Compliance Training Manager for Microsoft, he opened up the session by asking if there were any attorneys in the room. Stated that working with attorneys in the compliance world has its own set of unique restrictions. This should be good...
What does compliance mean? We've got software, financial, trustowrthy computing requirements...it's very all over the place. If Michael ran a report on Compliance in personnel's title, the hits would total well over 20,000. If you ask an attorney, they would respond with, "Well, it depends...it depends on kind, requirements, your world, etc." Michael's world is legla compliance.
"Compliance should be slightly if not at all different from training other areas, but the consequences of getting it wrong are much more severe." (well said)
Why bother with compliance training? To keep your corporation out of the headlines... (again, well said)
Brought up the concept of archived training, and the ability to recall what was trained 5 years ago...10 years ago. This is definitely significant in the case of what I do, as well as (apparently) many others in this room. Compliance does not just include the here and now, but then 'then and there'. Trackability, locatability, archivability...all significant when it comes to creating a compliant body of training.
Not a lot of specific data here, per se...not a lot that I can take away and employ. But it definitely made me reflect on compliance and its significance in the EHR Training Industry. Great presentation.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
He's baaaaack
I've been a horrendous blogger...seem I only use it when I'm attending a conference. With that said...
...I'm attending a conference.
Society for Applied Learning Technology's 2010 conference, to be exact. Check them out here.
I'm attending as an alternate presenter. God forbid they should need me, but if they do, here's what they'll get.
First session's beginning, so here we go...stay tuned.
...I'm attending a conference.
Society for Applied Learning Technology's 2010 conference, to be exact. Check them out here.
I'm attending as an alternate presenter. God forbid they should need me, but if they do, here's what they'll get.
First session's beginning, so here we go...stay tuned.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
A Response to a Colleague
(This was composed in response to a colleague looking for guidance on how to develop simulated software training. If any of you can use it in your practice, feel free...any questions, let me know.)
I've been at the "simulating software without harm to the actual application" for a number of years now. We happen to work with an Electronic Health Record (EHR) and, not only out of fear of altering a patient record but, also, fear of HIPAA ramifications, do we have to create this 'imaginary reality'. We do it in a very streamlined development process, using Adobe Captivate. We create CBT and, for some of the more limited users of the application, CBT-alone training is all they require to get up and running (as their access might not be as impactful as others). For said other users, though, we offer a hybrid approach to our training, of both a synchronous ILT/CBT session for new users.
This hybrid approach takes the best of both of worlds and mashes them together. The CBT delivers the more foundational/basic elements and, once the users have completed the CBT elements, we regroups as a class, discuss, and delve into deeper topics. We've found this approach to be beneficial for a number of reasons. First off, it allows for individualized questioning on the basic elements, rather than one question stopping the whole class. For example, if it was a standard ILT experience, and there were fifteen students, one student raising their hand puts everyone else's learning on hold till that learner's question was answered. By using the CBT to get the learners' feet wet, questions can be addressed individually (which is more comfortable, I've found for adult medical professionals).
Additionally, by using CBT straight away, it puts MIH ("Mouse In Hand") and gets learners cued in straight away to the fact that this is a computer application. Too often, those of us with the knowledge fall in love WITH our knowledge and try to train it via standard lecture. By allowing the users to jump right in, they start making connections right away, where they might not have before. Then, when the group 'regroups', they already feel experienced in the topic at hand and can begin to discuss more finite details of the application. And, really, when it's all said and done, when you're dealing with an adult audience, you're looking for pragmatic, you're looking for practical - let's not hide it, let's start clicking! (Side note - The adult audience point is also why we don't go with 'strictly CBT', as they still need that 'traditional' experience to feel comfortable).
Finally, there's the time factor. By alleviating the 'group questioning' referenced above, and the typically 'tangential' nature a lecture based class would take, we've been able to cut typical class time in HALF (which, for anyone well-spoken on the art of the ROI, you know that's pretty huge). By doing so, not only have we saved human resources, time, and, therefore, money, we've been able to double, and in some cases triple, the number of class offerings we as a training team can make. The ROI here touches on so many levels.
