Last week Chris Adams and I attended the 10th Annual United States Coast Guard Human Performance Technology Workshop in Williamsburg, VA. You can read about the event at www.USCGHPT.org.  The three day event drew 435 participants and the keynote speaker for the event was Dr. Sivasailam Thiagarajan, better known as "Thiagi." This was not really an official ISPI event, but it felt like one. I attended several sessions and found the "Coasties," as they are affectionately called, are ISPI people to the core. The sessions I chose to attend were all case studies. I have never seen HPT practiced so well and as consistently as I did with these Coast Guard members and their contractors. If you want to see real HPT in action, you might want to attend this conference next year. Chris and I attended this conference with our new partner Vector, CSP, based in Baltimore, MD and Elizabeth City, NC. We are currently working on a project with Vector to make 500 maintenance procedures available to personnel on the Coast Guard’s 87 foot cutter. The procedure will be stored in our Handshaw’s Lumenix Content Management System and made available on a hand-held device throughout the boat. Rosalind Lambeth from Vector presented a case study on the project Friday morning and Chris Adams and I followed with our presentation on the application of Content Management Systems for performance support and learning.

Instructional designers object to developing learning solutions without being given the time and resources to conduct adequate analyses and evaluations. Instructional design books seldom dedicate enough content to address this common problem. However, in Training That Delivers Results (2014), Dick Handshaw not only guides practitioners to manage analysis and evaluation constraints, he helps them improve training design while adding value for clients. The structure of the book is a logical orientation to the Handshaw instructional design model: an integration of human performance technology (HPT) principles with the ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation) model. Training That Delivers Results:Instructional Design That Aligns With Business Goals (2014; ISBN: 978-0-8144-3403-1) is published by AMACOM (paperback).www.handshaw.com/DH/ISPIReview.pdf

Lou Solomon of Interact Authentically is one of those customers who have had a profound impact on Handshaw and on me personally. Several years ago, she asked me to help her with the design of her Authentic Speaking workshops. It turned out to be one of those experiences where you go with the intention of helping someone else, and get more out of it than you put into it.  I gave Lou a few pointers for her workshop in a document that she still has and claims to use to this day. I pointed out that her ability to help people develop their own authentic style of communicating, rather than trying to make them sound like someone else, is her differentiation and her great gift. Then, she went to work on me and my authentic style. I recently embarked on a new direction in my career. I am spending a lot more time speaking at national conferences and at various ISPI and ASTD chapters. It seems only natural that as I embark on the new path I should partner with Lou Solomon. I will be presenting a series of workshops called "The Results-Based Learning Series" at Lou’s studio over the next few months. I recently took a class at Interact on how to write a blog from Patrick McLean, in which he said I had "30 years worth of stories and it was time I let them out." Since it was Lou who got me started on my speaking and presentation skills, it is fitting that she is here for me again, giving me a venue for the new series on learning. I hope you will stop by the Open House at Interact Studio at 9:00 AM on October 15th. I’ll be there to answer any questions you might have about learning or performance improvement. In other words, get all the free consulting you want over a free cup of coffee and a bagel. I’ll also answer any questions you might have about the new Results-Based Learning Series. For more information on the series check out the Upcoming Events links on the left-hand side of my blog.  You can also learn more about Interact Studio at www.interactauthentically.com.  See you in October!

I know Chinese fortune cookies were invented in America and not really written by Chinese philosophers, but the truth is the truth, no matter where you find it. Here is what mine said, "People are not persuaded by what we say but rather by what they understand." I hear the following phrase at my office and I hear it from my clients. "I just can’t persuade them to look at other options. I feel like an order-taker, not a learning consultant." So why don’t our clients always listen to our advice as learning consultants or performance consultants? Perhaps the problem is human nature and the solution lies in the advice from the fortune cookie.  So, the question is, "how do we make people understand our recommendation and why it is good for them?" One thing that usually works for me is one of the principles of reframing training requests that I learned from Jim and Dana Robinson. That one is, "Use the client’s own data." To be able to use this principle we need to do some analysis. I know whenever I use the word "Analysis," most learning professionals tell me they don’t have time. In that case you are doomed to be developing a lot of training for the wrong thing or for something that doesn’t require training in the first place. If you will click on the Resources tab, you’ll find a document called "Principles of Reframing."  It lists guidelines for conducting a reframing interview. Please feel free to use it. If you would like to get some practice using those principles, you can sign up for my half-day skill building session at Interact Studio on November 5th.  The link for registration is below.  I hope to see you there. www.dickhandshawworkshop.eventbrite.com

