Technology’s great, but…. (Part 1)

Years ago (I won’t say how many) before the days of PowerPoint and ipads and digital projectors, if one were tasked with making a presentation to a group of people, that automatically came with certain assumptions:

• It would have to be done onsite, in-person in other words…live.
• The presenter would be standing in front of a group of people.
• The presenter would address that audience by talking – in a loud and proud speaking voice coming from the diaphragm or into a microphone that would project their voice thru speakers to the large room.

Fast forward to the 21^st Century. Nowadays, speakers presenting to a group – unless it’s a recorded performance (e.g., YouTube) – are still going to be “in front” of a group of people. But, that can either be done from a remote location and synchronously broadcast “live” to audience location(s) OR…wait for it… The old-fashioned way – as in standing in front of a group of people in the same room, auditorium or whatever.

They still likely talk loud or have to use a microphone and if it’s a “live” event then the audience is either gathered in front of them or logged on by a given time expecting to listen to and watch the presentation.

Herein lies a key point to this blog entry; the show must go on as scheduled or the natives are gonna get restless.

Ever sat in an auditorium and waited as the time the presentation was supposed to be starting came…and went…and the speaker was still getting themselves ready several minutes past start time? Remember how uncomfortable, restless and perhaps even irked that made you feel? You took time out of your life to be there and made sure to be “in your place with your bright shiny face” at the appointed date and time…only to hurry up and have to wait.

Or perhaps you took time out of your life to be logged into your computer on that date and time with the necessary software to receive the live broadcast of the event up and going. And instead you hurried up only to have to wait because of technology difficulties at the presenter’s end. In addition to feeling restless, bored and even irked, remember how easy it was to get distracted and maybe even lured away from the presentation during this unexpected lull?

My point is this; the technology to give a PowerPoint presentation full of visual aids etc is great. The ability to “drive” that presentation and its projection from an iPad you hold while onstage is great. The ability to synchronously simulcast yourself and your presentation to a variety of learners and laptops at remote locations is great. But….

What if everybody’s all ready to listen to you and…your technology doesn’t work? Have you "been there" as a presenter? Did the seconds seem to turn into hours for you as you desperately tried to resurrect your technology and your material?

I was at a seminar once when a young graduate student thought herself "too leading edge" to put her presentation into simple old PowerPoint and before traveling to the conference had found some new whizbang presentation software that was just all full of "whistles and bells" to use instead. And she even spent a few minutes before she fired it up telling us all just how impressed we were gonna be with it...only to have it crash and refuse to power up.

As the seconds drug into seeming hours and she sweat an entire gallon of embarrassment out right in front of us, one of the conference attendees (a consultant for someone in industry) slammed her laptop shut, declared her client was NOT paying her $500 an hour to sit there and watch this girl flop because of uncooperative technology and stormed out.

My advice to you? At least for in-person presentations is always, always, always prepare a good, old-fashioned version of your presentation that doesn’t involve ANY technology. JUST IN CASE. A “manual backup” to your planned presentation, if you want to think of it in 21^st Century digital concepts.

In other words, be careful just how dependent your presentation is going to be on that technology and plan for it to fail you. In other words, have a backup plan that you can immediately speak with and present that doesn’t involve technology at all. That way, should your technology fail you at the wrong time you can still provide your audience with something and on schedule.

My advice? Heed the motto of the Boy Scouts of America and “Be prepared.”

Technology’s great, but…. (Part 2)

I think back to when I took Basic Public Speaking in college. I know it’s hard for Millennials and those even younger to imagine this, but that once was a world without mobile phones – at all – or almost any kind of personal computer (Commodore 64 and the Apple II being leading edge stuff at the time) and certainly no software like Microsoft PowerPoint or Word.

Back then it was just considered common presentation sense that a speaker’s visual aids were there to support his or her presentation and the points being made to the audience. Not, repeat NOT, the other way round.
Somewhere as we sped along the Information Superhighway on our way into the Digital World, this knowledge has been lost.

Case in point; have you ever witnessed a presentation where the speaker and his obligatory PowerPoint presentation just absolutely bombarded you with graphic after graphic after graphic?

Yeah…. Me too. Can you remember any of the main points of that presentation?

Yeah…. Me either. So, at the end of the day, if the audience can't remember the points of the presentation, what did that presenter and all their cutsie image bombardment gain - for you or for them?

Audiences rarely – if ever – had to endure death by imagery before we put the tools to rapidly and, I would purport, excessively build a profuse amount of images into our presentations – Hello; PowerPoint. That technology is great, but like any tool, there’s a right use of it and a wrong use.

The main points I’m trying to make are these:

• Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
• Use graphics only to support, not be your presentation.
• Use your graphics sparingly so they have the impact desired. Too many graphics [or other “whistles and bells,” for that matter] in a presentation and they lose their effect.
• Use only graphics that present the point better than you can explain them. A great example of this would be demonstrating using an item that to do so in person would be prohibitive or unsafe – e.g., using a fire extinguisher in a classroom makes a mess. But a video demonstrating the proper use of the extinguisher to put out a fire does what can’t be done as effectively in the classroom.

