Today EMC, the company I work for, launched a new addition to our core product line, the Symmetrix V-Max system. The official launch site is at overtakethefuture.com, and a very good blog round-up of the coverage is over at the Storage Anarachist’s site.

As you can probably tell from the coverage, this release is a very big deal for EMC. Until today, information about the V-Max system was tightly guarded. So you have to wonder, how do you train the folks who need to be ready for such a big, secret release?

To find the answer to that question, I sat down with Nancy Gessler, who is the Director of New Product Readiness for EMC Education Services. She gave some great insight into what it takes to design and deliver education inside a big technical corporation. Here’s what she had to say:

Nancy, tell us a little about your responsibilities

My team develops and delivers technical training for our field employees and partners who are responsible for Presales, Installation/Integration, and Support for hardware and software across EMC’s product lines. Specifically we prepare the field and partners for launch readiness before a product is able to be sold.   We produced almost 500 courses last year in support of approximately 170 launches.

Today EMC had a huge announcement about the Symmetrix V-Max.  Can you talk about your role in that release from an education perspective?

Since Symmetrix is EMC’s longstanding, flagship platform, we needed to begin analysis and strategy very early.  We knew there would be lots of folks that we would need to train.

This is considered a “complex” launch from the training perspective because it involved new hardware and software changes.  Complex launches typically involve several different learning modalities and multiple training assets:

• eLearning accompanied by remote labs so students can get hands-on on the key software features
• ILT for installation because the hardware platform was brand new and they needed to see and touch it
• The inclusion of multi-media,  whiteboard sessions, and video tutorials as an element of the eLearning assets to add additional value

A few days ago I posted about the importance of using a systems approach to instructional design. I would think  there were some real system challenges in figuring out how to enable readiness for such a huge product launch. First of all, how did you figure out who needed to be trained?

Training has to be geo based, and the forecasted number of internal EMC folks to be trained was almost 1,400.  That number includes “core” Symmetrix hardware and software resources.  Because Symmetrix is a key platform, there are many folks focused on “affinity” technologies that will also take this training but are not part of the initial forecast.  The PreGA training cycle began Feb 17 to ensure a certain percent of the population are trained and ready at the external announce date.  It will continue to run through at least the end of May to accommodate the folks who need hardware ILT training and hands-on lab activities for software.

What analysis did you do to come up with the learning objectives?

We are very experienced with job task requirements for the key field roles.  We examine the software and hardware changes that are planned and then cross reference that with the job task requirements to come up with the “draft plan of attack”.  This generally happens early on so we can assess number of resources and timelines required for development, delivery and course production.    This launch consisted of the following areas that required training (which post analysis were compiled into 13 separate development projects for our Symmetrix team):

• 1 Hardware Platform
• 1 Hardware Operating System
• 2 supporting software packages
• 8 “open systems” software packages
• 7 mainframe software packages

How many learning assets did you have to create to meet the objectives?

We produced a total of nine deliverables to support this launch – one instructor led offering and eight blended eLearning assets, along with lab workbooks for the hands-on lab activities that we will support remotely via a virtual data center.

Which internal EMC organizations had a stake in what was being taught?

As part of standard practice, our stakeholders are always involved with approving a training proposal which provides the details of the training deliverables – number of courses, modality, objectives and key topics, and projected length of the deliverable.   We are dependent on Marketing to ensure any technical positioning is in alignment and we put the right “spin” on the technical details in support of presales activities.  Since we are working with “versioning code” throughout the development lifecycle, we are dependent on Engineering for technical validation.  All of our projects go through a comprehensive content review that includes the prior mentioned organizations.

When did you first learn of the project?

I had a general awareness for quite some time – more than a year, but concrete planning started around August of 2008 with an expected training availability date of late Q1.

How long did you have to complete the development & delivery of this instruction?

Training development started approximately November of 2008, but did not kick into high gear until we had working systems and code.  Initially our folks worked with Engineering to get a sense of how a feature would work and how to get hardware and software up and running.  There is a lot of time spent getting equipment and labs functioning before actual “training development” begins.

How many developers and/or instructors worked on the project?

There were 13 technical subject matter experts (SMEs), two managers responsible for hardware and software work streams, and three instructional designers aligned to this project.

What challenges are there when creating training for products that are not fully “cooked”, and are part of a secret launch?

The key challenge is how to approach the launch.  Planning is extremely key.  The planning phase is generally about 3 or 4 weeks for a project like this one.

A complex launch requires a thorough impact analysis of feature and function – there were a couple hundred features we had to analyze.  This analysis has to be matrixed against audience job roles.  Triaging feature and function and the impact to job roles provides the focus areas for key deliverables and how content will be chunked.

