However, in my context, we’re still using some of the same stuff we used in the Vietnam war. The new stuff is high tech (poorly selected, designed, and engineered high tech in many cases :-( .) For maintainers as well as operators, this normally means either some great apprenticeship on the job with an outstanding mentor or prescribed performance preparation and hands on in a lab environment that provides a better chance at gaining experienced and focused mentorship.

For a performer that wears many hats and doesn’t perform a task often, we’re moving towards PSS (mixed print, electronic) with intentional bridging elements like orienters, explainers, etc. that leverage media for what it’s good for. PSS isn’t an either or proposition in my opinion. Pure performance support and pure learning shouldn’t be segregated. We don’t see ‘follow these steps’ as enough in many cases. Lack of orientation and familiarity with the task context and conceptual underpinnings results in unperformance (not doing it) or underperformance (breaking stuff.)

We are fighting the battle of ‘tech and clinical are enough’ with the logistics folks who don’t see the value or a nature of sustainability with the intentionally designed bridging elements within our PSS packaging. I think there’s a sense that we have an interest in generating authoratative technical data for the S1000D pool (still 5 years out I would wager). Well, my thoughts on that, hell no – the only interaction I want with the S1000D common source is to pull from it. PS includes technical elements, but it’s not enough in most cases. And it’s never enough if the technical data is written like most of the stuff we tend to get (loosely translated to english or written ambiguously or both.)

In a military environment we are never going to get away from formal training. Partly because it’s the right choice more times than we admit (we’re in the cultural battle against formal trng just to open up options for alternatives and hybrids.) Frml training creates consistent expectations and a safety net that says ‘we’ve done what we can to instill and ensure competence and confidence at a base level.’ That’s not to say that we can’t stratify our solutions to baseline with more direct performance support where it’s appropriate (a lot more cases than we currently employ) and build upon that with formal / prescribed solutions and available resources and maps for continued growth.

I think it will take most corporate and government environments decades (or centuries) to get to that level of automation for things that shouldn’t require human intervention. Until then we’ll keep adjusting our heuristics and principles to match our shifting context – hoping that it’s just enough to get the job done:)

Steve, similarly, I see a continuum between education and training, so there’ll be elements of both. Just hate to see anyone learning rote stuff, that’s what automation’s for. I reckon the interesting work for people is making the important/challenging decisions. Or, to put it another way, we should reserve those decisions we want to make, and automate the rest!

Steve, like your diagram, and intrigued by your recommendation of starting with performance support. I can see that argument. I do believe we need to start from the performance change needed, which may be similar.

Thanks!

http://www.xpconcept.com/layers.jpg

The idea is social modality on one axis and a multidimensional layered model with a foundation of *direct performance support* (where I think we should start and core EVERY one of our solution paths). The other axial ‘layer zones’ are *prescribed training experiences*, *life @ work*, and *life overlaps work*.

The zone sizes are fairly arbitrary (not based on any kind of data whatsoever), just a gut feel representation.

* Performance Support – where does this fit in?
* The arrows make this seem more confusing/complex than needed. There might be another way to rearrange (still using your dimensions) to make the connections immediately apparent.

For example, moving laterally across the map you could classify formal to informal in terms of the ‘who what’ in relation to the performer:

* Facilitated
* Team (not explicitly called out, but these are normally formally arranged)
* Individual (can and do manifest across the formal to informal scale)
* Community (normally at the informal end of the scale, implies incidental value)

If we look at this as a matrix, you could arrange things in layers. I’m not sure reflective and active are necessarily complementary, but it’s your map:) So that makes it cool. Modalities are tough to parallel up. I think that specific modalities are intentionally avoided, but the elements included reflect various levels of granular specificity (example, RSS vice Job Aids).

It’s also so tough to account for every class of intervention, since there is significant overlap. So many ways to slice it.

Perhaps breaking things down to attributes and abstracting the characteristics and natures of a servicing solution would help to reassemble logical groupings. By breaking out characteristics you can also avoid ‘pure’ references to things like job aids. Most of the job aids I’ve worked on have included ‘pure’ task guidance in addition to bridging with context / concept support that resemble mini-orienters, explainers that have strategic and intentional learning support qualities. I suppose it’s all semantics:)

I’d also specify that this is closely aligned with ‘skill attribute support’ as a holistic performance ecosystem would ideally weigh all performance factors equally (environment, incentive / validation, organizational support, skills / knowledge, etc..)

Howard, my goal in putting in forums, wikis, blogs, RSS, etc, is to include the social/informal side as well as the formal (see the other diagrams pointed to as well). I still think there’s a role for formal, though with an improved constructivist and often social pedagogy. And I argue regularly that it’s not a case of “if you build it, they will come”, but there’s the whole organizational implementation side that must be addressed, and the culture. For performance, I’m not sure I want to grow relationships and community, however, except to the extent that they facilitate the growth of understanding and new ideas (which I acknowledge they do contribute to).

I admit I’m a geek who loves all the shiny toys, but I always focus on the learning (the big picture learning, including problem-solving and innovation) first, so I’m focused on the tools for what they can DO, not on them for themselves.