The overuse of graphics is not only the signature of someone who doesn’t know any better. Worse, it causes your audience to disengage with your presentation and miss its main points.

Or, to put it "visually:"

Beware the siren's seductive song. It will absolutely destroy your conversion/transition project.

Too often, people think courseware development is so quick, easy (and cheap) - particularly transitioning courseware from classroom to web deployment or creating another similar from an existing (e.g., between models of a product line).

But what a siren's song of disaster such a misconception becomes when actually try to transition the material. 

Case in point; recently I was tasked with transitioning training content between two different models of machinery from the same product family. I'll refer to them from here on as Model A and Model B.

I'd been provided the audio narration text from the existing elearning course for Model A and was trying to convert it to the features, functions and operation of Model B variant of the product line. Similar, yes; but with enough differences to require a thorough screening of the content and a lot of research. As the saying goes, "the devil is in the details."

So over the course of a day, I spent 3 hours researching various technical publications on both models trying to verify whether or not one component of Model A was installed in Model B and if so, exactly how it functioned in B compared to A. I finally had to consult an experienced technician who'd spent about three decades of his life maintaining and repairing the two models. Even so, it took him about 40 minutes chunking through a gozillion pages of the maintenance manuals, wiring diagrams and a whole host of other technical documents just trying to answer that one question one one part of the machine.

That's the kind of time- and budget-eating activity that folks who haven't ever done courseware development either don't know or - even worse - if they won't listen about from those who do know - can really bite 'em in da bahind on a courseware transition project.

Conversations with the Course Champion 1

A basic first step of any successful learning design/courseware development project – be it for the classroom or for Elearning – involves analysis. Usually it’s a needs analysis determining what the problem is and whether or not training may or may not be able to rectify it. (But, that’s the subject of another blog I wrote on that sometime back.)

More to the point answering a few simple questions before everyone gets started.

Right at the start ask the course champion (or perhaps the Subject Matter Expert) “What does a successful outcome from this learning project being proposed look like?” Another way to ask that is “What do you expect the takers of this course to be able to do after they’ve completed it?”

If about this time they give you a blank stare like you’d get if you’d just asked them to define exactly how high is “Up,” then you can guide the discussion further using questions like “Are we just making the learner familiar with the content? Or are we striving to make them proficiency with it?” (And yes, there IS a difference between those two concepts – a big difference.)

That difference usually gets brought to the forefront with your next question, “How will that be measured exactly?” Now you’re asking evaluation methods which can be anything - a knowledge test, a skills demonstration (practical exam some used to call it) and including the issuance of some kind of credentialing for successfully passing said measurement. It could even involve some minimal measurement at the end of the learning event(s) followed by a “transfer to the job setting” follow-on measurement at some given interval (e.g., 6 months) after having reported for duty after the training.

By the end of this portion of the course champion interview – and quite honestly, that’s what it really is -  your instructional design juices should be flowing pretty well and the courseware developer wheels in your head should beginning to spin with ideas about what direction to go with the training. But, I would encourage you to get the answer to some other questions before you begin laying out your design.

These questions involve your typical learner’s demographics – age, first language, skillsets and abilities and credentials they possess coming into the training. There’s nothing more embarrassing (and hugely wasteful) than to build an entire course outline, timeframe and budget based on certain assumed language proficiency, knowledge level etc only to find out it hugely wrong and your course with a huge gap in it that there’s not time and budget left to develop a fix for.

Moral to the story: Never assume anything at the outset of a learning project. Ask anything and everything about you can . And start with expectations and definitions.

Repurposing with eyes wide open

We’re all continually forced to keep “doing more with less.” Everyone is facing it - big and small business, even the public school systems – and in every aspect. It’s just the times we live and work in.

As a result, repurposing is an option that has more appeal than ever. Repurposing – also known as using something created for one use for another use that may or may not be similar to what it was designed for – can be a very useful and effective solution.

If we go into it with our eyes wide open.

By that I mean, we have to realize that – all things considered – whatever we’re trying to repurpose wasn’t designed or built for the task we’re trying to use it for. If it was, using it wouldn’t be repurposing it at all. It would be using it for what it was made for.

But it wasn’t.

So, in repurposing we have to keep in mind that what we’re repurposing won’t fit the use 100+% and won’t do anything and everything we might need. But as long as it’s close or does most of them, then that’s the compromise we make in repurposing.

But if we do repurposing right, we will have went into it with eyes wide open to these compromises and are willing to put up with them to realize the cost benefit the repurposing allows us to reap by preventing a more expensive custom-built or new perfect solution.

Just to be clear; let me say again, I think repurposing is fine. We just have to go into it knowing there will be some compromises and it most likely won’t be a 100% perfect solution. But using a repurposed something allows us to hit most of the objectives and saves time and/or money.

Common sense, you say? I agree. But you’d be surprised how many times the “it’s not a perfect solution” can get trampled over and forgotten in a project - especially when project team members or project managers change..