Twenty-five years is a long time to do anything—especially for me. On October 15th, 1985, I was sitting in my living room after resigning from my job, wondering what I was going to do next. The phone rang. It was Mary Evanish, a former client from Bojangles’. She said, "Hey, I hear you’re free-lancing. Can you write some video scripts for me?" And that was the point when I learned how fine the line is between being unemployed and being self-employed. Most of my friends and family thought I would fail, like most small businesses do. One friend at least gave me a little more credit. She said, "You’re addicted to adrenalin. You’ll be on to something else in another year." One person believed in me and fortunately for me, I married her. This is a time when you look back and ask, "What did I accomplish?" I still remember my reasons for starting this business. I wanted a place to work where I didn’t have someone else between me and my customers, and I wanted a place where all the employees were treated with respect for their abilities and their opinions. I also remember promising one of my professors when I left graduate school that I would do my best to take the profession in new directions. We, as a company, have been pioneers in our field. We practiced Instructional Systems Design long before it was recognized or popular. We made many advances in technology from many first applications with other development tools to bring one of the first Learning Content Management Systems to the marketplace in 2001. We introduced our staff and our clients to the world of Performance Improvement through the workshops of Jim and Dana Robinson as early as 1996. And where do we go from here? Our work is far from finished. I look forward to doing what I do with the people I do it with every day. I’ll be around for a long time.

uN0

I would like to thank the training staff at the North Carolina State Employees Credit Union for all their hard work on the 20th and 21st as we completed their first two days of the Results-Based Instructional Systems Design Series. I’ll look forward to seeing you again in November when we meet to complete the series.

I spend a lot of time talking to learning professionals around the country and I’m used to getting push-back on my ideas. One of the things on which I get the most push-back is reframing training requests. What I usually hear is, "They just don’t want to hear my ideas and I don’t feel like it’s my place to tell them what to do." Let me set the record straight. It is our job as learning professionals to make sure we are doing what our clients need, and not just responding to what they want or think they need. We’re also never going to win a lot of friends by just telling our clients what we think they should do. We may have a different idea of the best learning solution for a given situation, but often times we are just "solution jumping" ourselves. The answer, of course, is to slow down enough to conduct some analysis, but that’s easier said than done. It is just not human nature to listen to others for input when we think we have the answer to a problem. That’s why trying to "sell" your idea to someone else rarely works. What does work is to ask questions in such a way that we and our clients get a better understanding of the true problem, the true goal or need, and some possible analysis techniques that will lead us to the best solution. This process as taught to me by Jim and Dana Robinson is called "reframing" and I learned whatever I know about it from the Robinsons. I was able to convince myself that it works by putting the process to work with my clients. The only way you can actually learn this skill is by doing it. Getting started on your reframing skills is easy. It’s the practice that takes a bit of work. Click on the Resources tab and use the handout from my half day workshop with the same title as this blog. The handout is free. If you are interested in the workshop, contact Sara Miller at sara.miller@handshaw.com. 1 of 4 in series

Chris Adams, Product Manager for Handshaw, Inc., will be a lead facilitator in the panel discussion at ISPI Charlotte’s December program entitled "Instructional & Performance Support Development Tools, Tricks & Tips."  The chapter meeting will be held on Thursday, December 9th from 4:30 to 8:00 pm.  Chris will join panel members Jane Bozarth, Ph.D. and Josh Cavalier in a discussion about learning technology that includes their real-world experiences.  Participants will leave with tools, tricks & tips to improve their skills as learning professionals.  Chris has been with Handshaw, Inc. for 15 years and co-invented Handshaw’s content creation and learning management platform, Lumenix.   As Product Manager, he helps clients implement software to improve human performance. For more details or to register for this event visit www.ispicharlotte.org.