The next challenge is immutable deadlines, so we need to schedule timelines for the number of anticipated deliverables and how many SMEs will be needed to work in parallel.   Then the issue of how to homogenize independently developed content so there is some amount of consistency across the deliverables.

Then the tactical phase commences – getting equipment, building an appropriate technical environment that will support development and to allow time for our SMEs to get experience with the hardware and software before actual development begins.  Initial code does not have all features/functions working as expected so there is an iterative process that takes place across several code drops.

The people are an incredibly important ingredient to addressing the challenges of a complex launch.  They need to have good technical breadth and depth and strong knowledge of the key and affinity technologies.  They also have to be able to deal with uncertainty and complexity as while we are in the development process, code and other components are evolving.

This project is evidence that proper planning and strong resources can be successful when addressing a challenging and strategic launch as the Symmetrix V-Max Series proved to be.

Well there you have it….a working example of why you have to have a systems approach when designing instruction. I know for a fact my colleagues worked very, very hard…many nights and weekends…to get our company ready to introduce the Symmetrix V-Max to the world. Thanks Nancy for the insight into the guts of corporate education.

Wow! This month the ASTD Big Question is about a blog post I wrote back in December! The post was called “I think grad school is making me crazy“.

Basically, I was venting my frustration about learning new ways of doing things while being in a role where I can’t implement change (it did not help that I was participating in the CCK08 experiment at the same time).

So here is the Big Question:

• Do you sometimes feel stuck? Feel like you have so many more ideas about how you could help your organization or your clients, but that What Clients Want is just some training?
• Should you attempt to get unstuck? How hard should you push your internal or external clients to get them to see the full range of what is possible? Or should you give them what they ask for?
• If you are feeling some level of stuck, what should you do to get unstuck? How important is it to get unstuck? Is it okay to learn a lot about all kinds of different solutions, but to primarily work on simple training solutions?
• If you are stuck, should you be concerned about your future?

The questions were based on this comment in my post:

I feel I’m going to be stuck doing the same thing forever with all these cool ideas in my head that will never get implemented.

So let me start by putting that post into perspective. I wrote it during finals, and at the end of a pretty rough quarter at work (the next quarter was even worse!). I’m lucky to have very good mentors, as well as a very stable and nurturing home life, and those things help me get over my angsty times.

I’m a little nervous that I am writing this post in the middle of a hectic quarter, also during finals.  I’m hoping this one sounds a bit more positive.

What I have learned is that there are always options to get unstuck, its just a matter of how you want to deal with it.

Option 1: Suck it up

Sometimes you just have to just suck it up. Sometimes the reasons you are stuck have nothing to do with you. Decisions are made for you, and if you want to keep getting a paycheck then you just have to keep doing things the way you are told to do them, even if that makes you feel stuck.

Option 2: Complain & make your points well known

Maybe you are stuck and you just can’t take it anymore. You know you have good ideas that would save resources if they were only given a chance. So you take matters into your own hands and try to force management to listen to you. When they tell you to suck it up, you complain to everyone around you all the time about how unfair management is.

This is not a recommended option unless you have other means of income than your current position. Also, this option has a way of alienating everyone, from your manager to your peers. It also tends to make you feel even more miserable.

Option 3: Figure out why you are stuck

Another option is to figure out why you can’t get your ideas implemented. This option can be used in conjunction with Option 1. Start talking with your manager, your mentors, and others who have been around longer to try and find out the answers to these questions:

• Is this a bad time to talk about change? Why?
• Is there someone in management who will champion your idea? Do you have or can you form a relationship with that person?
• Is your idea really that new? Have others tried it before? If so, what was the reason it was not adopted?
• Has there been some system change since people last tried to implement this idea? Can you show why those changes make this the right time to try the idea?
• Can you let go of the ownership of the idea? If implementing the idea gets you unstuck, does it matter who gets credit for it?

  This is actually a statement about how you deal with power, and I’ve found its pretty important. Lots of my “innovative” ideas have been around forever. I don’t “own” these ideas, I’m just their latest conduit. Times have changed, and it may be that now is the time to try the ideas again. However, once the idea is out there, there isn’t a guarantee I’ll get credit for it. I’m ok with that because it gets me unstuck (well a little credit every now and again would be nice).

Once you figure out the why, usually you can identify who in the organization needs to be influenced so that your ideas a chance to happen. Once you know who to influence, you have to know what their hot buttons are. If you can figure out a gap someone needs to close, and your idea can close the gap, then you have a greater chance to get your idea implemented (and get yourself unstuck). If the gap has to do with making or saving money, your idea has an even better chance of being considered.

Even if they don’t accept your idea, going through this process will help you learn alot about your organization, and that is important too. The more you understand how your business unit operates, the more ammunition you’ll have for figuring out how to get your next idea implemented. At this point, you have to be willing to sit at Option 1 for a while.

So am I still stuck?

Yes and no. Yes because I still have tons of ideas in my head that I cannot implement at the current time. No because a couple of my ideas are starting to get some traction.

I’ve looked at the process of getting unstuck as an excercise in professional development. I’ve learned the following in the last six months:

• How to look at things from a systems viewpoint. I’ve learned how to find out if my idea is really not a good fit for my current organization. I feel like this skill will be helpful in any position I find myself in, so I appreciate the fact that I have been forced to work this way.
• How to pitch ideas to upper management. This is definitely a skill, and I am happy I’ve had the opportunity to practice (a lot)
• How to be patient. Truth be told, I lean towards Option 2. However, I know I have to frame my ideas appropriately for others to listen to me. I know I have to figure out how my ideas can fit with my organziation’s charter. I also know that I have to be positive and encouraging to my team mates. What good is an idea unless it helps everyone out? And who is going to want to work with someone who is negative all the time?

There are some really great answers from the comments section of the ASTD Big Question as well, so make sure to check those out.

The biggest thing I have learned is to be thankful for the lessons presented to me, it makes me a better learning professional.

I’ve posted before about the Dick & Carey method of instructional design – while I was taking a class based on the Dick & Carey method. This method of instructional design is very popular because it represents a systems method of designing instruction. Click on the image below to see a diagram of how this method works:

But what does a systems method of designing instruction actually mean?

The definition of system is:

A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

from thefreedictionary.com

What are these “interacting, interdependent elements” that may affect the development of instruction? Here’s a list from The Systematic Design of Instruction (Dick, Carey & Carey) along with my comments based on my experience in the world of designing technical instruction:

Individual Components of the System

• The instructor: What sort of training do they have? How much experience do they have with the product? How about the protocols, or the environment in which the product will be used?
• The learners: What sort of training do they have? What sort of information do they need about the product – will they be selling it? Will they be installing and configuring it? Will they be answering support calls from customers about it? Are they the customer? Or will the learners be a combination of all of these groups? Are they being forced to come to training, even if they think they don’t need it? Will they still have to answer customer calls and emails even if they are slated for training?
• Materials: What materials will be created for instruction? I develop training for software products that have some sort of revision every three months. Do we update our materials for each update of each product? What if a critical update is sent out for a product two weeks after we finish the materials?
• Instructional Activities: What instructional activities are needed? With software training, most of these activities are hands-on practice in labs built with the product being taught. But what should the activities be? How detailed should the lab instructions be?
• Delivery System: How should the instruction be delivered? Instructor led? Asynchronous eLearning? Synchronous eLearning? M-Learning?
• Learning Environment: In what kind of environment will the students be consuming the training?
• Performance Environment: In what kind of environment will the students be performing the activities that are taught during the training event?
• What have I forgotten?

Changing one component will impact the whole system

Each of these individual components work together with the other components. This means that if you change one thing midstream (lets say you make the decision to move from Instructor-led to eLearning, changing the delivery system), this will mostly impact other components of the overall system (the instructors, the learning environment, the materials, the learners all will most likely be impacted by the move from an Instructor-led to an eLearning delivery system).

And what happens if there is a component of the system that you haven’t even identified?

The systems way of thinking and performance

The systems way of thinking about instruction has been attributed to Larry Israelite (see Elliot Masie‘s Learning Rants, Raves, and Reflections 2004, review here). This way of designing instruction helps find performance problems so that the appropriate instruction can be designed. It provides a framework for systematically looking at a performance problem, and designing instruction so that the performance gap can be closed.

One reason it is important to apply a systems approach to instructional design is that one of the goals of instructional design is to  close human performance gaps. According to another one of my books, Mastering the Instructional Design Process (Rothwell & Kazanas) some of the things to consider when trying to lose those gaps are:

• Individual Performance: Does an individual worker have the right skills? Do they want to perform well? Do they have the tools to perform well? Do they have the ability to perform well?
• Work Group Performance: Can people work as a group? Is there a clear leader (that people are willing to follow?) Do individuals understand their roles? How do group members feel about the methods prescribed by the leaders to achieve group goals?
• Organizational Performance: Does the organization anticipate change? Does the org react well to change? Is there a culture of sharing in the organization? Is work being done in the most up-to-date fashion for the organization’s field?

If the real goal of “training” is to close performance gaps and enable a state of readiness in an organization, then it becomes pretty clear you have to think about a little bit more than creating power points, designing a lab, scheduling a classroom and sending invitations to students. A systems approach of designing instruction must be applied so that the effect on each individual component as well as factors affecting human performance are considered.