Case in point; I was a participant on a project (but not the project mgr) where a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) software package was being purchased. At first, the software was selected because it filled almost the entire list of needs.

But...as time went by, more groups joined the project and next thing we knew our project had team members from different groups getting in arguments with one another, ladies in tears and all kinds of calamity and drama. Why all the fuss? Because the new stakeholder groups and personnel came into the project - late - with more desired features than the project originally started out with. You guessed it - scope creep! - and they'd allowed it to cloud the knowledge that the COTS software wasn't a custom built solution. Instead, it had been selected because it was being repurposed, if you will, to fit most - but not all - of our needs in one solution.

So, repurposing something is fine. But keep your eyes wide open and realize it wasn't custom built solution. In short, it ain't gonna be perfect. But, it works.

Of "knowns" and "unknowns...."

OVERLOAD!

When sitting in some kind of adult learning situation trying to learn something – a new piece of software, the latest regulatory changes to impact your field or even just learning what and how a coworker does in her job so you can cover her duties while she’s on vacation – have you ever felt like so much new information was coming your way that your head was about to explode from it all?

Learning theory types call this cognitive overload. This is the condition where your brain has way too much new stuff coming at it way too fast to process, archive and tag it all for later recall.

As educators/teachers/trainers/Workplace Learning Professionals/Whatever New Buzzword our profession is referred to by, we need to stay cognizant of this problem and do everything we can to prevent this condition in our learners. But, how to do that effectively is the challenge.

As a solution, I’d suggest taking advantage of the Law of Primacy. That’s the Learning Law that says that, being people, the things we all learned first are those that create the strongest impressions in our minds. In other words, what we learn first is what is learned best (lasts the longest in our memories).

Another variant of this idea is to say that what people already know has a more permanent position in their minds than the new information or skill that they’re learning does.

So, let’s take advantage of that by teaching “from knowns to unknowns.” That’s perhaps just a fancy way of saying let’s narrow down what we’re trying to teach them by focusing on what might be different about the new material from what they already know. 

Some examples to help illustrate the point:

• “Remember how Microsoft Word used to have file extensions of .doc? Well in those created using Microsoft Word 2007, they’re .docx files now – the ‘x’ at the end meaning…..”
• “You know how the umptywidget in the Acme models works, right? Well, that same component in the Binford models works exactly the opposite of that.”  
• “Most of the new employee health insurance package is the same as it used to be. But, here’s the 3 things that are different in the new plan….”

Taking learners from their knowns to the unknowns (new stuff) builds on what they already know (the Law of Primacy) and reduces the quantity of the new material coming at them (reducing cognitive overload).  This makes for a far more comfortable, effective and enjoyable learning and teaching experience.



Graphic source: My own creation in PowerPoint.

So...what's on the radio?

So, you’ve found out you have to give a presentation, write an article or teach a class in the near future. You’re starting to make your outline but you’re drawing a blank as to where to start.

Why should you invest the brief amount of time it will take you to read this entry? Actually, we’ll come back to this point later.

For now, to get you started on your outline, may I suggest you listen to the radio? Specifically, I suggest you to tune into WII-FM.

Before you reach for your iPod or call up iTunes on your iPad or actually head over to your home entertainment center, I should tell you I’m not referring to any kind of electronic device. Rather, I’m referring to you tuning into What’s In It For Me. Not you specifically but your audience.

In other words, your talk or article isn’t all about you. Just the opposite.

Put yourself in their position. What’s in it for them to listen to your talk or read your article? Why should they devote the time and energy to pay attention to what you have to say? Here’s a couple of examples:

·        

• You’ve been tasked to give a presentation at your next staff meeting intending to change the way your coworkers fill out an expense report. The WII-FM approach would be to tailor your presentation to emphasize how doing their reports differently will result in them getting their reimbursement money back faster.
• You are writing a blog entry hoping to pass on some of your wit and wisdom about how to give effective presentations or write interesting articles. Thinking from the perspective of your audience and answering for them – all the way through it - the question of “What’s In It For Me” to read that blog entry significantly increases not only the chance they’ll actually read it all the way through and to act on your suggestions.

Personally, I’ve experienced great success using the WII-FM approach. I know you will too. Best of luck on your upcoming presentation or the article you’re writing.

Dave's “Rule of 10” for changing ILT into elearning

Experienced elearning instructional designers often get naïve directions to “take the course that Joe has been teaching in the classroom for years, digitize it and get it out on the internet.” That’s often times followed by “It shouldn’t take more than a couple weeks to do that, right?” And most of the time both of those statements have been preceeded with assumptions and proclamations about how cheaply it can be done.

Transitioning existing Instructor-led Training (ILT) into elearning could be the subject of a dozen blog entries. But, this particular entry will discuss what I call the “Rule of 10.”

Firstly, ILT and elearning have about as much in common as a cruise ship does with a submarine. They both transport people and they both do so in or on the ocean. After that…. Well, that’s about it.

Yes, an ILT course and an elearning course both have similar content and a similar audience. After that…. Well, that’s about it.

