eLearning Roadtrip

#Lrnchat, ADDIE and Making the World a Better Place

Thanks to those who have commented on last week's posts about ADDIE et al that got started following last week's #Lrnchat. To review, #Lrnchat is a regularly scheduled event that takes place every Thursday evening at 5:30 PT/8:30 ET. It takes place via Twitter, with participants using any number of tweeting tools (such as Tweetdeck and Tweedgrid) to keep track of the messages that fly around among the session participants. It is hosted and facilitated by social media expert and learning maven Marcia Conner, a long-time friend and co-conspirator.

If you ever want to see a very cool way of using Twitter as a learning technology you should take a look at what happens in a #Lrnchat session. I had blogged about this a few months ago so won't go back into that now, other than to refer you to the event and hope you enjoy the very lively discussions that ensue.

I seem to have yanked a few chains in last week's blog post about the #Lrnchat and ADDIE! Much emotion in a few of the messages. (As an aside, if you won't sign 'em I won't publish them, and if you use dirty words I just think it's funny).

Might be helpful to clear up what might be a few misconceptions about how I feel about #Lrnchat,  ADDIE, and making the world a better place for teaching and learning:

• I think #Lrnchat is one of the best examples of social media in action I've seen in a long time.

• I don't love ADDIE. But I don't hate it either. It's kind of like hating table manners. Sometimes you need to know what the rules are before you can decide the best ones to disregard.

• ADDIE is not nor has it ever been a learning model. Sorry, it's not. It has everything to do with the process of instructional design.

• I think the jargon drinking game is funny. I usually drink mojitos.

• I think it is grand for learning designers to push for fewer constraints and more personalization and lots more innovation.

• I commend Mark, Jane, Clark, and the many #Lrnchat big thinkers who want to push boundaries to make social media and informal learning a bigger part of the world of learning picture.

• I get cranky with hyperbole. Big hat, no cattle. Who cares.

• Innovators are just as hard for an enterprise to work with as laggards when dealing with systemic, enterprise adoption. Each end of the distribution. Statistically speaking.

• I think it is kinda cheesy to call for change without offering suggestions for making change happen.

• Adoption means middle. The mushy middle that isn't going to change unless innovators can give them good solid demonstrable reasons for doing so. Which means being systematic about making the case for making a change.

• Burning down the mission doesn't necessarily get the missionaries on board. SOMEBODY needs to care about applying new ideas into action. I thought that's what designers do.

• Systematic doesn't mean linear. At least it doesn't need to.

 

What is it about ADDIE that makes people so cranky?

In my preceding post I described how nice it was to have some F2F time with some of the bright and shining ID lights that I follow on Twitter. I also alluded to the fact that following last night's #Lrnchat,  I found myself getting a little cranky listening to others getting cranky and taking potshots at our venerable old instructional design process model, ADDIE, for...well, I'm not sure for what or why, exactly. 

To be clear - #Lrnchatters hate ADDIE. Among the #Lrnchat crowd, any time someone says ADDIE, everyone needs to take a drink. Usually of beer. Hard core. I know that part of the gleeful amusement about being in what Mark Oehlert calls the  "ADDIE-killing bizness, where bizness is good" comes in the spirit of knowing we need to get more, a lot more, from our learning designs. But still. Poor old ADDIE takes more than her share of hits.

It seems that the biggest objections to ADDIE are that it is linear. Not innovative. Doesn't branch. Worst of all...it isn't a learning model. In fact, at one point last night, one of the contributors dismissed ADDIE by saying she could use ADDIE to build a car. As if that was a bad thing.

Let's say it loudly and proudly - ADDIE isn't a learning model. Nothing about it says "learning model". It's a process model. It tells you what to do, in broad heuristic terms. It provides a systematic framework, a linear workflow - or, as Damon Regan suggested, a scientific method -  for solving problems related to designing and producing education and training experiences.

One presumes that if one is building solutions for education and training that learning is involved somewhere, somehow. Nevertheless it is ever so important to remember that instructional designers are not designing learning.They are designing learning solutions - resources, experiences, links, structured documents, multimedia and more, melded together into experiences that create the conditions needed for intentional, sustained changes in memory and performance to occur. Something tangible and real that can help people remember more, perform better, reach higher. In some respects, using a systematic process for building a learning solution isn't really all that different from a systematic process for building a car. A car gets us where we're going. So should our learning solutions.

