Model Update - Reflection on Front-End Analysis

My model will probably be highly influenced by the Diamond model that emphasizes the importance of front-end analysis in curriculum design in the higher ed context. While my model will target staff curriculum and training (rather than student curriculum) I think Diamond's emphasis on front-end analysis would hold true outside of the faculty boundary but within the University boundary.

SU's cultural framework certainly embraces such things as inclusiveness, the use of solid data for decision making, and shared governance, which are best addressed by involving people in the process early in any project - again underlining over emphasis on the front-end analysis component of the model.

Additionally, from an organizational development standpoint, the Chancellor has been trying to develop a new culture that supports her vision of Scholarship in Action. That vision is full of ideals that should effect the future of work here and, ultimately, how staff members should attack their jobs. (Like Diamond, Kaufman placed emphasis on the "desired" state. My model may also be informed by Kaufman's work.) Conceptually, that has not yet been analyzed or digested....and certainly, it has not been articulated. A full scale analysis of that would be most helpful to the training component. Cornell, for instance, completed a cross campus job review to categorize jobs and create a university-wide competency model that has been used as a basis for several practices including staff training and performance reviews. Again, this further supports last evening discussion about how consequences (or the lack thereof) link to training efforts.

So, all in all, front-end analysis will most likely be an important component to my model.

The Diamond Model: Higher Education Planning and Development

Here's a good student (from the University of Georgia) paper on the Diamond model.

http://ejadair.myweb.uga.edu/portfolio/diamond.pdf

Reflection on Reading 2

Here are my takeaways from this week's reading:
* There is a lot of good, useful information in the early writings by the pioneers of this dicipline that is still valuable for today's issues. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the readings were not really stale or dated.
*In particular, the readings (Kaufman and Romiszowski) underscored the importance of a clear "future state" in the front-end analysis review. I am a firm believer that a major issue in front-end analysis is that the future state of the organization (context) or the job is seldom articulated in writing, especially if one is relying on strategic plans and job descriptions respectively for data. They are usually either outdated or, at best, written for the current state, thus being useless in defining the "need" or "gap."
*Bucketing the Issues: I thought that 111-5, Joe Harless' An Ounce of Analysis, was both simple and practical in its approach to bucketing the problems. I've never differentiated the issue at hand by skill/knowledge, environment or motivation before. I've used other, different buckets or labels (i.e., management, leadership, process) but these broad buckets seem better. I had an aha moment here. On that same note, I also like Romy's Performance Problem Analysis Schema. He has more and different buckets, but I would definately try both approaches on real life situations to evaluate them more. It was stimulating to be challenged to a paradigm shift in thinking about approach.

Model - Initial Thoughts

I plan to construct an ISD model that would be applicable for designing and developing training for higher education (University) staff members. Since this area falls within my current responsibilities of my day job here at SU, I look forward to using this as an opportunity to directly connect the theory and lessons learned in class with the goals and objectives of my job. Even after only a cursory review, I can already see that the Diamond model matches with my experiences thus far here, and it will serve as a good basis from which to begin.

Reflection on Practical Exercise II

This is a good, simple, quick exercise that takes theory to real-life, and I think it lends itself to usage in the practical work of ISD. That said, I can also see that, while I wrote answers to each question asked, they may or may not be
"right." Answers represent just 1 (or 2) of many possible options. If answered "incorrectly" in a real setting, there could be stringent consequences as one would be working off of false assumptions. So, if included as a piece of the process in front-end analysis, agreement would need to be made by the stakeholders involved. I think this process would be especially helpful for those in ISD consulting roles working in unknown contexts. Very good tool.