For example, the instructor is the primary deliverer of the content in an ILT course. But, in the elearning world, the computer monitor and speakers are what delivers the content. Hence, while an ILT audience watches and listens to the instructor, the elearning audience watches the monitor and listens to the audio.

Additionally, while the instructor may in fact leave the same graphic (“slide”) up on the screen for lengthy presentation about it, the audience doesn’t necessarily become bored with it because the instructor and what is being said – in other words not just the slide image - is the main focus of the learners’ attention. Learner engagement is done through voice inflections, hand gestures, visual aids beyond or outside the slide on the screen and so on.

Quite the opposite is going on in the elearning world.

During the elearning presentation, the learner has nothing else to look at than what’s on the computer monitor. Hence, learner engagement is established and maintained through audio talent voice inflections and what’s happening on that monitor.

I’d like you to try something. Do a Google search for “Abraham Lincoln” and select an image of Abe. Put it on your monitor full screen. Then have someone read something to you for 90 seconds. (The actual text of Lincoln’s Gettysburg address works well for this exercise.)

How did you do? Were you able to concentrate on what was being read to you? All the way for 90 seconds? If you’re like most people, your mind would start to become bored with the visual of Lincoln pretty early on and your mind likely started to wander and your listening to and retention of what was being read suffered.

Enter, Dave’s “Rule of 10.” Staring at the same static image for even 30 seconds while the audio “speaks” can dull the senses to the point of losing engagement. Engagement lost is content comprehension and retention lost.

Back to the task of converting Joe’s ILT course into elearning. In his instructor notes he has multiple 

bullet points noted to present on only one slide (graphic) on the screen. By now you’re probably asking, why doesn’t Joe suffer that same problem of losing learner engagement in the classroom presentation of that same material then? Why does the Elearning version need a whole bunch of graphics to present that content?

Great questions. The answer is because Joe can move about, look learners in the eye, gesture, point to or hold up other objects supporting his points and a host of other things. In other words, because the instructor is the focus not the graphic on the screen.

So, what is Dave’s “Rule of 10?” Simply this; if you’re challenged to transition an existing ILT course into an elearning course – or you’re supposed to take some other kind of live presentation and turn it into something web-deployable – you need 10 times the graphics that you would need to make that same presentation in front of a live audience. Because when the audience has nothing to do but stare at a monitor, you need several different graphics changing periodically to match their visual engagement to the audio points being presented.

If you don’t you have risk of 1) learners just staring at a black screen while the audio talks (i.e., no graphic to support audio) or 2) the…same…old…graphic..staying…on…the…screen…while…they… struggle…to…concentrate…on…what…the…audio…is…saying…and…OMG…is…that…ever…boring!

Beware: It’s not a miracle cure….

This entry is addressed more to the course champions and project managers of the world.

Imagine the football team that in the last 2 minutes of a tied game sees its big name quarterback come onto the field and…the team’s other 10 players just lay down on the grass and say, “Thank goodness you’re here. You take it from here and win this game for us.”

Believe it or not, this can happen in effect when a credentialed, seasoned instructional designer (ID) effort gets brought into a project. So, a word to the wise here, course champions and others – be it an individual or outsourcing to a whole team of IDs – is not, contrary to what you might think, the miracle cure for a project.

That’s right. Doing so won’t end hunger or bring about world peace either.

I know; it’s disappointing to hear this.

But, I think it’s necessary for everyone amongst The Powers That Be in a courseware initiative to understand this. Just because you bring in folks with courseware development credentials etc – while we can and often do some outstanding educational product development – we are only as smart or dumb as productive or not as your system keeps us.

By this I mean bringing in credentialed ID help doesn’t exonerate the other members of the process from contributing their fair share to the goals of the project. The course champion will still need to procure project funding, subject matter experts (SMEs) will still have to contribute both input and expertise and so on.

Remember; your design team, be they one or a hundred strong, is only is only as effective as the supply of content resources, SME expertise and availability etc keeps them.

If the data or expertise from which content will be built is not made available then you can’t expect a miracle from the ID portion of the team when it’s kept deaf, dumb and blind in the process. One option would be providing the ID portion the opportunity to do independent research – within limits. Just realize research hours go against the timetable and budget.

If the SMEs aren’t made available to contribute basic materials and expertise for content to be developed, then don’t be surprised if the ID portion of the team doesn’t create much basic (alpha draft) content and the schedule begins to fall behind.

Similarly, if SMEs don’t conduct effective alpha, beta and final draft reviews using their professional expertise and give timely feedback to the ID portion, how does it know whether and how to make what changes and improvements to the draft so it is satisfactory?

Adding credentialed and seasoned instructional design professionals to your project can really help it go from just an idea to a very high-quality reality. (The sooner in the project’s lifespan they’re brought in the better.) Just realize that bringing them in doesn’t mean the rest of the entire project team can just abandon any involvement in it. They’re just as critical with an ID on board as before.

Remember, a project team is called a team for a reason. If your project manager doesn't watch out for this "laying down" possibility, your project could be doomed.

Scope creep. It's not just for projects. Part One.

