PDF Summary:Design Thinking for Training and Development, by Sharon Boller and Laura Fletcher

Training programs often fail to produce meaningful results because they do not adequately consider the learner's perspective. In Design Thinking for Training and Development, Sharon Boller and Laura Fletcher introduce the Learning Experience Design (LXD) framework, which adapts design thinking principles to create educational experiences that engage learners and drive performance.

Drawing from conventional instructional design methods and innovative approaches like prototyping, the LXD framework guides you through analyzing the problem, gathering diverse perspectives, ideating solutions, and evaluating outcomes. The goal is learning experiences that harmonize learner needs, business goals, and project constraints for maximum impact.

(continued)...

• The iterative nature of LXD could lead to scope creep and project delays if not managed properly, as continuous feedback and adjustments might extend timelines.
• Engaging all stakeholders and learners in the initial stages could be resource-intensive and may not be feasible for all organizations, especially those with limited budgets or time constraints.
• The focus on learner experience might sometimes conflict with the need to meet specific educational standards or regulatory requirements, which may not always align with innovative or learner-centered approaches.
• The framework's adaptability and continuous change could make it difficult to establish consistent metrics for success, complicating the evaluation of educational outcomes.
• LXD's approach to balancing learner needs with organizational goals might not always be possible, as organizational constraints could limit the extent to which learner experiences can be prioritized.
• Early-stage prototyping and iterative refinement could lead to confusion or frustration among learners if not communicated effectively, as constant changes might disrupt the learning process.
• The framework may not be universally applicable across different educational contexts, such as in settings with rigid curricula or where learners have limited access to technology.
• The success of LXD heavily relies on the skills and creativity of the design team, which may not be consistent across different organizations or projects.

Engaging both stakeholders and learners in the dynamic process of clarifying issues and generating a variety of potential solutions.

To thoroughly grasp the underlying issues affecting performance, it's crucial to gather perspectives from both the people affected by the training and those accountable for the business's results.

Boller and Fletcher recommend a critical approach, suggesting that one should not unquestioningly accept the first explanation of the problem or training requirement, as it may not accurately represent the root issue that requires attention. They advise starting with a comprehensive grasp of the problem, taking into account the perspectives of all involved parties, and then integrating knowledge gained firsthand from those who will receive the training.

Identifying key individuals or groups and clarifying the problem, goals, and constraints from the perspective of the organization is crucial for the successful implementation of stakeholder mapping and strategic frameworks.

The authors describe a method referred to as stakeholder mapping, which is intended to pinpoint every individual or group associated with the issue and its resolution. Identifying where the project's financial backing originates, pinpointing crucial supporters vital for sustained backing and triumph, acknowledging those who will benefit from the project's results, and understanding the possible obstacles when tackling the problem are all critical actions. The project's initial phase involves quickly creating a structure that is regularly evaluated to ensure it incorporates a variety of perspectives.

Sharon Boller and Laura Fletcher introduce a strategic framework designed to encapsulate the corporate perspective on defining the problem, expected outcomes, and project constraints. The design outlines numerous components that describe the challenges, objectives to be met, benchmarks for success, key focus points, underlying tenets, and the essential actions required to achieve the desired outcomes. The authors emphasize the importance of involving stakeholders from the outset to cultivate a shared understanding of the obstacles and expected results.

By utilizing techniques like observation, developing empathy maps, and engaging in discussions, one can gain a thorough understanding of the learner's requirements, obstacles, and circumstances.

Boller and Fletcher argue that gathering perspective from learners involves going beyond traditional needs analysis, which focuses primarily on identifying skill or knowledge gaps. They advocate for a thorough analysis of the everyday encounters, emotions, motivations, and challenges faced by learners. This requires employing techniques like monitoring, constructing empathy and user journey maps, and engaging in conversations.

To gain a thorough insight, it's important to meticulously observe how learners carry out their responsibilities within their professional environments, take note of the tools they use, and examine their interactions with peers, the resources at their disposal, and the constraints of their work setting. By engaging in interviews and focus group dialogues, one can gain deep insights into the preferences, emotions, and what drives or hinders learners. Empathy maps offer an in-depth portrayal of the sensory experiences, behaviors, emotional conditions, and the spectrum of obstacles and benefits that learners face, thus presenting a thorough illustration of their thought processes. The learner's journey narrative details the steps taken during a task or process, highlighting their frequency, the learner's emotional and mental reactions during these steps, common challenges and mistakes faced, and traits that set high achievers apart.

Personas are crucial tools that encapsulate the viewpoints of learners and serve to keep the design team's focus on the needs of the target audience throughout the design process.

Boller and Fletcher describe learner personas as fictional representations designed to encapsulate the characteristics of the intended audience. The formulation of these personas is based on an in-depth examination of data gathered through diverse techniques like observing, conversing, and crafting empathy and experience maps, which are instrumental in vividly illustrating the distinct needs, challenges, and circumstances specific to each learner. The authors recommend including key elements within the persona like a personal profile, a key quote that encapsulates the learner's perspective, a description of their typical work environment, challenges they face, and their motivators. Creating these personas is crucial for keeping the team focused on the target audience, ensuring that the final product is relevant and valuable.