Long story short, as I tell a lot of folks, this solution works and works HUGE for us. There's no such thing as a 'universal solution; to training needs (let alone application simulation training needs). I can say with utmost certainty that in a similar organization, looking to tackle a similar task, such an approach would be worth, at least, taking a long look at. The money, time, and personnel saved are priceless, but, then again, so is an effective training product that allows learners to get in, get out, and get using.
I've been at the "simulating software without harm to the actual application" for a number of years now. We happen to work with an Electronic Health Record (EHR) and, not only out of fear of altering a patient record but, also, fear of HIPAA ramifications, do we have to create this 'imaginary reality'. We do it in a very streamlined development process, using Adobe Captivate. We create CBT and, for some of the more limited users of the application, CBT-alone training is all they require to get up and running (as their access might not be as impactful as others). For said other users, though, we offer a hybrid approach to our training, of both a synchronous ILT/CBT session for new users.
This hybrid approach takes the best of both of worlds and mashes them together. The CBT delivers the more foundational/basic elements and, once the users have completed the CBT elements, we regroups as a class, discuss, and delve into deeper topics. We've found this approach to be beneficial for a number of reasons. First off, it allows for individualized questioning on the basic elements, rather than one question stopping the whole class. For example, if it was a standard ILT experience, and there were fifteen students, one student raising their hand puts everyone else's learning on hold till that learner's question was answered. By using the CBT to get the learners' feet wet, questions can be addressed individually (which is more comfortable, I've found for adult medical professionals).
Additionally, by using CBT straight away, it puts MIH ("Mouse In Hand") and gets learners cued in straight away to the fact that this is a computer application. Too often, those of us with the knowledge fall in love WITH our knowledge and try to train it via standard lecture. By allowing the users to jump right in, they start making connections right away, where they might not have before. Then, when the group 'regroups', they already feel experienced in the topic at hand and can begin to discuss more finite details of the application. And, really, when it's all said and done, when you're dealing with an adult audience, you're looking for pragmatic, you're looking for practical - let's not hide it, let's start clicking! (Side note - The adult audience point is also why we don't go with 'strictly CBT', as they still need that 'traditional' experience to feel comfortable).
Finally, there's the time factor. By alleviating the 'group questioning' referenced above, and the typically 'tangential' nature a lecture based class would take, we've been able to cut typical class time in HALF (which, for anyone well-spoken on the art of the ROI, you know that's pretty huge). By doing so, not only have we saved human resources, time, and, therefore, money, we've been able to double, and in some cases triple, the number of class offerings we as a training team can make. The ROI here touches on so many levels.
Long story short, as I tell a lot of folks, this solution works and works HUGE for us. There's no such thing as a 'universal solution; to training needs (let alone application simulation training needs). I can say with utmost certainty that in a similar organization, looking to tackle a similar task, such an approach would be worth, at least, taking a long look at. The money, time, and personnel saved are priceless, but, then again, so is an effective training product that allows learners to get in, get out, and get using.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Back With A Vengeance (and an extra kid)
Sorry it's been a while, but with the development load being what it is, and the whole adding another kid to the family thing (no pressure), let's just say time has not been readily available (despite my most rapid development). More substantial entry to follow shortly, but the rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated...talk to you all soon.
SR
SR
Monday, June 29, 2009
Murder Was The Case
Lately, I've been seeing a lot of press in our industry about the death of ID and how it signals so many negative trends, such as deficits in end product quality. The scholar that resides inside of me says of course - that's logical. The more time you take to map out and plan things, the more time you take in analyzing your audience and their tasks, the better your end training product will be. It's good to be methodical about laying out a blueprint, of sorts, but how many times do you have to put it on the page (in preparation for the stage) when placing it directly on the stage, after rehearsing it for years, would prove much more economical, efficient, and effective?
I'm here today to fess up to a crime...a grave and serious one in our industry. I show no remorse for what I've done, and I would do it again and again - I have killed Instructional Design (in my little microcosm, anyway).
I can hear all the academics screaming, saying that each product is a unique chance to address a unique group of learners. And that's where academia separates vastly from real world design/development. I've been doing my gig (which I've started lovingly referring to as "Hyper Development (c)") for coming up on 5 years. In the beginning, I went to each of the 'sub-teams' I was doing development work for and I started getting the same basic concept back. I created a module template, my team created a PowerPoint template for the 'SME's we were to work with, and, really, the analysis work was in the client's lap. They came to us and said "We need 'x'", being familiar with what we do and how it was to come out looking. The results have been nothing less than stellar, the ROI's beyond impressive, and the case studies the same (when little old me can rapid prototype better, faster, and cheaper than a major automotive company, there's good things going on here).
