Can People Be Protected from Their Own Stupidity?

July 16th, 2010

What are you going to do? People can’t drive with their smartphones so lawmakers make it illegal to drive while texting. And if you want to talk on the phone while driving, you have to have a “hands-free” device. People definitely shouldn’t drive while distracted…but plenty of other distractions are still legal. For one thing, eating while driving. In fact, in Chicago, where all these laws are in effect, I believe it is still legal to use your smartphone’s navigation program. If you’ve ever tried to use the iPhone Google Maps application while driving, you know that is easily as distracting as anything else that could be going on in that car. In fact, to use many “hands-free” phones, you sometimes have to resort to looking up and even punching in the number (e.g., if you can’t get the voice recognition to work) and that is no different than texting…except maybe that it takes place over a shorter period of time.

Of course some people have more ability to pay attention, and even to notice when something they are not focusing on is happening around them. I’m not talking about multitasking…I think some people might just pay more attention in general. This is the person that notices you are looking the other way and avoids running into you. Probably, we have to admit that some people are just smarter than others. But that doesn’t stop smartphone makers and programmers from trying to make up the gap with engineering.

I recently read an article about a new wave of smartphones and related applications being designed to make it easier and safer for pedestrians to use their smartphones while walking! Apparently, record numbers of people are walking into manholes, into intersections, into signs, and whatever else because they are texting and not looking where they are going. In the article, one person managed to find a silver lining — because so many people have cellphones they can get an ambulance to the injured person more quickly. But the bulk of the attention was on how smartphone makers can improve the use of their devices to make them safer. For example, a transparent screen so you can see the sidewalk (and the person you are about to run into) through your text message. Or, “text to speech” (and vice versa) to avoid having to look at a screen and push buttons.

Maybe we need “heads-up displays” for smartphones so you can see the message in transparent letters on special goggles. Or, maybe we should just make a helmet law for smartphone users. Or, maybe we should just make a helmet law for everyone all the time because you never know when a distracted texter is going to run into you.

That is actually the worst part of the whole thing. You can no longer feel that, by driving defensively, you are giving yourself the best likelihood of avoiding an accident because some knucklehead may still randomly just ram into you or walk out in front of your car because they aren’t paying attention. Accidents happen. Many, in retrospect could have been prevented. But accidents caused by not paying attention to what you are doing are completely preventable.

At some point, we just have to wake up and be more responsible. Pay attention. Remember that there are other people sharing the planet. Don’t do stupid stuff. At some point, I wonder if the more we try to protect people from themselves, the stupider we all get.

Posted in Pete's Comments | No Comments »

Back to the Scroll?

July 14th, 2010

Writing is just a way to record things on an external flat surface…it allows multiple people to refer to to your thinking and it sort of extends memory because you can refer later to something you wrote down. In fact, it can even help clarify your thinking to see it down on paper.

I seem to recall learning that early writing consisted of impressions on clay tablets and then, after that, papyrus. Papyrus was an improvement because it was thinner, easier to store, didn’t shatter, etc. Scrolls were an early innovation which allowed more information to be captured. (Of course, I am not a historian but this all seems pretty reasonable…)

(As an aside, in grad school, I had a professor who used a old overhead projector that had a spindle on the left and right side of the screen with a scroll of clear plastic on the left. He would write the information or create the visual and then, instead of erasing it for the next one, he would just turn the crank and it would roll up the plastic on the right hand spool and fresh plastic would advance from the spool on the left side. No, it wasn’t that long ago…um…but it was just at the beginning of the PC era and lot’s of people didn’t have one then.)

(As another aside, I recall reading somewhere that the earliest writing was actually for business purposes…to make trades, someone needed to invent the receipt and the record of the inventory…)

The innovation of the scroll probably allowed people to develop more complex thoughts both because it was easier to write on than a clay tablet and because they could continue on writing longer. Probably it promoted a more linear style of thinking…hyperlinks would have been a challenge.

After the scroll, we have the invention of paper which changed the game again. Paper is thinner and cheaper so more people could write more stuff. And, standard sizes made manufacturing easier but may have changed the way we think as well. Now, instead of a flow we had a series of pages. They could (and often were at first) viewed as simply a chopped-up scroll. Page breaks came when you ran out of paper and then the information just continued onto the next page.