Have you ever been in a class or training session with a list of objectives or modules that the instructor never gets to because time runs out before they do? Or...have you ever been that same instructor that always has more teaching points to get to and accomplish than you have class time left?

If so, may I make a couple of suggestions?

First, take a look at the instructional design of the training. Ask yourself, is all of what you see necessary to accomplish the course objectives as they're stated? If the answer is no, then you know what to do - trim it.

Now, before you form the thought that "It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools" in questioning the design of the training, let me point out that oftentimes experts tend to cram a course full of way more stuff than is needed to meet the course objectives. So, if you need to cut stuff out, by all means do so.

But, if an objective comparison of the course objectives to the content reveal that the content quantity is appropriate, then can the training schedule be expanded to add more time? If so, then add what's needed.

Or maybe the course needs to be broken into more than one course.

If you can't do any of that, then read the next entry for some further discussion....

Scope creep. It's not just for project management. Part Deux

In the previous entry, we discussed running out of training time before you as the course instructor have accomplished all the teaching objectives you need to.

And it was established that the material reveals that all the existing course content is absolutely necessary to accomplish the course objectives. And there's no way to add to the allotted class time either.

So, what to do? In such case, may I suggest that you look in the mirror?

That's right; give yourself and how you conduct yourself in the class an objective analysis. Specifically, how do you deal with questions from the class audience?

For example - and a very simplistic one at that (just to quickly make the point); you have just completed presenting the portion of the class session related to the enabling objective that the learner should be able to perform simple addition of whole numbers. You demonstrated this by performing the calculation of 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples and that adding 2 more apples would = 6 apples.

A learner speaks up and says, "Excuse me, but this math stuff is pretty cool the way it works! Who thought this science up and how did they discover it?"

Now you have a choice; you could "go down a rabbit trail" with the class and explain the history of mathematics discovery. And... after the class is over... you'll still be wondering why you ran out of class times before you'd accomplished all the teaching objectives.

Or, you could simply respond to the question by responding with, "That's a VERY good question. But, it's beyond the scope of this class/today's lesson [or whatever]. So, why don't we talk after class is over today and I'd be happy to tell you who discovered how math works."

Sounds simple enough, but how often do we as instructors do that? Sadly, not often enough. Be it due to an eagerness to answer every student's every question, show off how much more we know about the subject or other motivations, the cold hard truth is all too often instructors go down those rabbit trails and, consequently, run out of class time before running out of teaching points.

Moral to this story? Let the scope of the course objectives dictate how you respond to out-of-scope questions that might come up during class. If the question is within the scope of the class, by all means answer it right then. If it's outside scope, defer it to an after class discussion.

Why use Single Points of Contact (SPCs)?

Have you ever participated in a scavenger hunt? If so, then you know what it’s like to go from place to place and have to find the various items on the list- all in hopes of getting them all before the other participants do.

This is what it can be like sometimes for busy professionals who need things – information, parts, photographs or whatever the need be.

That’s where having an organizational “single point of contact” can really help manage the project’s flow of needs and help the project meet the deadline.

How so, you may be asking?

Well, think of it like the old time grocery delivery boy. In those days, someone who was either too busy to shop for themselves or perhaps infirmed and couldn’t leave home still had to eat, right? So, grocers offered a service to customers allowing them to phone in their grocery lists and a few hours later a delivery boy would be knocking on the customer’s door ready to exchange the sacks of groceries for cash. (I know; that’s a service that went the way of doctors’ house calls and the Dodo bird. But it makes a great analogy to the single point of contact.)

In today’s world there is a glut of information deeply embedded in bureaucracies that one has to wade through to get it. Employees could spend hours or even days just locating the right person to talk to about something – particularly when interactions go across business units or companies.

Hence, it saves both time and budget dollars to flow things – as much as makes sense, at least – through single points of contact. Doing so will allow your employees to “one stop shop” as much as possible and get back to what you’re paying them to do. They simply call, email or IM the appropriate single point of contact, tell them the need and get back to doing what they do best. The single point of contact takes the search process from there. When they have the item(s) requested, they simply flow them back to the appropriate requester.

Sounds logical, doesn’t it? It works. Trust me. I’d encourage you to try it – I think you’ll enjoy the many benefits of the concept. I've "done this for money" myself and I've also worked other projects involving SPCs. It's a wonderful project management  concept to employ.

Who’s really on the team II – who’s actually saying “no” by saying “yes?”

In my previous post (Who's really on the team...? (Introduction)) I pointed out that it’s sometimes hard for a project manager to know who is really supportive of a project’s goals and timelines and who isn’t. In other words, who is in reality saying “no” by saying “yes?”

While this can honestly be about as easy as “sorting fly poop out of black pepper,” it is critically important that a project manager go into the project looking for these folks. Not trying to advocate being pessimistic or paranoid, but if one or more of these kinds of people are involved in your project, it’s at risk. Plain and simple.

So…. How to figure out who these folks might be? Start with those who will be most affected by the change. Case in point; I was once a training manager for an FAA Part 135 air carrier. That’s more or less an airline - the big differences being the class of equipment (i.e., business jets and turboprop twins instead of 777s or Airbus 380s) and lack of a set schedule of routes and times. It was, as the industry terms it, “an on-demand charter operation.”

