Standing on the Moon: Global Trends in Instructional Design Technology: Trends in Business and Industry

I chose to write about the “Better, Faster, Cheaper” trend in the business sector of instructional design technology because I have experienced it first hand. I spent 5 years training in the private sector, working for an energy and technology company and for a local health food chain. I have seen the steady growth and demand for employee training, as business and industry recognizes a direct correlation between their profits and a knowledgeable workforce. Improving on-the-job training improves customer experiences and increases retention of valuable workers. Training and development departments play a big role in solving organizational problems that could lead to losses in human capital and customers (Tracey & Morrison p. 178).

In both of these training positions I was either the “sole designer” or part of a two-person team that was responsible for the project management, media production, and instructional design for all corporate training initiatives (Tracey & Morrison p. 179). Budgets were generous for training, despite the small size of the department, and training was highly valued as part of the organization. Valued international train-the-trainer organizations like Langevin (“The World’s Largest Train-the-Trainer Company), The Ken Blanchard Companies (of the wildly successful One-Minute Manager book and training), Franklin Covey (The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People Signature Program), and Development Dimensions International (DDI), are just a few of the biggest instructional design and training companies that make millions off of pre-packaged training for business and industry. “Better, Faster, Cheaper” for many businesses means sending their sole designer to become certified to facilitate programming that develops their workforce’s skills and rewards employees with professional development.

“Better, Faster, Cheaper” in terms of in-house creations tended to mean less time for us to solve problems with training. We were forever being asked to create and train the workforce on new initiatives and were usually given about a month of time. This made following the traditional ADDIE model difficult and we did utilize rapid prototyping to shorten the cycle time. Rapid prototyping reduces “production time because (a) using working models of the final product early in a project tends to eliminate time-consuming revisions later on and (b) design tasks are completed concurrently, rather than sequentially, throughout the project” (Tracey & Morrison p.183). While we used rapid prototyping we were not exactly happy about the results – the analysis phase was extended and we discovered opportunities for change later in the project than we would have liked (usually after having run the training to a pilot group and sometimes not even until we were on the second run of a training). As instructional professionals, this did not make us feel that we were producing the best product we could. To the organization however, we were giving them exactly what they wanted, better, faster, and cheaper.

Another trend that was prevalent was the need for advanced evaluation of training initiatives. Tracey & Morrison mentioned Brinkerhoff’s Success Case Method of evaluation and indeed this is a practice embraced by business and industry widely. Return on investment (ROI) must be shown for all areas of a business or industry to justify the expense and training is no different. My experience was that ROI is expected and training managers should deliver. At the 2003 American Society for Training and Development International Conference and Exhibition, Brinkerhoff and Dressler facilitated a symposium on Using the Success Case Impact Evaluation Method to Enhance Training Value & Impact.

Brinkerhoff and Dressler shared the following case-study of how the Success Case model can be used to evaluate training and identify opportunities for improvement:

“In an evaluation of the business value of emotional intelligence training at American Express, for example, we told the story of how six different financial advisors, each in a different situation, had used their training to increase sales, increase customer revenues, and so forth. Comparing these stories with the stories of unsuccessful participants allowed us to pinpoint the several key performance system factors that enabled some to make very successful use of the program, while others were not nearly so successful. As a result, American Express was able to

formulate new guidelines for program participation and support that were aimed at increasing

the numbers of advisors who could successfully leverage the training into financial results” (Brinkerhoff & Dressler, p.14). Whether companies are using the Success Case model or the more commonly known Kirkpatrick model of evaluation, the C-Suite is asking for results and instructional designers in the private industry are taking note. “Better, Faster, Cheaper” ID must be shown to be “Better” to balance the books for its expense.

In closing – I would encourage you to check out some of the links below to the websites of the companies I mentioned in this blog post that are making big business out of training-the-trainer and instructional designers for business and industry today.

References

Brinkerhoff, R.D., & Dressler, D. E. (2003, May). Using the Success Case Impact Evaluation Method to Enhance Training Value & Impact. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Society for Training and Development International Conference and Exhibition 2003, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from http://www.kenblanchard.com/img/pub/newsletter_brinkerhoff.pdf

Tracey, M.W. & Morrison, G.R. (2012). Instructional Design in Business and Industry. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Ed.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, Third Edition (pp. 178 – 186). Boston, MA: Pearson.