So, ID's dead to me...I said it. I don't miss it, and I certainly don't mourn its passing. I will however say this - if you are just starting conversions to CBT, or don't have a system-wide standard template in place, it might be too soon to remove ID from your process. There's a reason analyses are such a backbone to our practice - they're smart, they're good, and they're meaningful. Of course, it would also be nice to gather up all the doctors to sit around the table and talk about the best course of treatment for every patient that comes through our doors. But if someone comes in, bleeding out and crashing fast...well, hopefully you see my point. While these analyses are valid and valuable, they are not always practical or feasible(increasingly moreso as our field develops better, stronger, faster practices).
If you love your analyses, and you cling to the information they provide - great. But if your management catches wind as to how fast, say, a group like mine can turn product around, be ready to justify your 80 hours of analyses for a 2 hour project. Be ready to explain how the pages upon pages of information you've compiled helps to make your training unique. Be ready to explain how understanding the learner helps the learner to feel better, and how those feelings translate to a positive ROI...
I'm here today to fess up to a crime...a grave and serious one in our industry. I show no remorse for what I've done, and I would do it again and again - I have killed Instructional Design (in my little microcosm, anyway).
I can hear all the academics screaming, saying that each product is a unique chance to address a unique group of learners. And that's where academia separates vastly from real world design/development. I've been doing my gig (which I've started lovingly referring to as "Hyper Development (c)") for coming up on 5 years. In the beginning, I went to each of the 'sub-teams' I was doing development work for and I started getting the same basic concept back. I created a module template, my team created a PowerPoint template for the 'SME's we were to work with, and, really, the analysis work was in the client's lap. They came to us and said "We need 'x'", being familiar with what we do and how it was to come out looking. The results have been nothing less than stellar, the ROI's beyond impressive, and the case studies the same (when little old me can rapid prototype better, faster, and cheaper than a major automotive company, there's good things going on here).
So, ID's dead to me...I said it. I don't miss it, and I certainly don't mourn its passing. I will however say this - if you are just starting conversions to CBT, or don't have a system-wide standard template in place, it might be too soon to remove ID from your process. There's a reason analyses are such a backbone to our practice - they're smart, they're good, and they're meaningful. Of course, it would also be nice to gather up all the doctors to sit around the table and talk about the best course of treatment for every patient that comes through our doors. But if someone comes in, bleeding out and crashing fast...well, hopefully you see my point. While these analyses are valid and valuable, they are not always practical or feasible(increasingly moreso as our field develops better, stronger, faster practices).
If you love your analyses, and you cling to the information they provide - great. But if your management catches wind as to how fast, say, a group like mine can turn product around, be ready to justify your 80 hours of analyses for a 2 hour project. Be ready to explain how the pages upon pages of information you've compiled helps to make your training unique. Be ready to explain how understanding the learner helps the learner to feel better, and how those feelings translate to a positive ROI...
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Leave it to the pros...seriously.
I apologize, once again, for my spotty (at best) attendance on this wonderful platform. Things are, shall we say, crazy with work and personal (we're expecting #2...due date Christmas Eve), but I'll try to stay focused on the work-based, as there's a lesson that I already knew, but is being learned by many. And it all starts with a simple analogy:
Take your favorite car that you own, give the keys to someone who's never driven before, and tell them to travel from point A to point B. Without my saying anything further, what would you expect to happen? Simple, right? CRASH, BOOM, BANG...repeat as necessary. If someone doesn't know the inherent workings of something (they know that cars transport people, beyond that...), how can you possibly expect them to take good care and be a safe 'driver'.
Some of you in the industry are probably putting it together...maybe some aren't. I'll speak in vague terms, so as not to draw professional flak, nor to be unprofessional (I'm going for caustic, not 'cost-you-your-job'-ic). Let's say a certain training organization has handled a regulary scheduled yearly influx of new staff members. And LET'S JUST SAY this training/onboarding was 1 day and that these new starts were coming from different 'departments'. LET'S JUST SAY this group has brought these folks on board for four years going, and everything was working well enough.
Enter your people in the respective departments who now say "We want to train these new starts. We want to do it our way, with our spin on things, but you (the training team in question) need to do it all for us." So, these departments design what they think is solid training and what they THINK is education, only to have the original training team be forced to be the messenger - to carry out this ill-thought, ill-prepared agenda. And now, instead of one day of the training team being devoted to training, they are pulled from their regularly scheduled duties for more than TWO WEEKS to work with each 'client', if you will.
Those of you quick on the calculators can probably figure, pretty quickly at that, the increase of 'cost' when you go from one 8-hour day to eleven of them. Those of you that develop and deliver training KNOW what happens when an over-eager SME tries to yank control on a project/module/etc. And those of you who have ever done classroom training know that it's a much more attainable task to teach to the middle line, specializing instruction afterwards, then it is to as you go along.
This HYPOTHETICAL situation I'm sure/I know is all too common in the industry, and it happens when you've worked with a group long enough that they begin to get that glazed look in their eye that equals "Training sure looks easy...I bet I could do it". It's only when they try to that they realize CBT doesn't just randomly generate from a computer program, lessons take time to plan (and that's from ME...king of rapid proto), and training takes panache, if I may be so bold. It takes a trainer to train.
Bottom line, kids - Leave it to the experts. We get it done more quickly, more efficiently, and more cost-effectively. Stick to your areas of expertise, we'll stick to ours.
Take your favorite car that you own, give the keys to someone who's never driven before, and tell them to travel from point A to point B. Without my saying anything further, what would you expect to happen? Simple, right? CRASH, BOOM, BANG...repeat as necessary. If someone doesn't know the inherent workings of something (they know that cars transport people, beyond that...), how can you possibly expect them to take good care and be a safe 'driver'.
Some of you in the industry are probably putting it together...maybe some aren't. I'll speak in vague terms, so as not to draw professional flak, nor to be unprofessional (I'm going for caustic, not 'cost-you-your-job'-ic). Let's say a certain training organization has handled a regulary scheduled yearly influx of new staff members. And LET'S JUST SAY this training/onboarding was 1 day and that these new starts were coming from different 'departments'. LET'S JUST SAY this group has brought these folks on board for four years going, and everything was working well enough.
Enter your people in the respective departments who now say "We want to train these new starts. We want to do it our way, with our spin on things, but you (the training team in question) need to do it all for us." So, these departments design what they think is solid training and what they THINK is education, only to have the original training team be forced to be the messenger - to carry out this ill-thought, ill-prepared agenda. And now, instead of one day of the training team being devoted to training, they are pulled from their regularly scheduled duties for more than TWO WEEKS to work with each 'client', if you will.
Those of you quick on the calculators can probably figure, pretty quickly at that, the increase of 'cost' when you go from one 8-hour day to eleven of them. Those of you that develop and deliver training KNOW what happens when an over-eager SME tries to yank control on a project/module/etc. And those of you who have ever done classroom training know that it's a much more attainable task to teach to the middle line, specializing instruction afterwards, then it is to as you go along.
This HYPOTHETICAL situation I'm sure/I know is all too common in the industry, and it happens when you've worked with a group long enough that they begin to get that glazed look in their eye that equals "Training sure looks easy...I bet I could do it". It's only when they try to that they realize CBT doesn't just randomly generate from a computer program, lessons take time to plan (and that's from ME...king of rapid proto), and training takes panache, if I may be so bold. It takes a trainer to train.
Bottom line, kids - Leave it to the experts. We get it done more quickly, more efficiently, and more cost-effectively. Stick to your areas of expertise, we'll stick to ours.
Monday, May 4, 2009
CBT Monkey Thought of the Day
(Yes, I know...I am a slacker of a blogger...so sorry...)
Here's a little nugget of knowledge I've found to be true when working in the realm of CBT for internal clients - Want to have these clients be more understanding of your timelines and how the review process works w/r/t CBT? Let them develop the source material for you!
As we work predominantly with Adobe Captivate, our niche training market is to recreate the user experience of using an Electronic Medical Record. We've gotten away from Captivate's innate functionality which is to captuare motion and interaction on a screen and, instead, create more of a 'simulation' than a 'demonstration' by utilizing static images and required actions. So, that's what we (the deisgners/developers) do...