I personally think that the biggest problem with ADDIE is that it is focused on process. Process is relatively intangible - hard to see, impossible to touch. And more often than not it is never-ending. It's hard to know when you are done. In the world of ADDIE, process is a  continuous circle of concern. Evaluation is just the next step on the path toward analyzing the next situation.

My suggestion is to think about ADDIE as a framework for producing what is known in software as a PRD, a product requirements definition document. A PRD describes exactly what you need to create your target product, in the same way that a blueprint give you directions for undertaking a construction project. 

Digital learning solutions ARE products; they are tangible and real and have requirements for being built, operated, maintained. They can be managed and shipped and stored and sold. They need to be attractive and compelling. They have a life-cycle that needs to be managed. They need to be marketed, promoted and sold. So if you are responsible for developing learning solutions perhaps you need to think more like a product manager - it is a lot easier to talk about value, investments, evaluation, life cycle management and the like when we are referring to something that is tangible and real. 

But before we move on - How about YOU tell ME - what is it about ADDIE that makes you cranky?

What I Did on My Summer Vacation

The Roadtrip was off the road for a few weeks, and I am  better for it.  As much as I am energized by technologies for learning, it's easy to get road-weary. So instead of worrying about taxonomies and total available markets, I've been worrying about things like what to do with all the tomatoes that seem to get ripe at the same time.

It's been good to have time to reflect on the state of the world of elearning, education, training and performance support in this relatively quiet time before getting back to a regular schedule. Gonna be some interesting times coming.

Just before going on break I had participated in the eLearning Guild's Instructional Design Regional Symposia. Participated in a very fun tweet-up in Boston with many tweeps I admire, including Cammy Bean - Gina Minks - Kay Wood - Brent Schlenker.  While together, we participated in the regular Thursday evening session of #Lrnchat (the 90-minute weekly tweet-fest brain-child of social media expert Marcia Conner) while seated at a long dinner table in a loud and crowded restaurant. We were all talking to each other while tweeting about what each was saying, taking twitpics of each other tweeting about each other tweeting, logging on to see what we were tweeting about each other. There were many others participating online, of course - we Guild Symposium participants in Boston simply had the extra benefit of "dual dimensional" communication - being both physically [resent and virtually engaged. IMHO, knowing that we can be goofy together has contributed to a stronger sense of distributed social presence and community.

But enjoying each other's insights AND company certainly doesn't meant that everyone in this ID community agrees with each other. In fact, just last night we did a bit of ADDIE-bashing....

Notes from the Road

I had the opportunity to spend some time with my ID "peeps" at the eLearning Guild's Regional Instructional Design Symposium in Chicago this past Friday. Today have been getting smarter about the evolving world(s) of learning content, commerce and connections while attending BlackBoard World 2009 in National Harbor, MD.

I will have lots more to say about the conversations, the observations and insights in subsequent posts. For now I wanted to be sure to post my presentations from the two events, since several people have asked for copies. You can find the eLearning Guild presentation addressing new skills for IDs right here. Download RMID 602 Changing Role ID.2. If you are interested in knowing how notification technologies can serve as a catalyst for encouraging enterprise deployment of mobile services in colleges and universities please take a look here Download BBWORLD2009.FINAL.

More in a few days....for now, I need to get back to sessions!!

Think Like a Product Manager

 "Business as usual" isn't so usual anymore. I'm sure that has a lot to do with questions about the relevancy of learning, elearning and instructional design as we've known them. While I know there are some calls to dump ID and to transform elearning into metaverses and social networks, I would suggest some additional reforms.

In the midst of all of the economic chaos it has become clear that we need to pay better attention to the business side of our business. Tony Karrer had a great blogpost on this topic. Jay Cross has taken this on as his next mission. And of course this is what my co-workers and I do at Sage Road Solutions every day.

Personally, I'm delighted about this change. The shift in awareness and new demands for accountability, value on investment and providing real business value with learning solutions is so palpable you can almost feel it.  It suggests that we are maturing beyond the "craft" model of elearning and performance support where we (had to) do everything ourselves. It suggests we are ready for teams and specialization. It also suggests that maybe we are ready to think about the value that we drive in business terms.

It has always bothered me that a profession that puts so much stake in systematic processes has been built more on the foundations of self-evident truth than on real evidence. "What?!" I can just hear you shriek. "That's heresy! Why, every ID knows that the first thing we do is to ANALYZE! We are systematic. We use ADDIE! We know Kirkpatrick's Four Levels! We follow process models that are based in research and theory!"