Most of our pilots were not employees of our charter company. Instead they were employed by someone who owned the business jet that used it in conjunction with their business most of the time but allowed it and their pilots to fly it for our charter company part time. The idea here was the owner got some extra revenue from his airplane through charter to help offset their cost of ownership.

Unfortunately, I saw way more instances than I really care to remember where our salesperson would take the owner and pilots out for a big expensive meal to help woo them into joining our charter ticket. As the wine flowed and the conversation centered around all the wonderful revenues said owner would receive from all these extra charter trips they could fly with their airplane (and their pilots) over and above their normal business trips.

Invariably the owner and his crews would all be saying “Yes, yes, yes. We can do this! Sign us up!” 

By now you’re probably already guessing the end of the story. The level of participation agreed to by these pilots sometimes didn’t live up to that promised.

Why? Picture this; you’re this owner’s pilots. You’ve just flown into home base from a long 4-day, 3-night trip. You’re looking forward to a little relaxation and time with the family. You haven’t been in the same state as your own home 6 hours and you get called from the charter company wanting you to head back out for another long charter trip – for which you’ll receive no extra pay. And this is the 4^th such call you’ve gotten this month. How motivated are you to accept the trip?

So, in this scenario, all these pilots got from their boss enthusiastically adding their aircraft to our charter certificate was what amounted to an extra part-time-plus job…for no money. Is it hard to believe that – despite their enthusiastic support of his signing the charter contract during the wine and steaks dinner - they’d turn down charter trips whenever possible.

Therefore, always keep your eyes open for the reasons why those “on the team” wouldn’t really want to support the team. Maybe it's job insecurity, maybe it's loss of status. Or maybe they just think the project will bring them more hassle. Whatever their objections might be, if possible, remove those objections for the health of the project.

Who's really on the team...? (Introduction)

Have you ever been told to execute on a project wherein the kick-off meeting all parties were smiling, nodding their heads and voicing their enthusiasm about the project? Have you then later experienced some of these same seemingly enthusiastic and approving people seem to be doing everything they can to not support the effort?

Surprisingly, this is not all that uncommon an experience in project management. Hence, it’s critical for any project manager – official or otherwise – to identify who the real supporters are in a project. And, conversely, have contingency plans for working around those who aren’t – regardless of what they may say.

Case in point; a recent project I participated in required the input of a given person. My client – the project’s champion - required me to route any and all things through this one person and kept me dependent on them for any information, materials, access to expertise and so on.  

During the initial consultation with all parties, this person made several statements expressing agreement with the need for this project, the need for an outside consultant to come in (nobody internal had enough time to devote to the project so it would complete) and so on.  However, when it came down to it, despite multiple requests from me, this person gave me next to nothing in any of these areas. And the project stalled as a result. So, was this person truly as “on board” with the project goals as they had seemed to be? Or, is the reality the person is a project saboteur (unintentionally or perhaps otherwise)?

This person is an example of the kinds of barriers to progress that project managers need to identify and quickly so to keep a project moving towards completion. And have a counter to, but that’s a subject for another blog.

It's a training issue! Or...is it really?

As a trainer as well as an instructional designer, I’ve often been brought in on a preliminary training

development project and told “You need to retrain/develop a training program that will solve X problem.”

Let me say right off the bat that because a course sponsor or champion is so hard over that they want a training solution, sometimes trainers/IDs are given marching orders to do something and maybe even in a certain way and all they can do is salute smartly and get to work. But, if there’s any room at all to explore the issue, I’d advocate that perhaps some further information is needed before deciding just what the solution is to X problem.

For example, I would start off evaluating if X issue is a performance problem or not. Certainly if it’s a knowledge problem or skills problem, then, sure; a training solution is likely an effective solution. But what if it’s deeper than that?

Let’s explore a scenario that will illustrate this;

Joe has the highest scrap rate of anyone in the shop. I’d suggest the exploration begin with the “5 Whys.” Hypothetically, let’s explore the Joe scenario with these

a.      The first one is the most obvious, but also the main objective; “Why does he have the highest scrap rate?” Maybe he’s new to the skill and still coming down “the learning curve” to the point that he doesn’t waste so much material. If that’s not it – or you sense that’s not the whole root cause – then ask another why – based on your findings, course.

b.      Second, begin drilling down by asking perhaps “Why is Joe’s output levels the lowest of anyone in that shop?”

c.      Come to find out, he’s also got the most machine maintenance requests of the team. And “Why might that be?”

d.      Apparently his machine needs recalibrated at least twice a shift. “Why?”

e.      Because his machine slips out of tolerance so frequently and easily, you discover. “Why might that be? Because his machine is the oldest, the highest operational time (in other words the most worn out) machine on the floor.

Do you think that any of this could perhaps be contributing to the symptom of the problem of highest scrap rate? Right there, you’ve uncovered at least a major contributor to the scrap rate. Certainly a simple knowledge or skills retraining solution isn’t going to solve Joe’s “worn out machine” problem and hence, not the scrap rate problem either.

