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: