Newsletter Home   Current Issue Word from SIG Manager Word from Editor Articles Book Reviews Events

Converting from ILT to WBT: The Process (and Challenges) of Developing a Blended Solution

>> by Peter Heikes, EDS<<

How one organization implemented a blended training solution that consisted of both web based training and a follow-up classroom workshop.

Many companies are making serious decisions about how they spend their training dollars, forcing many training organizations (and training consultants) to re-evaluate the use of the web for lower-cost training delivery. What used to be delivered in an instructor-led classroom setting is now at least being split up into several different solutions, if not eliminating the classroom training altogether. Gone are the days when instructors or trainees travel across the country to deliver/attend training, and being away from their desk for days (if not weeks) at a time.The company that I work for, Electronic Data Systems (www.eds.com), and one of our clients, United Defense, have also made those decisions about the global way to deliver their training to geographically dispersed users without anyone leaving their office. This business case is an example of a Department of Defense (DoD) program, Crusader, and its implementation of a blended training solution for its product data management (PDM) system that includes (1) online training delivered via an Intranet and (2) a follow-up classroom workshop (which may become optional to offsite users).

Project Description

To begin, let’s look at a brief description of what laid before us, with a description of the project. The current training is: an 8-hour, instructor-led technical training course (of a PDM system that we’ll simply refer to as IDE – Integrated Data Environment) with 10 users in a classroom equipped with PCs and a computer projection system. The training material consists of an online Training Manual available from the Intranet (in the classroom and for users back at their desk) that is currently maintained by the instructor – as software releases of IDE occur. Part of the IDE support team includes on-site mentors (at the major program locations) who work with IDE users (after completion of the training) to assist them with their successful use of the system.

The program manager wants to reduce training costs. These reduced costs are intended for three groups: (1) the users – time away from their desk in a classroom and traveling costs, (2) the instructor – time in the classroom, preparation time, and traveling costs, and (3) support staff – system administrator time for maintaining the current training environment and time and travel to set up offsite training at other sites (averages 2-3 trips per year). Many of the IDE users work at various locations throughout the US (at 15 sites from San Jose, CA, to Picatinny Arsenal, NJ; from Minneapolis, MN, to Orlando, FL). In addition, the number of prospective new IDE users that will require the training (average is 25-30 users per month) is not expected to significantly decrease over the next 2-3 years.

Challenges

• User interface (UI) is changing from the current classic client UI to a web-enabled UI in a phased implementation approach (first release in March)
• Schedule – online training prototype delivered by 12/31/01, training project 50% complete by 1/31/02, training project 75% complete by 2/28/02, and training project 100% complete by 3/31/02
• No formal training on the authoring system selected to develop the online training course (only telephone/email support by vendor)
• Secured firewalls between each program partner at various sites throughout the US
• 3-person team doing analysis and design, but 1-person team doing development, implementation, and evaluation
• Person who developed the blended solution would not be the person maintaining it, once it was in place (but the maintainer was involved in the analysis and design)
• The authoring tool vendor that was selected developed a customized plug-in that needed to be tested at various geographic locations, and on different types of equipment (PCs using Windows 98, PCs using Windows 2000, PCs using Windows ME, and UNIX) before the online training course was released to users
• Due to equipment constraints, neither audio nor video could be used in the online course (challenge or blessing?)
• Web-based training will not include any interactive synchronous/asynchronous learning (challenge or blessing?)
  

Process

We followed an ADDIE model of instructional design, as shown in the graphic. Because of the size of the challenge, the size of the program, and some of the strict requirements, we felt that evaluation in every phase of the process was crucial to our success. The method of evaluation varied. In some cases (such as defining the requirements during the analysis phase), the evaluation was conducted with the program manager. In other cases (such as validating the content in the storyboards during the development phase), the evaluation was conducted with the SMEs. In yet other cases (such as approving the design of the workshop/lab during the design phase), the evaluation was conducted with more than one group (project manager and SMEs). Details of each phase of the process follow.

Analysis

Team of three trainers performed the analysis and design on the training project. Two who had taught the current training class numerous times and one who had only attended the training. In addition to the interviewing, we worked closely with the program manager to identify the requirements of the new training solution. Three months later, we identified the following requirements (in order of importance):

• Reduce overall training time by users, while updating the delivery approach and instructional techniques to be business-process focused
• Improve format, presentation method, and material content
• Utilize existing tools and procedures to align with program-wide technical training
• Incorporate other IDE training and online help into a single solution

These discussions with the program manager also identified the metrics we were to use – her expectations in what will determine the effectiveness of the new training approach (other than simply reducing the overall training time by users). She identified the minimal course requirements that need to be completed for users to be successful in their use of IDE. She also identified her expectations for what the new training approach will provide to not only meet the needs of new users, but also to provide a mechanism for experienced users to obtain refresher training on IDE concepts, as needed.

With the requirements in hand, we began developing the Training Plan. Based on the above requirements, we brainstormed these possible solutions:

• Blend of online training, classroom workshop/lab, and mentoring
• Blend of computer-based training, classroom workshop/lab, and mentoring
• Blend of (slightly reduced) current classroom training, (small amount of) online help, and (supplemental) “show me” tutorials
• Blend of (largely reduced) current classroom training, (large amount of) online help, and (supplemental) “show me” tutorials
  

From the above list of potential solutions, we identified the first option as the best solution, proposed it to the program manager (with supporting rationale/justification for each solution), and reached agreement on the blended solution of web-based training, classroom workshop/lab, and mentoring.

Once we had nailed down the requirements, and then the training solution, the next step was to identify an authoring system to create the online training portion of the new solution. In order to do that, we again met with the program manager to identify the requirements for such a system. These were the requirements that were identified (in order of importance):

• No plug-in required
• Can run on PCs and UNIX using Netscape as the default browser
• Requires a logging-in system for users (security control)
• Cost is less than $6K (for a single license with upgrades and technical support assistance for at least 2 years)
• Able to create/include progress checks (user evaluation method)
• Tracks user’s completion of lessons and results of progress checks (AKA testing), generating appropriate reports
• Generates (relatively) small file sizes (for potential bandwidth restrictions)
• Allows for interactive learning (not simply a page-turning system)
• Operates on a 16- or 32-bit application (vs. 8-bit)
• Relatively short learning curve (for authoring)
• AICC, SCORM compliant
  

Based on the above criteria, we conducted a trade study of authoring systems – this included obtaining evaluation copies of some for testing, analyzing tools currently in use on other programs within the company, and eliminating some tools in the process (for not meeting the requirements). In the final analysis, the above requirements were matrixed to the evaluated tools on the “short list,” and the final tool selection was made. We met with the program manager, shared our findings, and got her approval on the selection. Once that decision was made (and approval received), the purchasing process began and intense self-taught training began on its evaluation copy.

Design

The design phase began with many brainstorming sessions on the training approach – how to take this instructor-led training course and migrate it into a blended solution of online training and classroom workshop/lab. It soon became apparent that we could not simply “copy and paste” our way into the new training! This presented some real design issues – what content would we retain and simply chunk into smaller pieces for online delivery, and what content needed to be redesigned in its delivery method (after all, there wasn’t an instructor nearby to guide them down the right path any longer)? We went through each piece of content in the current training course and determined what could be used pretty simply and what had to be completely redesigned. In addition, based on user feedback done during the analysis stage, we made some decisions about which content should even be eliminated (or perhaps included in a future delivery). The driving force behind this effort was part of the first requirement – to update the delivery approach and instructional techniques to be business-process focused.

The result of the above exercise was a training design model that included not only the various pieces/chunks of content divided into either the online training course or the classroom workshop/lab (or neither), but also included the navigational models and templates to be used for storyboarding and the levels of interactivity. The model also reflected the decision that the workshop/lab would consist of a series of discussions to review key concepts covered in the online course (as a prerequisite to the workshop), and then use business case scenarios that would result in the class performing an exercise together. The workshop/lab would have an Instructor Guide developed to lead the discussion, and to set up the exercises (using scenarios). The Instructor Guide would identify a series of scenarios (based on different business processes used within the program) that the instructor would select from, based on the functions performed by the attending users in the workshop (thereby tailoring each workshop to fit the makeup of the users, as best possible).

Development

The development began with the construction of the first storyboards for the online course – following the models agreed to in the design phase. This model also identified the basic structure of the online course – with a course home page, connected to 9 topics, each with a number of lessons that ended with a progress check (evaluation method). The storyboard model also included a decision up front that we would include the content of the online course in the storyboard to better facilitate the development of the lessons (especially since that development included the recording of the simulations, which needed a specific script to follow to make them efficient, and to keep their size under control).

From the initial storyboards, the prototype was built. It was delivered to the program manager (as a demo) on December 21 (meeting the schedule milestone), and was enthusiastically accepted! Based on acceptance of the prototype, the creation of additional storyboards and course lessons began. To ensure the accuracy of the content (and their acceptance by the program manager), a storyboard review team of IDE SMEs was created, the review process defined, and the team implemented.

As work continued on the storyboards and creation of the lessons, a tracking mechanism was developed to ensure that: template changes were incorporated accurately/consistently, graphics were accounted for, interactivity was documented, reviews were conducted and documented, and progress checks were made.

Even though most effort was now concentrated on creating the online course, the draft version of the Instructor Guide for the workshop/lab was completed, submitted for review, and accepted (with minor changes).

The development of the storyboards and respective lessons will continue until their full completion, including the addition of the progress checks (exams) and tracking system – something that will not be fully integrated until the lessons are moved onto the company server.

Implementation/Evaluation

Though we are still only in the development phase of this project, during the implementation phase, we will begin the development of the deployment plan – how the online course will be released to the user community, the registration and log-in process, and the advertising of its release. Once released, we will begin tracking the results of the online course per the defined metrics in the analysis phase (and what is available with the tracking mechanism available with the authoring system). In addition, we will evaluate user surveys and feedback from users to use as input to the revision cycle and maintenance program of the training course. The maintenance program will include changes to the training course due to the phased implementation of the new IDE user interface, upgrades to the COTS IDE system (and its many parts), and expanded lessons to topics that were determined to be out of scope for the initial delivery. In addition, the maintenance program might also include the implementation of an online help system, if the program manager determines that it’s necessary/required.

We plan to continue using ongoing evaluation throughout the remainder of the project. This evaluation will also include the demonstrating of lessons for review and feedback from the program manager and SMEs as more lessons are developed. This is to serve as a culmination to the review of the storyboards, ensuring that the intended message of the storyboard is properly converted to the actual lesson of the online course. In addition, additional reviews will be conducted on the Instructor Guide to be used in the classroom workshop/lab.

Conclusion (Lessons Learned)

Given the need to convert instructor-led training to a web-based alternative, there are several options available for consideration. If a blended solution is chosen, each part needs to be restructured (redesigned) to be fully effective. For this project, what started out as a seemingly impossible challenge to restructure the current training delivery in order to reduce the training time of users (without diminishing its effectiveness), actually resulted in a blended training solution with increased effectiveness as well as reduced training time. In fact, the accepted blended training solution allowed for training access 24/7, an additional benefit of the redesign.

Though we followed every phase of the ADDIE model, the evaluation phase was identified as having a critical aspect to the success of the project, and as a result was integrated into every phase of the model. This integration resulted in the client’s approval of milestones as the project progressed through each phase of the model, which helped to ensure project success. Ask me in several months (when the project is completed), and I’ll tell you how successful.

The content drives the project, so content is king! Without the need to share content, we wouldn’t be discussing this business case at all. Therefore, treat the content carefully. You are, after all, evaluated on how effective you can get someone to understand and use it. The change in the delivery of this content is the real challenge in this business case. We certainly couldn’t just cut-and-paste it (well, we could have, and most users would’ve stopped the course after the very first lesson). We needed to be very careful with making the content “work” for the learner rather than just appearing as an online user manual.

We built the prototype with the intent of throwing it away. Having approached it this way, it made it much easier to develop the prototype in a much shorter amount of time — we didn't worry about an exacting format that might change daily until it was finally put before the program manager. We just took a stab at what she might accept, and delivered something to her for discussion. After the demonstration of the prototype, she did actually make comments about the appearance of the cursor on several frames (and that’s just what we wanted!).

For some, taking yourself away from the front of a classroom and repositioning on the sidelines is appealing. It wasn’t difficult for us to transition from the “sage on the stage” to the “guide on the side.” In fact, we were pleased with the new blended solution that was chosen by the program manager, and were anxious to get out of the classroom and out of the airports!

contribute to newsletter | give us feedback | meet the staff | about the newsletter

© 2004 The Instructional Design & Learning SIG, The Society for Technical Communication

The contents of this site, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, non-commercial use only. The contents of this site may not be reproduced in any form without the permission of the content author.