You get the idea here. Keep asking why’s – each based on the last findings – until you uncover the root cause. Once you know the root cause, then you can begin crafting a truly effective solution. Otherwise, automatically jumping to the conclusion that someone just needs more training and then things will improve is wasteful of time, resources, morale and personnel.

In the end, you’re best off exploring with the course champion right at the get go if this performance “problem” is really a training issue or not. If it is, great! Create the best one possible and implement it - using best practices, of course. If it isn’t then drill down until you find what the root cause is and then move to address that.

Or, you’ll likely wish you had…. Just sayin’….

Worried about speaking/teaching/presenting in front of an audience? Here's the cure!

So, you have to put on a presentation in the near future…. Maybe your profession doesn’t require you to do much public speaking and you’re nervous about doing this. Or maybe you do some public speaking but you’re still kind of nervous about the whole idea.

The reasons why you’re nervous might vary – you haven’t done much public speaking; or perhaps you have to put on a presentation with new and unfamiliar material; maybe it’s a completely new audience you’ll be in front of; or it could be that maybe you’re delivering it via a different method (e.g., Skype vs. in-person).

Presenting virtually vs in-person is a subject I will leave for a different day.

But, I’ve done all kinds of public speaking, so I will address this day some of the things I’ve learned about doing so.

To begin with, I’d  offer up that everyone feels at least some level of anxiety before speaking in public. So, what you’re feeling is perfectly normal.

Secondly, whether you are a novice public speaker or you do so routinely, I would offer you that the best answer for giving a great presentation is – are you ready for this? – the same method as it’s been since probably the ancient Greeks first perfected the art of oratory; 

• BE PREPARED! STUDY! KNOW YOUR STUFF!
• Practice, practice, practice!

Yep. That’s alllll there is to it. Really.

A note of caution though; that’s also (in its own way) a very big tasking. If it’s only a speech-type of presentation you should know every key point of your talk and the supporting statements in it.

If it’s a training presentation, then you need to go beyond that and know as much as possible about each key point - as in well beyond those key points. That way you can anticipate audience questions and be better prepared to answer them.

Take note; being as familiar as possible with the material is only half the battle. The other half is practicing your presentation. Practice is, IMHO, every bit as important as the preparation.

Why? because it’s right here that you win the audience. It’s in the practice phase that you 1) become ultra-familiar with the material, its order and flow and when you are bringing what points to completion.

The practice phase is also where you perfect your tone, voice inflections, rhythm and – this is often overlooked but is quite critical – you learn where your vulnerabilities are. It’s THIS phase that allows you to make eye contact with your audience (and keep it) during your talk. Why? Because you are so familiar with the material and the order in which you’re presenting it – you’ve practiced it over and over and over again - that you know what’s coming and when it’s coming in the presentation.  So, you’re able to and comfortable enough to not stare at your speaker notes or the visual aids you’re using in your talk (If you’re using PowerPoint in your presentation, I’m lookin’ at you, here).

And…. If there’s any vulnerabilities in your talk, any emotional threats to your speaker voice, this is where you’ll discover it and prepare your defense to it.

Here’s an example of what I mean by a vulnerability; a few years ago, I was asked to deliver the eulogy at a funeral. Like every other talk I give or presentation I make, I made time in my schedule to rehearse this eulogy multiple, multiple times. That way I not only knew when to accent what, when to pause for effect etc so much that my delivery seemed utterly and absolutely natural, but also I knew when my voice was liable to crack with emotion.

What’s the “cure” for those vulnerabilities? Practice saying them – out loud – again, again, again and again and again. Does that remove the emotion? No. But, it helps you know when the vulnerable phrase is coming and helps you condition your voice to stay strong and natural during those particularly vulnerable phrases.

So, you have to put on a presentation in the near future…. And you’re nervous about it. Cut yourself some slack and remember that everybody feels somewhat nervous before speaking in public. Then make some time in your schedule to get as familiar with the topic list as you can. Then sequester yourself someplace private for a few hours and practice it – out loud, with gestures and increasing eye contact - as many times as possible.

If about now you’re thinking; “That doesn’t sound like public speaking, that sounds like actors memorizing and saying lines in a play.” To that, I’d say; “Yep. You’re right. Both situations utilize a lot of the same techniques.”

So, go! Prepare! Practice! Then give that presentation! You’ll do a smashing good job!

Announcing; My new teaching and instructional design blog is up and running!

I've decided to launch a blog offering my 2 cents (maybe what its worth) from my experience teaching and developing courseware. 

As fellow instructor/facilitator types,just for kicks, I put you on the publish list. (Please advise if you want me to remove you.)

I've prepared a series of initial entries to launch it with. You can read them at http://instructionalsolutions2.blogspot.com/.

Enjoy.

DN

Some instructional design humor

Remember; courseware development is glamorous!  

