Summary+of+February+2nd+class

We were good people to attend class during the Season Premiere of [|LOST]. LOST is actually a good example of a success story that could **not** be explained by instructional design models (or maybe it could be explained). Most people watching LOST are lost, wanting to connect the dots and wondering all the while if they ever will. What motivates most of us, I think, it that **goal** of understanding the reasons behind the complex storyline. Our motivation carries us through many years of total confusion. So that tiny little word "motivation" at the top of my drawing, seems to account for a lot, doesn't it? How would we dissect the **confidence** element of the ARCS (see model) motivation model? I keep watching LOST and I really have very little confidence that I'll figure it out.

During this class we talked a little about Needs Assessments and DeathMarch projects. Both of the links here go to the books we mentioned (thank you Kim for reminding me of Allison Rossett, I did put her on the new model.) I liked what Shari had to say about the reasons for being on a Death March project, one being very practical ... you go ahead because you don't have any other job at the time. So true.

I connected the topic of Needs Assessments with the topic of Death Marches because one of the need's assessment projects that I experienced was a death march (a situation where limited resources (time, money) prevents success). Additionally, if needs assessments are not done, then the likelihood of a death march increases.

I shared two needs assessment projects that I took part in. Once was a two year project for MCI that was very interesting because it was a Death March. I was a lead designer on that project and worked with 20 instructional designers. What I forgot to share with the class was that I did more work, and better work, when I was the **only** instructional designer doing a needs assessment for Briggs and Stratton. That project took one month, the MCI project took two years. To this day I think the MCI project could have been done with four people instead of 20, and would have provided much stronger data. What happened at MCI was the consequence of egos out of control. Everyone wanted to tell their bosses that they "had a team of 20 instructional designers" working on creating solutions. Nobody every asked "Do we need have 20 instructional designers on this project?"

Not all needs assessments are Death Marches though. In general, needs assessments are a lot of fun. You get to play detective when you are doing a needs assessment. You go out and observe people, groups, processes. You interview people, you look over all kinds of artifacts (documents, products, training ...) and you figure out ... what is going on here? I do think Allison Rossett explains the process well. As someone doing a needs assessment you try to identify ...
 * Needs Assessment Basics**
 * What is **optimal** for this context (a workplace situation)?
 * What is **actual**? What is going on now in this context?
 * What is the difference between the optimal and actual? What is the **gap**? What needs to happen? How do you get from point A to point B? Point A being the actual and Point B being the optimal.

Richard Clark and Fred Estes provide additional structure by focusing questions in three area ...
 * What are the **motivation** issues? What motivates people, what is de-motivating people?
 * What are **organizational** issues? What processes within the business are causing problems? What processes are working?
 * What are the **information** needs? What information could help people perform?