tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6921502487222266513.post2191796176779775597..comments2024-03-27T13:07:34.856+05:30Comments on eCube: Training Budgets and Technology CompaniesManish Mohanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14018676072606741106noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6921502487222266513.post-65785671676343302452008-02-26T22:59:00.000+05:302008-02-26T22:59:00.000+05:30Hey TG, thanks for so lucidly articulating the des...Hey TG, thanks for so lucidly articulating the design walkthrough process. This perhaps can go as a worthy coda to the BMS dlc definition:-)<BR/>There are some interesting points raised in Patrick Dunn's re-learning learning design (the preceding post) that should impel us to consider this process in the light of bringing "design value" to the table, though. The dlc, its very linearity now looks challenged, and rightly so. The design walkthrough is a fit platform to break this monotonous "drone" as Cathy Moore calls it. the participants can bring great value by brainstorming a design rather than simply "finding defects" in the design in question. As Patrick Dunn says, I think we rarely can be overly sure about the solutiont at such early a stage. The objectives, we can vouch for it, evolve, crystallize over the dlc; the storyboarding stage is indeed when many an epiphanies strike me unawares, and I joyfully go about undoing and redoing to finally arrive within striking distance of, to put it a little dramatically, the "truth". Of course, we cannot have this level of "openendedness" but should consider design/prototype as a collaborative (internally as well as with the customer) and iterative process and give up the pretense of knowing the solution before we actually know it.Suresh Rajanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02579451637060189720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6921502487222266513.post-18542400879251157312008-02-19T20:59:00.000+05:302008-02-19T20:59:00.000+05:30Thanks for your comment Sandipan. Yes, we need to ...Thanks for your comment Sandipan. Yes, we need to design our training to address the learning needs of our audience – that is the critical success factor. I am not sure of what you mean by "conventional ID strategies and standards" in this particular context; however, in general, I target my content only around the training/learning objectives and layer information appropriately so that the most critical content is available to the learners as and when required. I think that's where the Critical Mistakes Methodology also comes into play. This methodology allows us to focus on what's important for the learner and not what is 'comfortable' for the instructor.Taruna Goelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13838323858110552415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6921502487222266513.post-41897039033087316502008-02-18T12:58:00.000+05:302008-02-18T12:58:00.000+05:30Thanks for the timely and informative article, TG!...Thanks for the timely and informative article, TG! However, this brings another question to my mind. Typically, while creating courses, we start thinking as the conventional instructor, and try to create a full-fledged training module, that would educate the learner fully about the specific product or service. But, in the process, the training piece becomes volunnous.<BR/><BR/>However, the "sales team" is seldom time-starved, and many a times, may want just-in-time information, rather than a full-fledged course. They are most likely to be interested in learning ONLY about information that would help them sell their products/services better than their competitors.<BR/>Does this call for a little redefining of our conventional ID strategies and standards?Sandipanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09855347091331873279noreply@blogger.com