But, today, the “page” is a metaphor used for all kinds of things, including web-based information which really doesn’t have to be either linear or chopped up. In our business, we often construct our deliverables using a page concept. We even use landscape layout whenever we can to make the pages portable across print, computer screen, and projected presentation platforms.

So what will be/is happening to the way we think? Where in the past scrolls gave us the opportunity to develop longer threads of linear thought, will all the hyperlinks and “mash-ups” help us improve at making connections between different ideas, different disciplines? Will the fact that the content is digital (and only one screen is visible at a time) possibly harm our ability to follow longer trains of logic?

What if we brought back the scroll, updated for the digital age? After all there is no limit to how far you can scroll down on a web page. (There probably is but I haven’t found it…I’m sure it can go a long way.) Scrolling horizontally creates a problem because it is harder for people to return back to the next line to continue reading, assuming it is text. So we probably shouldn’t scroll indefinitely horizontally.

But, one of the big assumed “no-no’s” of web design is having a page where the user has to scroll. Each screen should be sort of one idea, and then you click buttons to step through whatever the process or information is. If you hit a link and take a detour, you might never come back if you hit something more interesting that what you were doing previously. (So could this lead to even less focus and ability to concentrate?) For some research on the subject, check out some web design guidelines.

Of course, user understanding of how web pages work has evolved over time. Things that were unfamiliar to users five years ago have become natural for many users. People now get scrolling.

So, maybe the answer is to bring back the scroll. I dare you.

Posted in Content/Info Display | No Comments »

Multitasking

June 26th, 2010

Put Up Your Hands and Move Away from the Smartphone…

There has been a lot of interest in multitasking lately. People argue that it is impossible…that it is really nothing more than rapidly switching between doing two individual tasks. Others argue that it may be impossible for “older people” but that today’s “wired” generation can handle it. In fact, they argue that some people perform better when multitasking. Still others claim that we are hurting our health with all the stress and ADD-behaviors.

We decided to check some research and then float some of our own pet theories.

First, The Research…

A recent study by Stanford professor Clifford Nass (for details, check out the original article) showed that multitaskers may actually become more distractable. His team started with the assumption that multitaskers have a gift or skill. He discovered it wasn’t superb control over what they paid attention to — they performed poorly in the experiment because they could NOT ignore irrelevant stimuli. They then checked to see if the multitaskers were better at storing and organizing information…that too failed to pan out. Finally they checked for better skills at switching from one task to another…but no, the multitaskers performed poorly here to. They concluded, multitasking is a bad habit, not a preference or working style…if you multitask, you should stop.

In a recent New York Times post, Matt Richtel reported on similar research that found slightly different conclusions.  He found a study from the University of Utah that determined about 2.5% of people actually can multitask effectively, though they caution that the odds of either you or me actually being part of that group are low and recommended strongly against multitasking, especially when driving.

Pilots

But, there was an article Time magazine published online that cited a study that found you could improve your ability to multitask by playing video games more than 5 hours a day. If that is what it takes, I will never find out. But, that might explain the perceived generational difference. However, this study, conducted by Daphne Bavelier, a professor at the University of Rochester, was targeted at “supertaskers” and it too cautioned that we, as individuals, should assume we are, in fact, part of the 97.5% of the population who are not capable of multitasking effectively.

Finally, there was a study that seems to show we can actually pay attention to two things at once…just not three. There is a portion of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex that gets involved when the person is sufficiently motivated (i.e., when there is enough perceived reward in doing two tasks). This part of the brain has two hemispheres and, for two tasks, it seems to split the work by hemisphere (based on brain imaging). But the third task gets in the way…maybe because there is no easy way to create three segments of your brain.

Now, the Pet Theories…

Richard Feynman was one of the physicists who worked on developing the atomic bomb. He was a brilliant mathematician but also an original thinker. As a physicist, he was often invented simple experiments to figure things out. For fun, he apparently got interested in multitasking more than 40 years ago. (He also invented the concept of nano-technology in a speech in 1959!)

Feynman tried different types of tasks, such as counting socks while reading the newspaper or trying to guess when a minute was over while climbing stairs. One thing he found was that people counted time differently. Some visualized a clock while others counted seconds by talking to themselves. Feynman could read the paper and count the time because he was counting out loud in his head…using his “audio” brain processes for counting, leaving his visual processes free for reading. One of his colleagues was able to talk and count time because he was visualizing the numbers.

Our take on Feynman’s conclusions, as well as the research above, is that the multitasking you are able to do is a function of how the brain works. Richard Restak reports that when you imagine doing a physical task, the brain circuits that are activated are the same as when you actually do it…except for the specific circuits that move the body. Imagining you are throwing a ball activates the same parts of your brain as actually throwing it, except for the parts that move your arm.

Feynman’s multitasking, and the researchers’ as well, varied depending less on the individual and more on the type of task. If you are using different parts of the brain, you can more easily multitask but if you need to use the same areas, it becomes impossible. That’s why you can talk on the phone and fold laundry at the same time pretty easily. But you can’t read and talk on the phone at the same time very well — both tasks are fighting over the “verbal” part of your brain.

The other key factor is conscious attention. In this, our experience seems to agree with the researchers that people can really only focus on one thing at a time. So, if you are folding laundry and talking on the phone, you probably aren’t thinking about the laundry too much. If something were to happen though, for example, you discover a sock is missing, you might lose a little of the conversational thread.

The importance of understanding these issues is that we have to consider the impact of multitasking employees when we design processes, run meetings (especially on-line meetings), build tools, and any number of work-related design and management activities. We may have to build in guards against multitasking or we may have to design things that are robust against multitasking (that is, they work acceptably even if people are multitasking).

Do you have any experiences or insights related to multitasking and performance? Please let us know.

Posted in Performance System Design, Personal Productivity | No Comments »

Disasters Are Unlikely

June 19th, 2010

The BP oil spill in the gulf is a complex and serious situation. On top of the very immediate and long term consequences, there are tons of lessons to be learned about management, communication, and risk.

Lots of companies have risk management strategies and disaster recovery plans. On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart got a great deal of comedic mileage from first showing representatives of other oil companies stating that they would not have drilled the well the way BP did and how they had contingency plans for disasters, but then revealing that they all had the SAME plan (probably cloned from an association or reference…or maybe purchased from the same consultant).

And the plans were obsolete…clearly they had spent their days on a shelf somewhere.

Point: Catastrophic failures don’t happen very often so nobody really expects them. It takes awhile for the reality to sink in when they do.

Similar in character, though different in scale, from the performance requirements for quality inspectors. Quality inspectors look at a lot of good parts and only very rarely encounter defects…at least in a mature process. It is one thing to teach and qualify that an inspector has the capability to identify a defect but may be another to ensure that they always expect to see one. It seems like there is a delay in many cases of recognizing that a disaster is, in fact, occurring. In the BP example, there were reports of unusual pressure readings and equipment problems before the explosion that started the leak…but apparently, they weren’t recognized as symptoms of a serious problem and, probably, because serious problems hardly ever happen. Most likely, none of the managers had ever been through something like that. (Disclaimer: I’m speculating here.)

But a disaster is different from normal performance in another significant way…in most cases, the performance situation is novel, so, it has never been seen before. There may be a general procedure but it probably has to be adapted. Most likely, it will need to be invented. That means a delay in decision-making. Who is in charge? What options do we have? Which one should we pursue? Where can we get the resources (people, equipment, even funding)?

And, you can’t ignore the pressure. A disaster brings out everyone second-guessing, criticizing, offering “help,” and demanding a quick fix. Not only does that make leadership in these situations painful but more difficult. All that pressure can cause leaders to make decisions and statements they might not otherwise. For example, is it a good idea to worry about who is to blame and is it necessary to scathingly denounce those responsible right away? Or is it better to fix the problem first and worry about blame later?

Managing during a disaster is a huge challenge. But the risk is always there…will you be ready?

Posted in Leadership | No Comments »

Are You Competent? (Hint: “Not Really” is a Better Answer than “Yes”)

April 30th, 2010

You may have heard the expression “the problem is, you don’t know what you don’t know” used to describe how unknowns create risk in decisions. (You may also have heard the expression “too bad stupid doesn’t hurt”…but that’s just funny).

In general though, when we hear someone speak “with authority” we assume they know what they are talking about. This assumes that they have developed confidence based on years of study, hard work, and even being wrong enough times to have “learned the hard way.”

But, that is not always a safe assumption. (Are any assumptions ever safe? Never mind, different topic.) Often people who are not that competent over-estimate their own competence. That’s not too surprising. The real surprise is that people who are very competent often under-estimate their competence. As a result, if you listen to people’s own PR, you run the risk of trusting the less-competent individual!

In 1999, Justin Kruger and David Dunning, then both of Cornell University published the results of a study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Their “Dunning-Kruger Effect” noted that, with a range of skill areas (from playing chess to driving to reading) the following are typical (emphasis added).

  1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
  2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
  3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
  4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

Another psychologist, C.F. Downing determined that this sort of reverse bias applies to intelligence, with more intelligent people believing they are less intelligent than they are and less intelligent people…well, you get it by now. It leads all the way to “depressive realism” which argues that people who are depressed actually have a more accurate view of what is going on!

What does it all mean? It just means that the more you know, the more you know there is more to know. And, that we should avoid using self-assessment when getting an accurate assessment is important.

Tags:
Posted in Performance Testing and Qualification, Pete's Comments, Uncategorized | No Comments »

What Gets Measured Gets Counted

April 22nd, 2010

On Wednesday, March 03, 2010, the ABC station in New York ran a report about a New York City police officer who went public about quotas. Apparently, the police are given specific targets to meet for arrests and summons. The complaint was that the quotas were being enforced blindly…so officers had no choice but to miss their numbers (and be disciplined) or just arrest people indiscriminately to keep their numbers up. (The original story.)

Well, are performance measurements and quotas bad? Large organizations need to manage by the numbers to keep things fair. Don’t they?

From a human performance perspective, there is actually a lot wrong with this approach, whether it is used in law enforcement or other businesses. For one thing, the numbers need to be connected to the desired performance and they need to be under the control of the performer. In this case, the measure doesn’t track the real desired results and it isn’t in the control of the performance because it doesn’t account for situational differences.

First of all, the measure is tracking activity, not results. The number of arrests look like results but it is more like measuring the number of proposals a sales person generates. Yes, there is a relationship between arrests and crime just as there is a relationship between the number of proposals and sales. But, what we are really looking for is a measure that tracks the amount of good arrests or, ultimately, the amount of actual crime.

Counting arrests is a problem because it assumes a constant volume of crime. To establish a required number of arrests for all police officers on all shifts in all areas implies that there is a stable amount of crime and the police can reasonably be expected to solve a certain amount of it. This may be approximately true over time (but probably not) but can’t possibly be true on a daily basis. The performer cannot control their performance on this metric. Unless they cheat.

One part of the bad news is that holding performers accountable for measures that they can’t control breeds cynicism and actually harms performance.

Imaginary dialog. (Italics/parens indicate what the individual is thinking but not saying.)

Sargent: Here is your quota. (I have a pretty good idea about what goes on in his area…I’m glad I don’t have to meet these targets.)

Officer: But we’ve been patrolling heavily and crime is down. I don’t think I can hit those goals, especially during the day. (Surely he knows this isn’t reasonable.)

Sargent: I don’t want to hear about it…just hit the numbers. (I have to maintain a firm hand as a leader. Besides, the people I answer to are so far removed from the daily problems of the beat officer that they won’t hear anything I say about the quotas either.)

Officer: Yes sir. (My only hope is to cheat.)

The result is wasted time, money, effort, and also injury to innocent people. With the side benefit of misleading statistics on record.

This sounds like lots of businesses actually…the farther away from the actual work you are, the less you will be able to understand the issues behind the numbers and the more likely you are to turn it into a clear cut, simplistic question. “Did you make the numbers? No? Then start making the numbers. I insist.” It highlights the importance and the sad lack of knowledgeable management. Maybe even worse is that there is management training out there that will teach you NOT to “take on your employees problems.” Which some people translate into meaning “don’t listen to any explanation or get dragged into troubleshooting.” Which is really not helpful and not managing either.

But back to the measurement question. What should they measure then?

I’m not an expert on law enforcement but if you are trying to measure police performance, how about measures that measure what you really want to improve that are also in the control of the performer? By the way, this isn’t easy but here are a few ideas.

  • You really don’t need more arrests. You either want more convictions (as an indicator that the right person was arrested) or, ultimately, reduced crime, maybe based on reports or complaints by citizens. Some kind of ratio would be a good place to start.
    • A ratio comparing arrests with convictions (or plea bargains) to indicate the quality of the arrests.
    • Ratio of crimes reported to crimes solved.
    • An index incorporating crime per capita, arrests (or convictions), complaints, and feedback from the public.

In a business, besides looking at the performance and setting measures based on indicators that the performer can legitimately control, it is also critical to incorporate knowledgeable managers who can understand the context of the performance and make allowances where appropriate. There is a point as you progress up the “food chain” though, where you lose touch with the day-to-day issues…or even to where the management never had the know-how in the first place.  (For example, how many mayors or public commissioners are former police officers?) In those cases, the higher-ups need to listen to the people on the ground and develop enough trust to have rational discussions about performance.

If you want the measures to drive performance, it is critical to define them carefully and consider the possible unintended consequences because people will really try to make the numbers…even if it might be better if they didn’t.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Leadership, Performance Testing and Qualification, Uncategorized | No Comments »

If Less is More, Nothing Must Be Everything

April 19th, 2010

In his book “The New Brain,” Richard Restak describes a study where scientists first taught a monkey how to move a cursor (to get food). Then, they implanted an electrode in such a way that, after some practice, allowed him to move the cursor only by thinking about it! He controlled a cursor on a computer screen by using his mind! (Sorry about all the exclamation points but…WOW…and “who thought of that?”…and “they should probably stop.”)

The strangest thing was that, once the monkey learned how to do this, he would no longer use his hand to move the cursor. Even when they disconnected the electrodes, he still sat there  trying to move it with his mind (presumably, based on brain scans). (If you want to see for yourself, start reading on page 195  of this book.)

As a performance consultant, there were some things of specific interest to me. One was that the monkey seemed to have an innate sense of efficiency. When he had a way to do something with less effort, he refused to go back to a way to achieve the same thing with more effort. (It did hurt his productivity though.)

People do that. Once you know you can do something on a computer, people resist writing things out by hand. Think about how so many of us have shifted our bill paying or shopping from a manual process to a computer process. If you do that enough, the thought of actually getting in your car and driving to the store is something we try “actively” to avoid. And, in business, there is a real push right now to shift more and more of the work from an operation that happens in the physical world to an operation requiring a set of decisions entered into a computer.

  • Part drawings are entered in a computer and just downloaded to the machine for fabrication
  • The process of invoicing and collecting is often not much more than a structured email
  • Companies prefer to throw information out over the web or through elearning rather than assembling people for meetings and training

In a way, this seems like an extension of the way documentation sort of replaces actual work. We had a project once to analyze the capabilities and design performance tests for a number of roles in a manufacturing organization.  There was a role called “Quality Assurance Rep” whose responsibility was to approve manufactured lots of product for shipment. You might think that they checked samples, walked around the production area, etc. but you would be wrong. (There is a Quality Control Rep that does that.)

The QA Rep basically verifies that the documentation is good. They do look at the test results and verify that all the tests were done and that the results showed the products to be within spec. They checked the manufacturing information and verified that key temperatures were logged and that they were within spec. They confirmed every production task was initialed by an operator and that the operator was qualified (that is, that his or her training was up-to-date…they checked that on the computer). But they really don’t know if that lot is good or not. They only know if all the boxes were checked and that everyone wrote down what they were expected to. I am not saying this is wrong but it certainly seems almost like a lot of effort just to make sure the record or evidence of performance is acceptable.

The question here is “where is work headed?” There are still plenty of people who physically do work. Doctors talk to and check out patients. Mechanics fix cars. Carpenters build buildings. But lots of the wealth today is generated by people working with information which draws more people away from actual tangible outputs. Will we get to the point where we expect to just sit at our desk, type, and click?

We like to challenge that tendency when we can. For our projects, we frequently go into the workplace and observe the performance. (On one project, we were at the clients pharmaceutical plant by 5am to observe set up and shift kick-off. When we finished work at 3pm it was mighty strange to go back to the hotel ready for dinner…) But often getting physically active, even if it is just going into a meeting room and writing on some flipcharts or sorting Post-Its(r) or index card really improves the energy level and ideas. And there is that nagging bigger question…if all we do is manipulate pixels all day and, in return, someone sends us a representation of money…is that really creating a more fulfilling work environment or only just a way to expend less energy?

Posted in Performance System Design, Trends and Fads | No Comments »

ISPI Conference 2010: T-Minus One Day and Counting

April 19th, 2010

Once again, it is time for the annual ISPI international conference. San Francisco.

I have a series of things to do on Wed. But I’m just an attendee on Tues and Thurs. The kick-off is usually the time to figure out the “big ideas” for the conference…hopefully, we will be focusing on more than just elearning and technology this year…

Wednesday will be busy.

  • 10:30am  Hosting a table for the ISPI Pharmaceutical Industry group. We’ll be talking with people about the team’s purpose and what we’ve been doing. The goal…recruit some new members and build interest in the team.
  • Noon   Hosting a “Chat and Chew” table on the topic of “Web-based Collaboration Tools.”
  • 2pm  Presenting an educational session “A System for Developing and Assessing Performance.” This is a case study of an accelerated training and performance-based qualification project for a major pharmaceutical organization.
  • 6pm  Participating in a reception for authors who contributed to ISPI’s new book series “Improving Performance in the Workplace.” (I contributed a chapter in Volume 3: Measurement and Evaluation titled “Testing Strategies: Verifying Capability to Perform.”

After that, Thursday should be cake!

As with any conference, it is a great opportunity to catch up with people you don’t see too often. And it is a chance to sort of step back and look at where the profession has been and where it could be going. I’m looking forward to it!

Posted in Pete's Comments | No Comments »

The Little Things

April 10th, 2010

In Tom Peters’ book “The Little Big Things,” he argues that cross-functional cooperation results in measurably better results. Not new but true. We’ve seen it.

What’s different, is that Peters goes further in citing a number of seemingly little things that drive that effectiveness. For example, co-locating people. Using round conference room tables. (You can listen to a chunk of this book on the web (read by Peters) at http://www.tompeters.com/books/little-big-things/ by the way.) Ultimately, he argues that by continuously identifying and tweaking seemingly insignificant details, you eventually end up with excellence. I think this type of excellence is also very difficult for your competitors to imitate and the day they decide to, they are starting way behind you.

Anthony Bourdain in “Kitchen Confidential” makes a related point. He argues that the real heroes in a restaurant ktichen are not the high-profile celebrity chefs, because many of those can be prima donnas…you can’t function with a kitchen full of them. You really need a crew of dependable, consistent, hard-working line cooks who won’t compromise on quality, speed, or accuracy. In short, they work toward excellence by executing a lot of little things right, consistently.

In HPT, we often work with cross-functional teams because we are trying to collect and build know-how and, often, there is no one source for that know-how. I’m going to start thinking more about what little things we can do to improve that process. Not just during our meetings, but afterward.

We also target excellence in our work. In every project we think about what will make this a valuable project for the customer and for PRH Consulting. Where is a boundary where we can really push into new territory? How can we do this differently and better than last time? How can we give the customer what they meant to ask for, if they had known ahead of time what to ask for?

Also though, there are lots of little points to be made, practiced, and reinforced in training. One mention in a training program won’t generate excellent performance. One big idea in a training session might lead to changes in the business but not directly. Often, training needs to include practice and reinforcement of the little things (for example, using simulations or other learner application exercises) to build a foundation for excellence on the job. Of course, if the manager doesn’t continue the reinforcement, the change will be short-lived unless the employee carries the torch.

Both of my sons had to wear braces…one of them liked it so much, he went around twice! We went to a local orthodontist recommended by a friend (don’t remember who but thank you.) This doctor may have never read any of the business books about excellence, quality, customer-focus, etc. but he really practices what they preach and it is very much in line with the idea of focusing on the little things. For example

  • Self-check-in using a computer in the waiting room. The interface is so simple that the youngest patients can use it with ease.
  • Separate waiting area (with a closed door) for people who want to talk on their cellphones.
  • Coffee in the waiting room.
  • Usually, some kind of contest, such as guessing the number of items in a jar, identifying pictures of celebrities as kids, coloring, etc. is going for the kids ot play while waiting.
  • Occasionally, they will sponsor outings, such as free bowling or skating at certain times for patients.
  • They have a standard routine for kids when they come in so they “know the drill.” (They carry their file in, can brush their teeth, and then wait on a bench. Parents not allowed.)
  • The initial consultation involves looking at digital photos of the teeth on the doctor’s PC while he explains how and what they can/will do.
  • When you leave after an appointment, you get a print-out with a summary of the visit, a reminder of your next visit (which, I think, is in the form of a sticker for your calendar…I might be confusing this with our regular dentist though), and a section you can tear-off to give to the child’s teacher or school office as a doctor’s excuse.
  • When it is time to get your braces off, you see your name on a bulletin board congratulating everyone who is getting their braces off that week.
  • You also get a gift certificate for portrait photographs for the child when they get their braces off. One copy goes to the orthodontist who hangs it in his waiting room.
  • The day the braces come off, the office staff all gathers, claps, and presents the child with a basket representing pretty much everything they weren’t allowed to have when they had braces, including an apple, gum, crackerjack, and even (a little) candy.

By the way, this isn’t some young guy who has way too much energy and is hungry for business…my guess is that this doctor is well over retirement age…he is at least 70! And most of the ideas above really don’t take much cash to implement…just paying enough attention and then putting in the effort. In a world where people dream of retirement and winning the lottery, it is a joy to see someone with so much enthusiasm for his work at that stage of his career. I can only assume he loves people — sure it has to feel good to help others get great smiles but you wouldn’t be that good at it if you were not sincere.

Tags: ,
Posted in Leadership, Pete's Comments | No Comments »

What Do Instructional Designers Do?

March 31st, 2010

Recently, I saw an ad in the March 2010 Issue of T&D  looking for instructional designers to create “innovative elearning…” It caught my eye because it was looking for volunteers to build training for kids. But it rubbed me the wrong way and reminded me of a continuing concern I have that when people think “instructional designer” they immediately think “elearning.” Maybe some ID’s like that because it gives us a niche…after all, technical know-how is a sure way to define turf and make it easy for others to figure out what you do.

But, instructional design is more than development. I see it as including

  • Analysis of performance and identifying the required capabilities
  • Designing ways of assessing for and developing those capabilities
  • Developing instructional processes and supporting materials (including assessments)
  • Evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions

(The above is really a narrow definition of ID because many of us include “performance consulting” as part of our focus.)

It seems to me that if the focus is only elearning and only development, there are a number of key decisions that the ID will not even be involved in and will only be able to influence slightly (if at all). Not good. You can create nifty interfaces for effective teaching programs that are targeted (potentially) at the wrong things. Sure it can be fun and creative but you won’t be able to reliably get results beyond “neato!”

The key benefit an ID can add to a project is really about capability. What capabilities are needed? What capabilities are there? How can we effectively install those capabilities into the target audience(s)? How can we build supporting materials that really work in the instructional process? Or, even as on-the-job references?

Ultimately, we can identify capabilities that are difficult to develop or critical to successful performance and help create plans and strategies for managing the risk. Often, we can identify ways of simplifying the performance or building tools to reduce the load on the performer, which makes a higher level of performance possible.

Somehow, we need to look beyond (and show our clients and colleagues how to look beyond) outputs and focus instead on the desired outcomes, that is, improved performance. This isn’t a new message…but apparently, everyone still hasn’t heard it.

_______________________________

For more information on the field of Human Performance Consulting, check out ISPI.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Pete's Comments | No Comments »

« Older Entries