As I said in my last blog, my job provides me with the opportunity to travel around and listen to trainers in the real world.  When I do, I hear about what they do and don’t use from Instructional Design methodology. I recently asked a group of about 35 people how many of them conduct a reasonably thorough task analysis at the beginning of a development project. Two hands went up. I’ll be the first to recognize that not every project requires a rigorous approach regarding instructional design methodology. Sometimes you don’t have enough time, enough money, or sometimes it’s just something you could design in your sleep. But there are times when the project and the risk are too big and you just don’t know where to begin. I think many of us can agree on one thing. Identifying project scope and agreeing on the content and best practices for any job task are some of our biggest challenges at the start of a project. Beginning with a content outline is one way to gain some consensus regarding content. But what about actual performance behaviors, how do you quantify those? If the job function already exists, you can observe your best performers at work and ask them what makes them so successful. By doing this you can document the process as accurately as possible with the least amount of work and time.  This documentation, along with approval from experts and project sponsors, can save you many hours of rework near the end of the project when you can least afford it. If you would like to see our process for performing task analysis, click on the Resources tab, and select Task Analysis Procedures. This is one of the handouts from my half-day workshop of the same title. It takes a while to learn to do a really good task analysis.  The only way to really master the process is to do it. Feel free to email me if you need help. One last thing I’d like to offer is an article by one of my colleagues, Beth Hughes. She wrote an excellent article comparing a topic-based approach to a task-based approach. Click on the link below to see her article. Selecting a Task-Based Instructional Model 2 of 4 in series

Next week I’ll be in Orlando, FL for three days for I/ITSEC 2010, the World’s largest modeling, simulation and training conference.  The Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) promotes cooperation among the Armed Services, Industry, Academia and various Government agencies in pursuit of improved training and education programs, identification of common training issues and development of multiservice programs. While I’m there I’ll have the opportunity to demo a prototype we have developed with our newest partner Vector CSP and our longest term partner Standpoint Technologies. We have been anxious to get some experience with mobile applications and Lumenix for some time. This project is developed for the Coast Guard.  We are making 500 maintenance procedures available to the personnel of the Coast Guard’s 87 foot cutter on three different mobile devices. The unique opportunity in this prototype is the capability to sync the mobile device with the content data base anytime to assure all data on procedures is up to date. This is something that has been a problem on board a ship using a stack of paper based Maintenance Procedure Cards in the past. I’m looking forward to sharing our prototype and learning more about the practical use of mobile applications and virtual simulations.

The design phase in designing instruction is easy if you have done the right amount of analysis.  However, it can be difficult or just not the right strategy at all if you haven’t.  I know it’s not difficult to come up with an instructional strategy relying on your intuition or what you did last time, but anyone can do that.  In order to come up with the best instructional strategy, one that is based on needed results, you must be able to link your strategy to outcomes. In order to truly understand this, you must first understand the links among the task analysis, performance objectives and measurement strategy. Yes, if you complete your measurement strategy before your instructional strategy, it is not only easier, but your instructional strategy is much more likely to get predictable results, or what statisticians would call predictive validity. In the previous blog in this series, we talked about analysis. The outcome from the task analysis is main tasks and sub tasks required in order to achieve the instructional goal and a performance objective is key to understanding how to measure the task.  The performance objective should describe each main task in terms of not only what the learner will be required to do, but also how that task must be completed.  If the performance objective is written properly, it is not only obvious what kind of testing instrument should be used, but how it should be constructed. In most cases, this will drive you away from measurement of only knowledge toward measurement of knowledge and performance. In any event, your tests will be tied to needed results and will have greater predictive validity. The interesting thing about figuring out the best way for someone to learn something is that knowing how you plan on measuring them first makes determining a successful instructional strategy easier and almost guaranteed to be tied to results. The process doesn’t require a lot of time, which makes it practical for all of us with tight deadlines to ensure that our learning gets results on the first try, not on the second or third major revision. For an example of the critical link among task analysis, performance objectives, measurement strategy and instructional strategy, click on the Resources tab and select Learning Design Example. 3 of 4 in series