What most IDs count as systematic analysis is when we figure out who will be learning, what they will be learning, how long will it take, when will it take place, for how long and how to test for success. These are the basic building blocks of any learning design. But they are also dictated in large measure by the conditions and context in which they are built and deployed. These kinds of things are not typically revenue driving activities. Which means that they end up being counted as costs. Costs without revenues to justify them - and pay for them - are bad.

For better or worse, I learned this lesson long after I had been an ID professor. When I started working at Macromedia I was a lone learning and design solutions market specialist working with a team of MBAs that needed to take learning and education solutions to market. I quickly realized that it really didn't matter that I could tell all about the learning theories I'd used and the instructional design model I preferred, and which level of the Kirkpatrick model I used to evaluate whether I achieved more satisfaction than impact.

My business partner at the time needed me to help her figure out answers to far more important business questions - what kind of demand could we show for the solutions I wanted to develop? What technology features really mattered to our customers? What could we actually sell? Who would buy what I was designing? Really? How much money would my customers be willing to spend for the kinds of things I was thinking about? Which demographic might be most likely to want what I was doing?  What kinds of objections would we need to overcome? How could we best make our case with the customers?

I learned the lessons pretty well - well enough that Beth Davis, my former Macromedia business partner (best known in this industry for bringing a little product called Dreamweaver to market back in the Web 1.0 heyday, along with many other similar kinds of product successes over the past decade) and I decided to continue our unique blend of helping customers drive business value with learning products and solutions here at Sage Road Solutions. We have realized that the way we approach solving our customers' business problems has little to do with process, and has everything to do with dealing with our solutions as products.

Basically, Beth has taught me to think like a product manager. She has helped me understand that learning solutions may function as processes, but the solutions themselves ARE products - they need to be clear, definable, concrete, operational, has boundaries and has a fixed price. and not focusing so much on the processes that get us to the point of use, but more about figuring out how to solve problems. We need real metrics, because if we dont get the market defined right then we have no way of capturing the new and emerging opportunites. And these days, capturing the opportunity is maybe almost as important as getting the learning design right.

There is a point where talking about all the processes and possibilities just gets to be exhausting. For me, getting tangible and real about getting down to business is the most satisfying part of what we do. So much better to show, not tell. My .02.

Why It Matters What They Call Us.

It's nice when people care enough about what I'm saying to leave a comment on the blog.

I got a comment earlier today about my most recent post. I've proposed that elearning professionals come from a long line of learning technology solution designers, and by definition, are competent in (1) ID skills and (2) IT skills.  My commentor suggested that I have fallen into a technology trap. Perhaps I have. Maybe, better put, I am trying to get out of one.

As long as a/v media and digital technologies of various kinds have been deployed in teaching, learning and training settings, there has been a role for specialists who understand both how to design instructional/learning solutions that are valid, reliable and effective AND how to script, produce and develop engaging, rich technology-mediated experience.  Someone who can help reduce the friction that naturally occurs at the intersection when one practice rubs up against another.

And I say this not as some who teaches with technology. I say this as someone who does market research on what does and does not seem to influence how industries evolve. What I've seen is that the prospective impact of an effective learning design is greatly facilitated if it is accompanied by an experience that engages and inspires. And these days one of the places where people are investing in learning experience is in technology. Today there is a growing need for this kind of person who can make the piece parts come together better.

In spite of the fact that ID/IT specialists types (who today tends to be bunched under a number of job titles, "elearning professional" "instructional designer" and "learning technologist" among them) are found in virtually every school, every business, every government agency, every NGO in the world....

...it is a profession that is virtually invisible because there is no consistency in what it is called, as we go by so many different names. Which means that we are not seen in any number, which also means we're not seen in any volume (which in technology is kind of a bad thing). We're not numbered on Labor censuses and surveys - we fall into the category of "other". Ever fill out the requisite form when you want to download a research whitepaper or some such thing? What industry to DO work in? What's YOUR sector?

When you are unnamed, you're at greater risk of being excluded because nobody really knows where you are or what you do. You probably don't have much buying power. Or revenue generating power. Which means not much perceived strategic value. Which means no clout.

I'm not saying this to be mean. Or to pontificate. I'm saying this as a shared wake-up call. Better, as an invitation to get better at articulating the value proposition of what learning technology specialists can contribute to the strategic well-being of our stakeholders and constituents at a time when driving new value matters.

Should elearning practices and ID/IT professionals be defined by our ability to produce courseware? Well, we're going to be judged by our technology facility, might as well accept that. It's half of what we do. So yes. We gotta get better and raise the bar on our technological competencies. So courseware, as the dominant paradigm. And apps, because that where the industry is heading. And  games. And virtual worlds.

Or do we believe that the thing that makes us unique as an industry is using technology to enable learning? Well, yes to that, too. We gotta. It's the other half of what we do. Enabling learning through the design of solutions that empower individuals and organizations. We need to know enough about learning theory - AND about assessment and measurement - AND about evaluation - AND about pedagogy/andragogy - that we can actually produce a design that intentionally improves learning and performance.

We have a while before the new economy picks up speed, so there is still time to get smart about working smarter, using our networks and letting technology mediate experience. We'll need to be ready. Sort of like training for a race. Or maybe even an ID-cathelon.

Perfect Storm? or Perfect Opportunity?

There's nothing like a good flurry of tweets to help crystalize some new insights.

I've been reading lots of tweets, retweets, replies and even a few direct messages from people I follow commenting on today's sessions from #ASTD, otherwise known as the American Society for Training and Development International Conference and Expo.

I saw a number of comments (@jarche, @bschlenker, @raetanner) that gave me a pretty clear indication that the technologically savvy crowd was disappointed at how very "behind the 2.0 curve" the general ASTD assembly seemed to be. I saw complaints about the backwardness regarding social media and informal learning. I saw other comments that acknowledged how frustrating it is that learning innovations are being "gated" by IT departments.

It was in that moment that I had several insights.

When I envision the quintessential eLearning professional, that individual typically possesses two defining professional attributes. (1) We design interventions to maximize the probably that learning will occur, and (2) we depend upon Internet technologies to achieve our goals.

One might even suggest a fairly simplistic formulaic representation:

eLEARNING = INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN + INTERNET (content/network/distribution/mgmt) TECHNOLOGY.

Anyone who has read this blog in the past few months knows that I have been on a tear about the kinds of skills I think IDs are going to need to be successful in the emerging professional worlds of enterprise learning. I think about this stuff all the time.

So my first insight was that it's self-defeating to think about getting rid of ID altogether when it is one of the two things that makes people like us unique in our market place.

My second insight was that enterprise learning professionals clearly need us more than ever before, because WE are the ones who know how to transform intangible information assets into things of great business or epistemological value.

IDs design programs that bring about a change in learning and performance.  We have to remember that no human being can do "learning" to another. What we CAN do is create experiences that maximize the probability that intentional learning is going to occur. And then we have to be able to determine of anything happened. And that is what IDs do.

As Internet technologies have becomes more sophisticated IDs have had to become increasingly more technologically proficient. In fact, in same parts of the world, ID is more oriented toward activities like content authoring than toward developing learning scaffolding and assessments. But whether we are IDs who are technically proficient, or technologists who understand ID principles, what makes us unique is that we design technology-based solutions to improve learning and performance.

eLearning professionals serve stakeholders in a variety of settings and vertical markets, working in a wide range of organizational roles: HR. Training and Development. Human Capital Management. Talent Management. Succession Planning. Sales Training. Customer Education. Product Training. Human Performance Technology.

My third insight was that sometimes we do our jobs with these constituencies so well that sometimes we look just like them. Sometimes we may specialize in understanding our customers' needs and requirements so well that we see ourselves as having dual citizenship. But that doesn't necessarily mean the we ARE them.

In other words, maybe we instructional design and learning technology types, we elearning professionals, need to understand that all those learning professionals at ASTD who come from Training and Education and HR and Sales and Compliance are as much our customers as they are our colleagues. We have a great opportunity to help these people see the value that learning technologies from interactive digital documents to web conferences to social media bring to THEIR practices.

I mention this subtle distinction because I think it helps provide a more positive point of view about what's going on at ASTD. It's not that our ASTD HR and T&D et al colleagues are dumb or resistant. It's simply that we have an opportunity  - the responsibility - to demonstrate the value of what these emerging solutions mean to our enterprises.

Just think of all the good that we ID and technology specialists, we eLearning professionals, can do. What great opportunities we have for engaging and empowering our stakeholders. Why complain about THAT???

Critical Mass

Anyone who has been reading this blog knows that I have been on a tear about how the practices of elearning  - and the professions of instructional design  - are evolving, and how those of us who identify as instructional designers need to take a good hard look at what we do and where our practice is headed. 

Cammy Bean recently posted a funny and thoughtful blog entry about the challenge of explaining what she does to someone while at the playground. Lots of great commentary from her followers. Clearly it bugs us that people don't get what we do.

It should bug us. Even though it's easy to laugh it off, or to say  "oh, it doesn't really matter what they call us", the fact is that it DOES matter. If people can't spot us, or name us, or know who we are and what we do, then we get NO consideration when it comes to getting our unique needs met, or getting our place at the enterprise table. And the more that we split hairs ("you say m-learning, I say mobile learning, but it's not really learning, it's performance support....."), the more fragmented we appear to those who observe us from the outside. Business analysts don't care which theoretical model we use.  Investors don't care about Kirkpatrick.  Market researchers don't care about possibilities - they care about specifics. How much. How many.

Let's take a look at a very specific example of where I think the fragmentation of our industry has not served us well.

If there is a single company that has shaped just about every possible facet of the digital learning industry, that company is Adobe Systems. Today, if you count yourself among the ranks of elearning professionals, odds are that you probably use or have used an Adobe product or two. Adobe recently released their eLearning Suite. Maybe you thought to yourself, "hey, cool, it's nice to get all the tools I need in one product bundle".

Or maybe, if you are like other elearning developers I know, you wondered what happened to all the new stuff. Where are the products like Adobe Catalyst. Strobe. AIR. Flex. JamJar. Durango. Scene7.  Buzzword. 

Well, you can track 'em down on the Adobe Labs site. You can attend MAX to mingle with other developer wizards like yourself to learn more about what the future of the web is going to look like. You can join the expert communities. Just don't expect anyone to connect the dots between technology innovation and elearning for you.

Now, before anybody thinks that I am chewing on Adobe....I am not. Let me repeat that. I have no ax to grind with Adobe. I appreciate the quality of the software. I appreciate the well-run efficiency of the business operation, and the deliberate decision-making that protects shareholder value. I am a shareholder. I want this company to do well.

What I am chewing on is the fact that in spite of the fact that learning technologist and instructional designers touch virtually every school, every business that trains new hires or rolls out new products, every agency, every NGO in the world.... that WE ARE VIRTUALLY INVISIBLE. When Adobe looks at us they don't see knowledge workers. Not creative professionals. Not developers. Not digital communicators.

They see rapid elearning content authors, creating not particularly sophisticated online courses to be stored in an LMS. Not eBooks or ePubs. Not RIAs. Not mobile learning. Not games. Not virtual worlds. Not graphics and diagrams and illustrations. Not videos or Flash apps. Not Flex. Not AIR. Not video.

Should elearning practices and instructional design professionals be defined by our ability to produce courseware? Or do we believe that the thing that makes us unique as an industry is using technology to enable learning?

My Top 10 for IDs

ID is about producing value through the design, development and distribution of learning solutions. Used to be that IDs looked more like psychologists than programmers, but that's not the case any longer. Any ID looking for a job these days must expect to work with technology tools, because so much of today's learning and performance support is enabled / managed / distributed via technology. But IDs are not just elearning content authors. IDs are also engaged in supporting and enabling distance learning's web collaborations. IDs are starting to work more with mobile learning's apps and podcasts. IDs are learning first-hand that game design and instructional design have a lot in common. If only we don't suck the fun out of it...

For better or worse, I don't think about ID competencies as a supervisor or a professor needs to think about them. I think about ID more in terms of what I hope to see from our emerging professionals - the ones that will be strong enough to take technology-mediated learning to the next level. I would hate to lose the learning part of what we do. I do think we need better business skills. I think we need to stop thinking about instructional design as a process and to think about what we do as product development. We need to be more assertive, more focused on the so-called business of our respective businesses. Maybe head in the clouds, thinking of new solutions...but definitely feet on the ground. It's the only way to get things get done.

So. My fantasy. Ellen's imaginary ID-cathelon. MY Top 10. It's not ADDIE. It may not even really be instructional design when you get right down to it, maybe more like ID Life Cycle Management. Whatever. Don't tell me about your favorite learning theory du jour (although I do expect that you have one). I don't really care which model you use, although I do hope that you use one. What I really care about is whether or not MY ID can do these things:

