersects with knowledge application [9]. Doing the work of identifying and analyzing the target audience is, therefore, vital to enhancing the learning experience.

References

1. Bartley, J. (2021, August 31). Navigating front-end analysis. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved December 11, 2022, from https://learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/navigating-front-end-analysis 
2. Chyung, S. (2008). Foundations of Instructional Performance Technology. HRD Press. 
3. Hall, H. (n.d.) How to develop a project charter. The Project Risk Coach. Retrieved December 11, 2022 from https://projectriskcoach.com/how-to-develop-a-project-charter/ 
4. Harless, J. H. (1987). An analysis of front-end analysis. Nonprofit Management Leadership, 26: 7-9. https://doi-org/10.1002/pfi.4160260204
5. Keller, J. M. (2017). The MVP Model: Overview and Application. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. 

6. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and Use of the ARCS Model of Instructional Design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3): 2-10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30221294 

7. Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1997). Analyzing performance problems or you really oughta wanna (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: CEP Press, p. 5. 

8. Malamed, C. (2021). Writing Performance-Based Learning Objectives: Part 1. The eLearning Coach. Retrieved December 11, 2022 from https://theelearningcoach.com/elearning_design/two-types-of-learning-objectives-part-i/ 
9. Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. 

10. Muqeet, Bilal. (2018, January 10). 4 Levels of Interactivity in eLearning and its Advantages. eLearning Industry. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://elearningindustry.com/levels-of-interactivity-in-elearning-advantages-4 

11. Rummler, G. & Brache, A. (n.d.) The 3 Levels of Performance. Rummler-Brache Group. Retrieved December 11, 2022, from https://www.rummlerbrache.com/3-levels-performance 

12. Van Tiem, D., Moseley, J. L., &  Dessinger, J. C. (2012). Fundamentals of Performance Improvement: Optimizing results through people, processes and organizations (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/boisestate/reader.action?docID=821765&ppg=1