I’m presenting a series of half-day workshops at Interact Studio in Charlotte, NC over the next several months.  The series is entitled "The Results-Based Learning Series" and the next workshop will be held January 14, 2011.  Learn more below, register, and come join me! To register visit: http://dickhandshawworkshop.eventbrite.com Learning Analysis?  You Can’t Afford Not To "Analysis? We don’t have time for that. It’s too expensive. Truth is, I’m not really sure how to do it." Sound familiar? Sure it does. In this session, Dick Handshaw will show participants how analysis has saved him more money and earned him more clients than anything else he has done in the past twenty-five years in his business. Completing a task analysis may be tedious, but it is neither difficult nor expensive. Participants will complete a task analysis during the session and will learn how analysis benefits them in course design and development. Participants will also learn what to do with an audience analysis and a learning culture analysis. Performance Objectives:  Determine what type of analysis is needed given the situation, risk and the business case. Conduct a task analysis that is useful in course design and doesn’t take too long or cost too much. Conduct an appropriate audience and learning culture analysis that serves a useful purpose in learning design and development. To register visit: http://dickhandshawworkshop.eventbrite.com

Richard Pearlstein was kind enough to speak to our Charlotte ISPI chapter about measurement in October and he did a great job. Something he said still bothers me. I’m paraphrasing, Richard, so forgive me if I don’t get it exactly right. He said, "People don’t measure because they don’t want to know the real results." I’m not disagreeing with Richard, but I just don’t get it. I know I’ve been an outside provider of learning solutions for almost 30 years and an inside provider for just five, so my perspective may be skewed. I know the pressure to go on to the next project is great and there is little time to spend on the project you just finished. But, let’s take a minute to examine how much there is to be learned. I have always told people that the learning moment in e-learning comes when a learner makes a mistake and receives feedback. It’s no different when it comes to learning how to design better learning solutions. If you don’t take the time to find out how well your learning solutions met their business goals, you are passing up your greatest opportunity for learning and growing in your profession. And I don’t mean just asking people how they liked their learning solution. Research shows there is no correlation between actual results and how well people liked a particular instructor or e-learning program. You must find a way to measure results, not just activities or opinions Now, let me address that fear thing. What if I find out some things I don’t want my boss or client to know about? I never said you had to share everything you find out. In fact, you will find your best lessons for your personal growth in examining the things that didn’t work, rather than being acknowledged for the things that did work. So, go out there and measure real results, I dare you. I would like to read some feedback from some of the internal practitioners who might be following this blog. Tell me what you learn from measuring, or tell me why you don’t measure. Either way, I would like to know. 4 of 4 in series

I will have the pleasure of speaking to the members of the Middle Tennessee chapter of ASTD for their evening program on February 17th, 2011. I’ll be doing a fairly new program called, "Instructional Design: Selling the Real Value." This will be the same presentation that I’m doing for Training 2011 in San Diego, and I’ll have a little more time, so I will be able to tell a few more war stories and have more audience participation. Just to let you know, despite the title, the program isn’t really about selling anything. The program focuses on three proven strategies that leverage Instructional Design to create real value in the first place. The selling strategies really consist of making sure you have made a good example out of how you used Instructional Design, so you can continue to position yourself for more efficiency and better results in the future. So, to the folks in Nashville, thanks for inviting me.  I look forward to meeting you.

It is great to be back at a Training conference. They have always been favorites of mine. Even though this one got a late start in being organized, you could never tell that by being here. Everything is beautifully organized, with lots of new activities and some old favorites, like Bryan Chapman’s Shootouts. The day one keynote actually had three presenters moderated by North Carolina’s own, Tony O’Driscoll. Audience response devices are in many sessions, including this one. The first presenter, Daniel Simons, used science and actual research to prove that multitasking is not only impossible while driving a car, but destroys our ability to really learn in a learning event. We can switch tasks, but we really can’t do more than one thing at a time. Our brains don’t work that way. I really never thought they did anyway. Another presenter, Robert Epstein, talked about the value of creativity.  He talked about how we can successfully increase creativity in employees by simply creating a culture where it is encouraged and valued. It seems people can be far more creative than we give them credit for, simply by encouraging them. Charles Leadbeater talked about how dramatically we can change the way we educate people by leveraging the sharing power of the web. Schools have really not changed much for hundreds of years, but the web has the power to make them change dramatically. We just have to make up our minds to change.

There are lots of great keynotes to attend and all of them have multiple speakers, again moderated by Tony O’Driscoll.  Despite that, I want to talk about the breakout sessions. I spent most of my time with the well known favorites and I attended one that made a convert out of me. I met Karen Hyder at least ten years ago, but only recently became familiar with her work with virtual classroom or synchronous learning. Most people who know me well know I really can’t stand doing webinars. I always get the feeling I’m giving people a break from their jobs to catch up on personal email. Karen says there are times to just record a lecture and let people access it when they want.  She’s right and I need to remember that.  But if you want to do engaging training with the appropriate size group, I am now convinced it can work.  A properly trained and motivated instructor with the right technology can do a virtual classroom as well as, or maybe even better than, an instructor in person. Great job Karen. Among my favorites that I saw: Jane Bozarth, Judy Hale, and Thiagi with his Chief Learning Officer Tracy Tagliati. Now there’s a tough guy to keep up with and Tracy did a great job. And right now it’s time to go get ice cream in the expo hall. I’m gone.

Just for fun, I thought, I went to the last general session of the day Tuesday to hear Jeffrey "Skunk" Baxter.  "Skunk" is the former guitar player for Steely Dan and the Dooby Brothers and he offered his thoughts on Asymmetric Thinking. I’m still not sure what that term means, but it was my favorite experience of the conference so far. First, we heard him play the same melody different ways. Next, he offered several examples of improvisation. The same genius that made him so creative and influential as a guitarist for Steely Dan later drew him into technology. He managed to take his genius with creativity and improvisation with him. You can understand this evolution, but where he went from there will really surprise you. Now he is a trusted adviser in missile guidance systems for some of the top Generals in the military. Listening to Jeff, it all makes sense. He had an amazing story to tell, and he still plays a great guitar. It was more than fun, it was fascinating.

While the Jeff Baxter session is still my favorite, I did save the best for last today.  I attended Roger Addison’s session on Performance Architecture: The Art and Science of Improving Organizations. While I was familiar with his reputation and even some of his accomplishments, I found out today I really had no idea what he did. I’m not going to try to explain performance architecture here except to say that you should get his book of the same title. I know I will.  The biggest question I had when he finished was why haven’t we had him speak to ISPI Charlotte yet? I asked him the same question and he said he would be glad to fix that situation. Don’t miss that session if we are fortunate enough to have him. The conference is over. It’s great to have Training Magazine and the Training conferences back under the Lakewood Publications ownership. They did their usual great job. I know I’m looking forward to attending next year in Atlanta. For now, I’m going to go outside and get some lunch with Jane Bozarth in the warm San Diego sunshine before I have to fly home tomorrow.

  Dick Handshaw and Handshaw, Inc. are pleased to announce their affiliation with the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI.)  Dick is currently serving as Past President for the extremely successful ISPI Charlotte chapter, one he helped initiate in 2009.  At THE Performance Improvement Conference in April Dick will help direct the Chapter Leader’s Workshop.  At the conclusion of the conference Dick will become the new chair of the Chapter Partnership Committee for ISPI for the 2011 - 2012 year.   

I have to thank the 70 or so members of the Middle Tennessee chapter of ASTD for such a good turn out and warm welcome on Thursday, February 17th.  It seems there is plenty of interest in Instructional Design at this chapter.  My presentation was the same one I presented at Training 2011 in San Diego the prior week: Instructional Design - How to Sell the Real Value. Actually the title is intentionally misleading because my point is about creating real value with instructional design first, and letting the results do the selling for you. Thank you also to the generous people at Nissan who provided such a beautiful venue for the meeting.  I was mostly gratified by the many thoughtful questions provided by the members.  Quite frankly, I could have stayed for another hour or two to enjoy more of that conversation.  Please take advantage of the free tools and procedures listed under the Resources tab of this website.  I hope some of you will follow my blog in the future and add some of your great questions and comments here as well. Thank you again for the wonderful Southern hospitality.

