Or not.

The problem with that little mark, the “high importance” mark that is often an exclamation point or a star, is that it is more often used for emails that are urgent, rather than emails that are important. Long before the invention of email, Eisenhower said, “What is important is seldom urgent and what is urgent is seldom important,” and that could apply to many emails to grace my inbox. It might be nice if there were a different mark for urgent issues, but the lack of an “urgent” marker points to a larger problem in the general population: It’s harder than we think to distinguish the urgent from the important.

Unfortunately, that distinction lies at the heart of good time management, and consequently, good project management.

Covey and Lakein’s Urgent-Important Matrix (1989) is a helpful tool for time management. It has certainly helped me be a better project manager developing training. Below I have organized and categorized tasks that project managers of training projects regularly face in the workplace into this Urgent-Important Matrix.

This matrix is a helpful tool to organize and prioritize project management tasks, and the critical thing to remember that in a fast-paced work environment, the urgent tasks will beckon us to spend all of our time there. Some urgent things do merit our immediate time, such as those in Quadrant 1, but other urgent matters are less important and go in Quadrant 3. Meanwhile, other important tasks don’t come with an urgency stamp, such as those in Quadrant 2, and those are tasks we tend to procrastinate but regret later. So while a pressing need from a client or a call from my translation vendor may be something that merits my immediate attention, I must also recognize that important but routine tasks in Quadrant 2 such as quality assurance on my developing training projects, budgeting and billing, and working toward overall team goals need my time and attention as well. Regrets happen down the road when Quadrant 3 tasks are regularly prioritized over Quadrant 2 tasks, letting urgency overtake what is more important.

In order to be sure I make time for non-urgent important tasks, I find it’s best to actually dedicate time to tasks for Quadrant 2. I set aside about two hours each afternoon to check in with my team members and make sure that they know their assignments or that they have checked with their reports. I hold regular one-on-one meetings with the instructional designers on my team to review the quality of the courses created, and I reserve time to work on development assignments I receive from the Director of Project Management that strengthen my skills as a project manager. I hold regular reviews of revenue recognized on my projects and review client invoices and collection in relation to planned project deliverables. All of these tasks are the heart of what makes an instructional design business run, and they are well deserving of my planning and time.

In addition to using the matrix to prioritize my own tasks, the matrix can be an important tool for assessing if you and others are in alignment with the priority of a shared task, for instance, communicating priorities to team members, or for making sure that external team members such as clients and vendors are aligned with the information they need to prioritize their project tasks effectively to meet the project’s goals.

Here are some actions a project manager can take with external and internal team members to ensure that time is spent on the highest priority activities when developing a training project:

1.       Agree on project goals

2.       Verify the importance of timeline on a given project

3.       Establish regular task and project status meetings

4.       Communicate predecessors to important tasks

5.       Use tools to effectively assign tasks and follow-up

Each one of these could be its own blog post, so I will have to tease you with the short list for now. And once you sort the urgent and the important, the most important actions you can take all involve communication with others to reassess your priorities and encourage them to realign theirs. A little planning and regular communication can spare your inbox from a lot of urgent emails masquerading as the important tasks of your day.

In a graduate course on Instructional Design we watched an interesting video about the design process at IDEO. In their design practices they demonstrate a value of teamwork, creative brainstorming, and rapid prototyping. In a short amount of time they put their ideas together into a functional design to test its soundness and gauge consumer reaction. In the video, a few key ideas stood out that have since shaped my personal philosophy of instructional design. Their mindset is that “enlightened trial and error succeeds over the lone genius” and it is often necessary to “fail often in order to succeed sooner.” “Failing” is much easier and cost effective if it happens in the initial stages of the design rather than when the final product has been delivered.

In my experience as a designer, I have been surprised more than once when my perception of crystal clear design had some rough areas that were caught in early testing by the end-users. It can be tempting for designers to falsely believe that we know our audience so well, or that our budget is too small, that we don’t need to test our design. And although I recognize that not all training can be developed rapidly, design ideas can certainly be tested in simple ways early in the design phase. For example, end-users, or even people from the office who are unfamiliar with the project can function as testers to experience paper-based mock-ups of a website, training course, simulation, or navigation system. Additionally, you may want to survey a small group of people regarding the readability or engagement of the project. Solicit their thoughts and feelings and brainstorm solutions together.

The key to usability testing is to find people who are representative of the target audience and who are willing and able to give their honest opinions early enough that you can adjust the design without impacting the budget. To avoid expensive and unnecessary revisions common in development, I suggest you ask early and ask often.

I’ve found the resolutions that are most effective for me personally, involve a rather small change to things I do on a regular basis. I’ve decided to apply that same principle to my “Instructional Design New Year’s Resolutions,” small changes to things I do regularly.  Contemplating about what I regularly do as an instructional designer made me think of a number of things including, creating learning objectives, organizing content, designing knowledge checks, writing assessment questions, etc.

After thinking about it, one Instructional Design resolution I have for 2012 is creating more meaningful knowledge checks. Knowledge checks help learners confirm their understanding and actively participate in the course. The majority of web-based courses I have worked on contain knowledge checks, so it’s something I’m “regularly doing.” The question I began to ask myself was, “What small changes would help me create better knowledge checks?”  Here are some of the thoughts I’ve had:

• Look for ways to add real-life context to a question. Knowledge checks can easily become nothing more than a stand-alone multiple choice question. No matter what the content is, you can usually create a few sentences of back-story that make the knowledge check feel a little less like a web-based training and a little more like on-the-job training.
• Provide meaningful feedback, and that doesn’t mean simply saying “Correct” or “Incorrect.” The correct or incorrect feedback is an opportunity to help learners understand why their action/choice was right or wrong. It can reinforce key principles, best practices, and common mistakes. The feedback can also help complete a story or scenario showing the positive or negative effects the learner’s choice has on their customers, coworkers, or a situation.

Applying these small changes to knowledge checks seems reasonable regardless of a courses size, scope, or timeline. My experience of applying these small changes thus far has made the course content more memorable and enjoyable for learners. Hopefully these improvements to knowledge checks are one resolution I’ll be able to keep throughout 2012 and beyond… And now I need to go and do some crunches and sit-ups, because my personal 2012 resolution involves rock hard abs.

It is probably a little foolish to use those three terms in a blog, given that just the definitions (let alone application) of two of them (rhetoric and responsibility) have been debated for more than two thousand years. For the purposes of this short discussion, I hope that these shorthand definitions will provide enough common ground to show how the terms can function to improve discussion and development of visual design.

Rhetoric – the design’s effect in the social realm

Readability – the design’s effect in the physical and mental realms

Responsibility – the design’s effect in the moral and legal realms.

All three of these elements are present in every design. Sometimes they are balanced, sometimes one outweighs the others, and sometimes they compete with one another. But all three are always in the design in some capacity.

Take a brief analysis of this online course screen as an example.

Rhetoric
The frame and navigation buttons and overall layout clearly position this as an “online course”, which sets up a relationship between the learner, the course, and the provider of the course. The course’s colors match the product (a sunscreen/skincare product line) but also are supposed to trigger connections to the outdoors (sun, sky, surf) for the learner in hopes of invoking positive feelings about the product. And the image of the mentor is there to foster a more “personal” connection between the learner and the course.

Readability
The entire design of the frame, while rhetorically invoking “online course”, also serves readability—the familiar icons and their placement, the course title at the top of the screen, the standard placement of heading and subheadings, all help the learner make easy sense of what’s what on the page. Headings, subheadings, and bullets allow the learner to structure the information on the page.

Responsibility
The designer has a responsibility to the client to place their content and product in a credible, attractive position relative to the learner. At the same time, the designer has a legal obligation to provide a disclaimer explaining the basis of certain claims made in the text. The placement and sizing of the disclaimer, however, show that this responsibility has been placed below the rhetorical need to maintain a positive image and above the need to keep text completely readable for all learners. The designer also has a responsibility to make the course as easy as possible for the learner to navigate and understand.

There is certainly much more that could be analyzed in each of these areas even within this one screen capture, but this should be enough to show the overlapping/competing/collaborating concerns of rhetoric, readability, and responsibility. This terminology can help designers take a more holistic approach to their designs, understanding more fully the issues each design confronts. From the example, we can see how applying the 3 Rs allows us to identify competing needs in the design (the positive connection to the product, the legal qualifier about the claim, and the readability of that qualifier) and evaluate whether the designer has made the best choice for the learners and their context (should the qualifier be made more readable to fulfill the spirit of the legal requirement, for instance). Applying the 3 Rs of visual design can move the discussion away from merely “what we/they usually do” or “what we/they like” to a more substantive discussion.

My short answer is adaptable learning. I would like to see training that can be quickly changed and updated while maintaining a high level of interactivity and end production value. Also, this adaptability should be fueled by learning communities that influence their own training—creating a work-place training environment that is communal rather than solitary.

As we head into 2012, I want to stay focused on learning for the here and now while keeping sight on what is possible in the not-so-distant future. I asked our team of designers here at Allen about their ideas on this subject. I hope you enjoy what they have to say. I think training at Allen is definitely headed in a great direction.

Amanda Olmstead: “People-oriented, human-focused – i.e., less Six Sigma and more Peter Block. Thinking more about philosophy and values, how companies interact with the world, and ensure that we train without focusing on metrics, profit, etc.”

Julie Burningham: “I think future training will be shorter, more individualized, and modular, and will include interactive and cognitively engaging authentic tasks.”

Heather Aoyagi: “The challenge we have with online training today is finding a way to immerse learners in real-life situations, solving real-life problems, but with the limitations of a computer screen. I would love to design a training course where learners put on virtual reality goggles and interact with people and objects as if they’re really there…if we can combine this with the technology we have with the Nintendo Wii controller where learners use their hands to interact, it’d be a full-on virtual “real-life” training marvel!”

Bob Leavitt: “Dynamic assessments/remediation: Learners should be given assessments that test the items that are most challenging to them. Remediation should be instant and customized to the answers the learners got wrong. Also, ideally, learners would be able to test out of training.

I think web 2.0 technologies will play a larger role in the training world in the future. And this is not just social media, but also things like having the way the program is used influence how it is presented to learners and tracking clicks, etc. The obstacle is that technologies still are not easy to implement. These technologies can be seen on just about every heavy traffic website already, so it is just a matter of time until they start trickling into the world of e-learning.”

Catherine Curtis: “My impulse for the future is simultaneously towards and away from technology. I like the idea of a return to apprenticeship, but I recognize that this will likely happen via technology in one of several ways. First, the apprenticeship could happen with an actual workplace master but be moderated via technology. I’m imagining something like Sim City where many different company roles have avatars and interact with each other in functions that mirror the workplace. Second, the apprenticeship could happen with a computerized master/mentor, kind of like a mix between the computer chess player and Siri from the iPhone.”

Melissa Mills: “With the advent of social media, blogs, and just general increased accessibility to information, I think people are less interested in looking to an authoritative source for information. Instead, they research across multiple sources to form their own opinion. In the future, I see increased use of learning content management systems (LCMS) where learners can select from multiple training offerings such as job aids, videos, short web courses, simulated practice activities, employee-generated help articles, etc. to create a customized learning experience. I see value in moving away from longer more generalized courses to shorter learning objects targeted towards specific needs. Employees should be able to contribute content to the LCMS and there should be a stronger sense of joint-ownership for training and development instead of the top-down approach that is typical in so many organizations.”

Christian Sorensen: “One key component of future training will be mobility. We’re already moving in that direction, but I anticipate it will become even more ubiquitous to the point where it will phase out standard WBTs and perhaps even ILTs. Along with this, I anticipate that it will become more focused so that it can be delivered in small snippets as needed.

In conjunction with that, recently I read an article that talked about the limitations we have with touchscreen devices. In particular, the article focused on the amazing dexterity we have with our hands that touch devices don’t even begin to use—grabbing, twisting, and moving. Right now, as awkward as it is, you can essentially operate a touchscreen device with your elbow because all it’s doing is registering touch. I would like to see training get to the point where it uses the full expression of the hand.”

In my 20 years experience in the training industry, having read as many articles and attended as many lectures and discussions on the subject as I could, it’s clear the same challenges exist across every industry and in every country. What’s emerged within our training community is a culture of overcoming these obstacles by developing strong creative partnerships. These strong partnerships are the foundation upon which great accomplishments are built.

At Allen, some of the shared traits that lead to these strong, creative partnerships are:

• Appreciating the insights brought to the table by the client – The strength of our competency and design models are only as good as their customization to the clients performance needs. And no one understands the nuance of those needs like the customer themselves. We know we’ve got a great partnership when the kick-off meeting leads to new and creative ideas on how to reach our training goals.

• Working together to reach project milestones – The ability to hit key project milestones while staying flexible in the roles and responsibilities of each-others teams can uncover creative strengths that lead to an even more successful project.  Our Allen project managers are trained to embrace and encourage this flexibility, which often helps find out of the box solutions to hurdles that might otherwise impact timeline and budget.

• A vendor and a client must choose each other – Just like any good relationship, the choice must not be left to one side. Often, early in the process of speaking with potential customers, we can tell if the relationship is a good fit. It seems funny to say, but there’s a certain excitement, on both sides, that usually develops during the vendor selection process that foreshadows a great partnership.

• Creativity flows when trust and appreciation exist – Both teams perform at their best when we open ourselves to the pooling the experience of both customer and vendor. The mantra of “Never letting the customer down” has long been a part of Allen culture.

We accomplish great work in conjunction with great partner. This is never more clear then when sitting down face-to-face with our customers and discussing their success. The 13 awards we won in 2011 is as much a testament to the amazing efforts of our great customers as it is to our own capabilities, and for that we couldn’t be more thankful.

While I was studying creative writing in college, my work was constantly under review. Like many of my fellow students in writing workshops, I made the changes that my professor suggested, almost exactly as they were suggested whether I agreed or not, and I tended to dismiss the peer feedback that seemed too hard to implement, threatened my artistic prowess, or came from people whose opinions I didn’t value. I oscillated between robot and rebel reviser, and with this approach, writing workshops became a hurdle I jumped over to reach my degree.

Now, as a designer, I am again in a position to receive frequent feedback, and despite seeing my work improve as a result, feedback still occasionally rankles. Here are a few reasons why:

• Effectively and seamlessly incorporating feedback takes too much time and effort.
• I’m emotionally attached to my design, and I don’t want to give up my ideas.
• I think I know what my course needs better than my reviewers do because
• …my reviewers do not represent my target audience.
• …my reviewers have limited content or design expertise.
• …my reviewers are unfamiliar with the project constraints.

As professionals, we can’t dismiss feedback the way I did in college, even when the above points are true. But I’m guessing that many of us know how to satisfy our obligation to our reviewers on the surface without really engaging with their feedback. Of course, none of us want to come to work and jump hurdles just for the sake of jumping, so how can we make the review process more valuable?

• Change our attitude. Every reviewer response is a meaningful response because it reflects the success of our communication. When we start believing this, we will treat our reviewers’ feedback differently and transform the review process into an opportunity to strengthen relationships. Next time our reviewers are confused, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and shift the responsibility of communication back to us instead of attributing failures to their shortcomings. It doesn’t matter whether we’re right or not if our audience can’t understand us. And even if our reviewers aren’t the primary audience of our courses, they are the primary audience of our work processes (especially when our reviewers are clients and employers.) Their satisfaction and trust is essential to our success.
• Give it space. When I taught freshman composition, I asked my students to wait a full day after receiving their papers before speaking to me about their grades, which made for more rational and respectful conversation from both sides. The principle applies to feedback of all kinds, and the more personal the feedback feels, the more space it needs. Clearly, budgets and timelines constrain the space we can give, but even a short walk around the office can tame a defensive first response.
• Get a second opinion. Sometimes we don’t have the distance necessary to determine if negative feedback demonstrates a legitimate usability issue or resistance to innovation. Rather than abandon our expertise at the first sign of trouble, let’s ask a trustworthy colleague (someone who will tell it like it is) to weigh in. Another pair of eyes on our work can help us see when to make the change and when to make our case.
• Be loyal to the learner. In college, I thought I was writing for my reader, but as my revision strategy suggests, I was writing for myself (and my grade). As designers under a variety of pressures, we are also vulnerable of forgetting who we work for: the learners. We are their primary advocate, protecting them from the fact density of SMEs and from busy work that masquerades as learning. Sometimes, sticking up for the learner means standing our ground with our clients, especially if a second opinion agrees; and sometimes, sticking up for the learner means fighting against ourselves, cutting the stylish but superficial, or being willing to make structural changes instead of opting for a new layer of paint.
• Mine the feedback. As we’ve all experienced, the occasional comment lands in a discussion like it’s from outer space. A skilled facilitator can find the fleck of relevancy in this comment and move forward without being derailed or dismissing the speaker, and when managing feedback, we must practice the same skill. Mining feedback for relevancy might mean reading and responding to comments as symptoms of a bigger issue (confusion, lack of shared vision, etc.) rather than reading them simply as the issues themselves.

By the way, this teacher doesn’t work in a super affluent community. She teaches 4^th grade in a Chicago suburban school. She went on to say that not only do the students use it for online research and to take notes, but the teachers also use them to help the students apply what they’ve learned. For example, one of their science teachers discovered that someone on YouTube had created a series of videos that put basic science concepts to music.  The creator of the videos was a former science teacher and composed the songs himself to help children more easily embrace science. The students use games and apps to practice spelling, math, comprehension skills, you name it the iPad was the platform for delivering it and keeping the students engaged.

Granted, this was just one story from a Chicago suburban teacher, from an average community, but it really highlighted the changing landscape of learning and how the expectations being set for the very young will have a dramatic impact on the corporate training landscape of the near future.

It made me wonder why corporations, so visionary in most ways, were acting slower than some elementary schools in adopting these emerging learning technologies. Here are a few reasons why companies might be resisting the impulse to jump into mobile apps and learning. Check the ones that best describes your story:

• I know mobile is cool but don’t see how to make it relevant
• I don’t see the value in mobile so I don’t see the need to focus on it now
• I know I should focus on mobile now but want to find a way to ensure it impacts my company’s business

It’s clear which way the winds of learning are blowing, and those who find themselves eager to adopt new technology will become champions of their corporate training domain, while those who miss the boat will be going the way of the laser disc. In the coming weeks I’ll be presenting a series of blogs presenting the key points of what I’ve learned through my research. Stay tuned and I hope you’ll share with me your opinions on the future of learning.

Summary
There were several sessions that demonstrated how organizations can achieve amazing results through integrating experiential learning strategies, engaging stories, and adaptive learning techniques. All these strategies help create memorable learning experiences that stick with users. We all know that the learning process doesn’t stop and that learners’ behaviors can change after completing a 20-minute course or an entire curriculum. It takes time to change behaviors. The learning process continues on the job where employees take their new knowledge and skills to the next level. Employees need continuous coaching, help with troubleshooting techniques, updated resources, and helpful tools. I agree that there are some instances where there is no need for “traditional” training (for example, when there is a small change or when things go wrong on a small scale). In these cases, performance support, or the need for high-quality, well-structured learning resources, should be sufficient.