Time.... is what we want most but use the worst. (Wm Penn)

How many times have you been in a class or a workshop or some other event and the facilitator tells you to turn to the person next to you or huddle with the folks at your table and for five minutes brainstorm, discuss or analyze a given point, a situation or a mini-case study?

Before you answer, think about the demographics of the people in the audience – at least those you’d just been asked to interact with. Did you know them? At all? Were you comfortable opening up and sharing your thoughts and opinions on the subject with them? Had you had enough time to think through the question, case study or whatever yet to form an opinion on it?

Have you ever been to such an event and felt like you or perhaps your group was just beginning to engage with the question when the facilitator says BUZZ! Time’s up; time to turn around and report to the audience what you or your team came up with. And you’re left thinking, “Wait a minute! We’re just getting started here.”

Often, far too often, presenters get so eager to 1) involve the audience in some participatory exercise and 2) to keep things moving and on schedule that rarely is there adequate time allotted for people to properly engage with the material and their peers to give effective input.

And hence, this becomes more an exercise to say we did rather than to actually and effectively do.

In fairness, it’s easy for we facilitators who are oh-so-familiar with our topics to mistakenly assume our audiences are almost equally as familiar with the material. Hence, it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that such exercises really won’t take that long to accomplish with our audience.

Most workshops, meetings and the like where this technique is – IMHO – ineffectively implemented are attended by folks who hardly know one another. They may be industry peers or even members of the same company or group in a company but there’s a LOT of dynamics for facilitator’s to consider here and design into the agenda.

For one, even if these people know one another intimately and are very comfortable speaking their mind in one another’s presence, not everyone analyze something and form thoughts about it at the same speed. So time should be built in for these different rate people to all have adequate time.

And, some people may be shy in general and take awhile to warm to the group they’re teamed with at the event enough to feel comfortable offering an opinion about anything to the others.

Dynamics like these are all things that facilitators should consider when laying out the agenda. And – most importantly – and they must be designed into the presentation and the timetable. Otherwise you risk participant frustration, disengagement or continued discussion amongst audience members as the facilitator tries to get things moving along.  

The best instructional design is often...when less is more.

The world famous scientist Albert Einstein once said, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex…. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”

Leonardo da Vinci said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

Yet when training courses are designed and laid out, it amazes me how much emphasis is put on doing something – e.g., putting in tons of graphics (for instructor-led presentations or putting all kinds of  functionalities in Elearning course)…well, just because we can.

Certainly, in today’s world, amazing technology is in the hands of common everyday people (GoPro video cameras, smart phones and their built in cameras, video/audio editing apps, and the like). And most of it is really pretty cool stuff. I mean, don’t get me wrong; I’m not anti-technology. It really is cool to be able to take a GoPro camera bought at Best Buy on a dive in a shark cage off the coast of Brazil and upload the video you shot of the sharks that swam by to YouTube that evening.

But, when it comes to learning courses, oftentimes there’s a lot of wisdom in the phrase “Less is more.”

However, often people decide to convert current fully-functional courseware into the latest, greatest software just…because it’s available and would seem to be the most sophisticated thing to do. Really? Was there something wrong with the current platform – like it didn’t work? Can it be updated? Otherwise, maybe it should be left alone under the advice of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Case in point; I was at a large symposium recently in Washington, DC. A young lady from a university that shall remain nameless made a big deal when she got up to present how she knew we all must’ve been tired of seeing PowerPoint presentations and that she’d went out and found some new software platform to host her presentation that was going to blow us away.

Maybe it would. But she never got that far because the software wouldn’t launch. Maybe it was the wireless connection there (which admittedly left a lot to be desired), maybe it was her computer or maybe it was who knows what? But, it wouldn’t work. And she and her presentation content slowly disintegrated on stage – painfully, for us in the audience. So, you know it had to be utter agony for her.

What’s the point here? The point is, progress is nice and “doing something different” has its place in keeping audiences engaged. But, one has to go into these things carefully. What works in the office on a T-1 cable or something may not work at all out in the field working on a wireless network.

And, while I’m on a roll here, how much flash and zing does one need to make the point and keep the audience engaged? My advice is keep it simple – do only that amount of animation, etc. Doing so will keep it simple and dependable.

Right about now some of the PowerPoint abusers and techies are probably fuming at their screens as they read this. PowerPoint abusers think that they the speaker are there to support the visual aids rather than the other way around. I’m sure you’ve seen these folks in action with presentations from the podium that have all kinds of images flying round each slide literally bombarding the audience with so many graphics and often images so captivating the audience stops listening to the presenter. Instead of listening, they’re studying a graphic either captivated by the beauty of the image or…wondering what the hell is that a picture of?”

Our techie friends who seem to think that only robust technology and functionalities can accomplish anything – especially in elearning – really struggle with the “less is more” philosophy. If the audience analysis, needs analysis, available time and allocated project budget show that a change to a more recent, robust and/or complex technology solution is the way to go, then by all means do it.

But, my point here is that if it doesn’t, then don’t go that way. Elearning audiences really can be reached and taught effectively – with sophistication and elegance, I would purport - by a less robust approach. In furtherance of the point I offer this example of pure instructional design brilliance: