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’….