I plan to enjoy the month of March because I won’t be around much during the month of April. I start the month by delivering a new workshop designed especially for a client. That will be the one day "Performance Partnership" workshop on April 5th in Denver. This is a skill building workshop designed for training people who may not become performance consultants, but need to do performance consulting to make sure they can deliver measurable results with their learning solutions. This offering includes lots of role plays with both proactive and reactive consulting models. It was adapted from the half day workshop called "Training Request? Ask Questions First," which just deals with the reactive model. Then on April 9th, I will be part of the team that leads the chapter leadership workshop for the Chapter Partnership Committee of ISPI. Of course, I won’t want to miss any of the ISPI International conference, so I’ll stay in Orlando for a few days.  Next I’ll be doing a half day workshop for Piedmont ASTD in Greensboro, NC on the 19th on Learner Validation. That same week I’ll present a lunch meeting for Research Triangle Area (RTA) ASTD on April 21st in Raleigh, NC. The topic for that group will be "SMEs: A Marriage for Better or Worse". And finally, I get to return to Charlotte to do the "Performance Partnership" workshop second time for the same client. The point of all this is that I hope I’ll get to meet some of you who have been following my blog, only in person for a change. If these presentations turn out to be half as much fun as the people at Middle Tennessee ASTD, April should be a great month. As for March, I have a couple of fly fishing trips planned.

As I travel around more and more and speak to groups of learning professionals, I keep hearing this trend that people don’t spend much time doing analysis. I also hear that learning professionals don’t want to be seen as order takers and want to be more strategic. These two trends do not go together. One of my long time colleagues and friend Damon Hearne says, "If you don’t do analysis, be prepared to do design again and again and again." And I might add, without some analysis you still may not get the design right. I’ll illustrate my point with a favorite story that goes back to when Damon and I met in 1984. I was working for First Union National Bank (now Wells Fargo) on a contract with another company before I started Handshaw, Inc. I know this is ancient history, but the principal holds true today. This was the same year I met Dr. John Gretes, chair of the Instructional Technology program at UNC Charlotte. John and I were developing Computer-Based Training courses for a branch automation project delivered via mainframe computers. We were to develop a module per week until we finished and we had enough modules to last each of us all summer. We were also told to "just start writing, there’s no time to develop task analysis." We were told this by Dr. Deane Dayton, one of my former professors from Indiana University, who certainly knew better, but was just following orders from management. At the end of the first week, we handed over two finished modules on Friday. We started two new ones on Monday. By Wednesday, we got the numerous revisions back from SMEs for last week’s modules. The revisions were so bad, we missed our Friday deadline. By the third week, we were even farther behind. On the fourth week when Damon and Deane came to the door to pick up our work, John and I informed them that we didn’t have any modules for the week, we spent the week doing task analysis. We finally caught up to our schedule and finished ahead of time. Maybe that’s why Damon and I are such ardent believers that the proper amount of analysis, done right, can save time and lead to better work. I’ll have lots more to say about this topic next week.

In making the case for analysis, I have to do a little bragging about one of my clients, North Carolina State Employee’s Credit Union. Last fall, I conducted my Instructional Design series for them, which includes a heavy emphasis on analysis. Completing a task analysis was a change for them, but they have been very diligent about using what they learned. Here’s what Lindsey Barfield has to say about their results so far. "I recently completed a task analysis with a veteran SME who worked with me on a project before we were implementing the processes we learned in Dick’s instructional design training. After completing the task analysis, she couldn’t contain her excitement. She said she could already see how helpful this process would be in developing the course and she was impressed with how much it helped me, as a developer, learn the information we are training on. We have been implementing these processes with all of our new projects and have been met with the same reaction by all of our SMEs. Everyone is excited about what a big difference it’s making in the way we train employees." I believe that makes my point. Thanks, Lindsey. If you’re wondering why a lot of people can’t find the time or skills to do analysis, I met someone recently from Middle Tennessee ASTD who might have an answer. Here’s what Bill Stetar, CPT from UT Center for Industrial Services in Nashville has to say. "I was a little surprised that most of the younger members of the audience were not familiar with or acting on some of the basic ID principles, such as doing task analysis. I think that as faculty have retired or moved on a lot of higher Ed institutions dropped their programs. I don’t think there is any post-secondary institution — public or private — in Tennessee where one can major in ID. There are some instructional technology majors, but those seem to concentrate on the medium and gizmos/delivery mode, not the design process." So what are your thoughts? I’d really like to see some discussion on this one.