This Scope of Work Performed Matrix was developed to determine the expectations and responsibilities for the instructional designer, Subject Matter Expert (SME), and stakeholders. Expectations are what the “Instructional Designer” should have for Stakeholders and SMEs, and how the ID should expect to comport themselves during the project.

With every expectation, there are responsibilities. The matrix explains the expectation and requisite responsibility per scope of work performed for each role.

This project was redesigning all of the new hire training for a web hosting and services company with 5,000 employees. They had three web hosting brands all using different technical support new hire material, all out of date and in different stages of development. I was also tasked with redesigning the new hire material for the sales department that covered each of the brands and had three different sales units.

Research showed that when sales people assisted with some tech support, they had a higher retention and sales rate. Research had also shown that tech support makes better leads and sales of minor services if they have some sales training.

I analyzed all of the current training materials for all of the units. I then proposed further research of employees and managers assessment of current tech support and sales knowledge.

Additional research was needed, so I created surveys for employees and managers about what they perceived was missing from training. They asked a number of questions, such as “What do you wish you had known before you started at HostYo?” and “What did you learn after training that you feel should have been in training?”

Demographic information was also requested, including: tenure in the company, previous experience, and prior experience with internet technology.

Based on survey results and focus groups, the previous training created a lot of confusion for participants, resulting in low transfer of knowledge and high attrition. The training used a concept based on the higher education system of 100, 200, 300 level sections, interspersed throughout two weeks of training. This system works great when there is three months of developing knowledge, not so much in tech support training compressed into two weeks.

Once the plans have been approved, I take the performance objectives and drill down into each module, creating lesson objectives and a bullet list of the information that should be in each. I used “performance objective” instead of Terminal Learning Objective and “lesson objective” instead of Enabling Learning Objective.

The discovery was done prior to analysis. In discovery, the stakeholders were given a timeline for analysis and planning, and were told the next step would be a formal document providing an overview of the new program. A training plan is developed that shows what analysis was and would be performed, the timing of high level performance outcomes targeted, a timeline for deliverables, an evaluation plan, a list of stakeholders, and a version history if any changes were made.

This document becomes the formal contract of the totality of the design and development of the entire program.

While the Training Plan provided an overview of what evaluation would be provided, this evaluation plan provides a more detailed explanation of what evaluations should be performed, when they should be done, and standards to be applied.

The plan is based on Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model. I would have preferred using the Learning Transfer Evaluation Model, instead, and then develop more business metric-focused evaluations for the Kirkpatrick model.

The overarching plan, when this project started, was for me to analyze and design the program (which followed the ADDIE framework), then go into a more Agile project management framework using SAM. I tasked each member of the team with developing content for specific modules, they would coordinate with Subject Matter Experts, then I would manage and supervise the process and analyze and assess the materials created. We were hoping to have the whole thing completed within two months using this plan.

Unfortunately, we lost our ID manager and my team was reassigned to other tasks, leaving me with the entire program to develop. I still used a SAM framework as much as possible, and was afforded some assistance from a content developer when available, to complete the entire program.

Adapt and overcome…

Once all of the preliminary analysis is done, everything is arranged in progression from most basic to most complex. Basic information, such as “What is the internet?” is put at the beginning, while the most complex of analyzing systems is put towards the end.

Including the development of tech support skills and knowledge, we also had to develop customer support and sales capabilities, so these are developed in appropriate locations.

To help in the creation of the content, I took the design plan and created documents in outline format with each of the sections. The header of each chunk is the lesson objective, to enable more cohesive flow to the training and information. I then shared the documents with the SMEs to have them, essentially, fill in the blanks.

Once they did their part, I would go through and edit and proofread the material, then open it up to the SME community to comment and debate the material. Once the material was approved, it was used to create the Instructor Guide.

As content is approved, the Instructor Guide is built. As the content is being added, ideas for reinforcing the material, activities, terms that need to be addressed, knowledge checks, instructor prompts, etc., are added. The instructor guide is completed entirely before the Participant Guide is built.

I had noticed that instructor’s had a lot of problems with managing a lot of documents, notating, and knowing where participants should be in their guides. The solution I developed was to build one document with both guides present. The left side is the instructor guide with all of the prompts; the right side is the participant guide with all of the same content, but with all instructor information removed and activities built out.

This eliminated waste by having to print multiple guides, reduced waste for purchasing note books that were rarely used, and increased efficiency in updating materials. It had the added benefit that the instructors loved it. They felt this made their job so much easier by having convenient places for notes, answers to activities and discussions, and keeping people on task. The addition of the slide image to the note section instead of a text note saying “slide XX” made a faster update and faster point of reference during their presentations.

The slide decks are the last thing built. My philosophy is that a slide deck is meant to be the visual equivalent of a 3×5 card. It is meant to provide a waypoint for the instructor and a visual queue for the participant. I use heuristics religiously to make sure that the participant has that unconscious queue of what is expected of them at the time. All activities, discussions, content, media, etc., slides are on a different design, respectively. This way, the participant spends less time trying to figure out what is going on and more time listening or participating.

Once all of the slide decks are completed, I will build any eLearning deliverables that will support the course, using the same design schema for the eLearning to make sure that it is all cohesive and maintains the continuity of learning.

Assessments and Measurement Devices were created for assessing participant performance, which included the following:
– Knowledge checks and comprehensive tests which reduced multiple choice questions and increased essay response.
– Systems simulators. Web sites were developed with technical issues and Salesforce simulators were created to support those sites. Simulators for other software and systems were also created for different brands and business units.
– Simulated call eLearnings. These are eLearning packages that had branching scenarios to measure understanding of tech support processes and customer service concepts. Each answer was weighted, providing a 1-5 Likert scale on knowledge and courtesy as a result. All simulated calls were based on actual calls. Each eLearning could fail if enough poor choices were made.
– Call labs. These were developed to provide a middle-step between classroom and On The Job training. Instructors and supervisors would call participants with scripted personalities, tech issues, and commentary, based on actual calls. This provided the participants to practice navigating systems while engaging a customer, in a safe environment.