Other Perspectives

• Stakeholder engagement can be resource-intensive, potentially leading to project delays or increased costs.
• The perspectives of stakeholders and learners might conflict, complicating the decision-making process.
• Comprehensive problem understanding requires time and expertise, which may not always be available.
• Stakeholder mapping might overlook less vocal but equally important stakeholders, leading to an incomplete picture.
• Strategic frameworks, while useful, may not be flexible enough to accommodate rapidly changing business environments.
• The process of involving stakeholders from the outset might slow down project initiation and could lead to "analysis paralysis."
• Techniques like observation and empathy maps require skilled practitioners to avoid misinterpretation of data.
• Traditional needs analysis, despite its limitations, can be more straightforward and less time-consuming than the proposed in-depth methods.
• The creation of learner personas, while beneficial, might lead to overgeneralization and fail to represent the diversity within the target audience.
• Focusing too heavily on the design process to meet the needs of personas might result in a product that is less adaptable to unanticipated user requirements.
• The emphasis on understanding the learner's environment and challenges may inadvertently neglect organizational constraints and business objectives.
• The process of engaging in interviews and focus group dialogues can introduce bias if not carefully managed.
• Empathy maps and learner journey narratives are subjective tools that may not accurately reflect the true needs or behaviors of all learners.

The method encompasses brainstorming concepts, developing prototypes, utilizing techniques aimed at enhancing training and performance, and evaluating the outcomes.

During the ideation phase, innovative solutions are developed and assessed by engaging in brainstorming, storyboarding, as well as by crafting and meticulously analyzing prototypes.

The authors suggest organizing a collaborative brainstorming session that brings together a varied mix of participants, including learners and experts in the field, along with designers and those proficient in technological applications. The team employs multiple methods to create possible solutions, such as brainstorming, storyboarding, and rapid prototyping. Boller and Fletcher emphasize that the ideation stage consists of a cycle where divergence allows for the broad examination of various ideas, and convergence focuses on identifying the most feasible choices.

Prototyping allows for quick, low-cost testing of solutions with learners to gain feedback before full development.

During the prototyping stage, rough and operational models are developed from the most compelling proposed solutions. Prototypes are crafted to promptly assess and validate the feasibility and effectiveness of the suggested solution, utilizing anything from basic drawings to advanced digital instruments. The authors recommend avoiding the creation of overly polished prototypes, as this pursuit of perfection can impede the openness to feedback and limit the necessary iterative nature inherent in design thinking. The effectiveness, pertinence, and capacity to captivate of the prototype must be assessed by collecting feedback from those who take part in the trial sessions. Insights gathered from assessments are employed to polish the initial model before advancing to its full-scale development, thus improving the proposed solution.

A comprehensive plan should be formulated to include the implementation of the solution, while considering logistics, delegating duties, evaluating outcomes, and mitigating possible risks.

Boller and Fletcher stress the necessity of adopting a comprehensive approach that extends past merely delivering educational content. To improve the learning experience, it's essential to start by cultivating awareness and dedication, and to maintain this through ongoing encouragement and support for workplace performance. This necessitates a comprehensive strategy detailing each phase's logistics, pinpointing the individuals responsible for specific tasks, establishing milestones to monitor advancement, and preemptively tackling possible challenges.

To gauge the success of the solution, it's crucial to use different models, including the four-tiered evaluation system developed by Kirkpatrick and LTEM, which aim to measure outcomes at various phases.

Boller and Fletcher highlight the importance of evaluating the impact of the solution on individual performance and the broader outcomes for the organization. The effectiveness of design thinking in solving problems is validated through its evaluation. The authors caution against solely relying on surveys assessing learner contentment, as these surveys do not reliably provide accurate insights into actual performance improvements. They advise using a variety of evaluation methods, including the Kirkpatrick Four Levels of Evaluation and Will Thalheimer's Learning-Transfer Evaluation Model, to measure the solution's impact across various dimensions.

Other Perspectives

• While brainstorming is a popular method for generating ideas, some research suggests it may not always be the most effective way to produce high-quality ideas, especially if groupthink occurs or if participants are not well-facilitated.
• The emphasis on rapid prototyping and avoiding overly polished prototypes could lead to underdeveloped solutions that haven't been thoroughly vetted for all potential issues, possibly overlooking deeper usability or feasibility problems.
• Collaborative sessions that include a diverse group of participants are beneficial, but they can also lead to conflicts or a diffusion of responsibility, where no single viewpoint is fully developed or advocated for.
• The ideation process's divergence and convergence cycles may not always lead to the identification of the most feasible choices, as the process can be influenced by the loudest voices or most persuasive participants rather than the best ideas.
• Prototyping, while useful, may not always be low-cost, especially when considering the time investment required to create even the simplest models and the potential need for specialized tools or expertise.
• The use of basic drawings or digital tools for prototyping assumes a level of skill and understanding that all participants may not possess, which could limit the effectiveness of the prototypes in conveying ideas.
• The comprehensive plan for implementation and risk mitigation may be overly optimistic or rigid, failing to account for the dynamic and unpredictable nature of real-world environments.
• Evaluation models like Kirkpatrick's Four Levels and LTEM are useful but have their own limitations and may not capture the full complexity of learning transfer or the long-term impact on performance.
• The focus on individual performance and organizational outcomes may overlook the importance of team dynamics, cultural fit, and other less quantifiable aspects of a learning solution's success.
• Relying on feedback from trial sessions to refine prototypes assumes that the feedback is representative and that participants are able to articulate their needs and the solution's shortcomings, which may not always be the case.