Part of working with Electronic Medical Records is realizing that there's not just one EMR...there's many subdivisions beneath this umbrella and, as such, many areas of specialty. Examples include, but are certainly not limited to: Outpatient, Inpatient, Surgery, Emergency, and so on. For us (the team of two) to go in, navigate around whatever specialty area is requesting CBT to be developed, and capture not only screenshots, but accurate screenshots would require functionla knowledge that only the 'subdivision' analysts and users would have.
Solution? We created a PowerPoint based template that directly mirrors our Captivate template both in form and function. In the PowerPoint version, though, all fields are editable, so that the SMEs can insert their approved (and, what's more, CORRECT) verbiage/explanations. The SMEs can also Alt+PrntScrn for each 'click of the mouse', as we tell them, and paste each screen into PowerPoint. Highlight the area you want focused on with the pre-made highlight box, add your text...and you're done! Not only is the subject material accurate, but it's in a format that allows the client the chance to see what it looks like as a CBT, rather than just having a figurative picture in their head until 2 or 3 weeks later.
The first question I get asked about this method is usually, "How do you get your SMEs to do this?" Quite simple, really - If you explain to a SME that (a) Allowing me (the developer) to go through and attempt to capture screens/action correctly will only end up in endless edits/corrections, (b) This method will allow you to more easily translate updates/changes to the developer (instead of having to recreate the source doc over and over again), and (c) Preparing the source document like this will cut the time it takes for your course to go-live AT LEAST in half....well, if you explain these things, they tend to like the idea.
Does it take the SME more time? Up front, yes - but when it comes off, Version 1.0, looking like it's been through a couple of rounds of edits, the benefits of this method of Subject Matter Documentation are pretty clear.
If any of you (the three people that might read this) have any questions, just let me know. Let's hear it for monthly updates!
Here's a little nugget of knowledge I've found to be true when working in the realm of CBT for internal clients - Want to have these clients be more understanding of your timelines and how the review process works w/r/t CBT? Let them develop the source material for you!
As we work predominantly with Adobe Captivate, our niche training market is to recreate the user experience of using an Electronic Medical Record. We've gotten away from Captivate's innate functionality which is to captuare motion and interaction on a screen and, instead, create more of a 'simulation' than a 'demonstration' by utilizing static images and required actions. So, that's what we (the deisgners/developers) do...
Part of working with Electronic Medical Records is realizing that there's not just one EMR...there's many subdivisions beneath this umbrella and, as such, many areas of specialty. Examples include, but are certainly not limited to: Outpatient, Inpatient, Surgery, Emergency, and so on. For us (the team of two) to go in, navigate around whatever specialty area is requesting CBT to be developed, and capture not only screenshots, but accurate screenshots would require functionla knowledge that only the 'subdivision' analysts and users would have.
Solution? We created a PowerPoint based template that directly mirrors our Captivate template both in form and function. In the PowerPoint version, though, all fields are editable, so that the SMEs can insert their approved (and, what's more, CORRECT) verbiage/explanations. The SMEs can also Alt+PrntScrn for each 'click of the mouse', as we tell them, and paste each screen into PowerPoint. Highlight the area you want focused on with the pre-made highlight box, add your text...and you're done! Not only is the subject material accurate, but it's in a format that allows the client the chance to see what it looks like as a CBT, rather than just having a figurative picture in their head until 2 or 3 weeks later.
The first question I get asked about this method is usually, "How do you get your SMEs to do this?" Quite simple, really - If you explain to a SME that (a) Allowing me (the developer) to go through and attempt to capture screens/action correctly will only end up in endless edits/corrections, (b) This method will allow you to more easily translate updates/changes to the developer (instead of having to recreate the source doc over and over again), and (c) Preparing the source document like this will cut the time it takes for your course to go-live AT LEAST in half....well, if you explain these things, they tend to like the idea.
Does it take the SME more time? Up front, yes - but when it comes off, Version 1.0, looking like it's been through a couple of rounds of edits, the benefits of this method of Subject Matter Documentation are pretty clear.
If any of you (the three people that might read this) have any questions, just let me know. Let's hear it for monthly updates!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