1. Determine real opportunities /consequences. Show me how a learning intervention can drive sales. Increase revenue. Open new markets. Create new lines of business. Attract new customers. Save money. Even if you are working in education or non-profits.
2. Propose solutions that respond to real problems/opportunities. Help me see what my alternatives are, give me scenarios to consider and help me make a good decision for moving ahead.
3. Socialize proposals with key stakeholders. Do you believe in your plan enough to pitch it? Can you persuade funders to your point of view? Can you articulate value, make the pitch, create some buzz?
4. Analyze solution requirements. What are you going to build? For whom? what does it need to do? How does it need to work? What platforms will you use?
5. Analyze customer requirements. This is much much more than thinking along the lines of whether one is a visual learner or an auditory learner. This has more to do with defining the attributes of the target market. The kinds of distribution and management requirements that need to be met, Funding cycles. Hiring cycles. Platforms. Networks.
6. Create Prototypes. More than a clickable model. Calls for research. Content development. Scripting. Storyboarding. Rough cuts. Final cuts.
7. Field Test solutions with stakeholders, customers. Collecting real data describing real life experiences of real live customers/users. Factoring in what people want.
8. Develop and produce solutions. Or finding the people who can produce it for you. It's product management, pure and simple. Developers, Coders, DB analysts. artists and programmers.
9. Launch the solution, get organizational buy-in and get systems online. Knowing how to get the word out, how to go to market. How to successfully socialize and roll out a new learning intervention. How to determine if everything is working and ready to rock and roll. Keeping the power on. Keeping the LMS up and running.
10. Evaluate, Summarize, Document. Building the assessments. Validating the screening tools. Summarizing costs, comparing to benefits. This also means having a handle on statistical methods, survey methods, evaluation methods as well as basic budgets and financials.

Whew. That's a lot. Maybe too much for one person. But maybe not. That's what's so great about thinking of this as an ID-cathelon. It's not for everyone. Only the best.

When the Rubber Hits the Road

Depending on who you talk to, instructional designers - IDs - are either (1) the learning and teaching-oriented people to turn to when it's time to come up with great ideas for an engaging learning experience, in a presentation or a video or an online class, or (2) technologically proficient people with an awareness of learning principles who develop, produce, distribute, and manage elearning assets and programs. 

Generally speaking, there has always been an expectation that IDs are technically competent learning specialists. Seems these days that the more dependent we are on the distribution and management of learning resources and experiences via technology, the more IDs feel the pressure to be technologists first, learning specialists second.

There is a concern in the worlds of technology, learning, elearning, distance learning, distributed learning, mlearning, virtual learning et al that perhaps IDs have lost their relevancy. In recent weeks I have seen tweets and blogposts positing that ID is an artifact of the 20th century, to deal with 20th century problems. Inferred in this statement is the notion that in the age of Web 2.0, Learning 2,0, eLearning 2.0 et al, that ID has got to go, that ID is already preprogrammed in many of the authoring tools du jour, so we don't really need it anymore.

I take a different position on the topic. For me ID represent the essential core of what makes our work unique when compared, say, to the work of a graphic artist or a web designer or an LMS administrator or a content author, or a technical writer or a research analyst.

Think about it: what do ILS, CBT, distance learning, distributed learning, elearning, mlearning, game based learning, virtual world learning et al have in common? They ALL depend upon the participation of instructional designers to ensure that learning goals are met. The systematic framework IDs use for problem-solving provides essential structure needed to respond to whatever kind of learning or performance support opportunity that may present itself, regardless of the technology framework or paradigm being used.

Does this mean that the skills needed for CBT are the same skills needed to be a good webinar facilitator? No, of course not. But it does suggest that anyone who calls themselves an ID who isn't always working on and modeling new media competence of some kind or another is not a particularly good ID. Because without THAT experience, it's impossible to anticipate what kinds of design competencies will serve learning best.

About a month ago I mentioned that my ID was less concerned about working to the specification of the ADDIE model, and was more concerned about producing solutions that empowered stakeholders to do more, better, faster. My ID is a decathelete, skilled not just in one or two area of professional activity, but in a full range of activities, each demanding the development of unique competencies and skills. I also mentioned that there are a lot of things that I expect my ID to be able to do even before we ever set eyes on each other - specifically, being an exceptional writer, a persuasive presenter, a technologically competent media producer/consumer and have a more than passing familiarity with and appreciation for design.

So when we get right down to what I want my IDs to be able to do it looks a bit more like the 10 item on the following list than it does on the ADDIE process model. In my experience, these are the places when the true ID rubber really hits the road:

(1) First, determine the "business" opportunity /consequences    

(2) Propose a solution that responds to a real problem/opportunity

(3) Socialize solution proposal among key stakeholders

(4) Analyze solution requirements

(5) Analyze customer requirements

(6) Create a Prototype

(7) Field Test with stakeholders, customers

(8) Develop, Produce, Implement

(9) Launch solution

(10) Document, Evaluate, Hold Post-mortem

Thoughts? Comments? Additions? With the understanding that each of these 10 points has depth, with additional competencies implied?