Abstract
Since the 1950s, the designers of training systems have embraced the logical and deliberate methodology of the Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) Model in one form or another (Figure 1) (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2001; Sugrue, 2003). The inherent linear design of this model perpetuates thinking that a single input leads to a single output. Each phase has specific associated tasks dependent on the phase preceding it. The conceptual model is extremely linear in execution, albeit, ideally, the activities should be interwoven (Smith & Ragan, 1999). The traditional model implies terminality. One cannot refute the efforts or the products, but given the rapid advancement of technology and the complexity of performance systems, it is time to question the success of time-intensive approaches based on the classic models (Foshay, 1995; Myers, 1999; Wallace, Hybert, Smith, & Blecke, 2003).
TopIntroduction
Since the 1950s, the designers of training systems have embraced the logical and deliberate methodology of the Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) Model in one form or another (Figure 1) (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2001; Sugrue, 2003).
The inherent linear design of this model perpetuates thinking that a single input leads to a single output. Each phase has specific associated tasks dependent on the phase preceding it. The conceptual model is extremely linear in execution, albeit, ideally, the activities should be interwoven (Smith & Ragan, 1999). The traditional model implies terminality.
One cannot refute the efforts or the products, but given the rapid advancement of technology and the complexity of performance systems, it is time to question the success of time-intensive approaches based on the classic models (Foshay, 1995; Myers, 1999; Wallace, Hybert, Smith, & Blecke, 2003).
The Need for New Models
The field of instructional design (ID) recognizes that no one instructional strategy or approach fits all ID situations. Why then would designers accept or advocate that one design model fits all? As we learn more about how people learn, how information is reconstructed in new situations, and how technology applications can replace outdated instructional strategies, the need for a variety of models becomes readily apparent. Product improvement (training) is gained through a radical departure from current modes or methodologies (Hammer & Champy, 1993).
Advancements in computer technology, multimedia, and telecommunications probably have the greatest impact on design, development, and distribution of content. Before a production group can create and develop an idea, conduct a prototype program, and evaluate its effectiveness, the content has changed. A business model must address how an integrated production team can design and produce quality products in fluid environments.
The Qfd Product Development Model
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) has its roots in manufacturing as a design quality tool. Akao (1990) first conceptualized QFD in 1966 as an approach to new product development and concurrent engineering where customer requirements were integrated into product design. Hauser and Clausing brought QFD into the mainstream of the quality movement in the United States in 1988. They coined “House of Quality” to describe the modular building process for the QFD matrix in a manner similar to adding features to a house (Hauser & Clausing, 1988). Since its inception, QFD has been utilized worldwide in almost every industry to prioritize customer needs and wants, translate needs into actions, and to build a product that considers customer satisfaction and business goals (QFD Institute, 2004).
In competitive market environments, a successful product is perceived by the customer as being of high quality. This quality imperative compels producers to make every effort to make their product possess the customer-desired attributes. QFD is an analytic technique that dynamically links and integrates stakeholder needs, system requirements, and design considerations. QFD also helps designers correlate and identify tradeoffs between the different design elements and insures that all stakeholder needs are met. The result is a product that can be efficiently and cost-effectively produced, while fully satisfying the customer.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Concurrent Engineering: An integrated team approach (e.g., design, production, and marketing departments) to producing and selling either a service or tangible good
Stakeholders: Those individuals or groups who have ownership and derive benefit from the training system.
Training System: An organizational system with the primary mission of training employees to improve performance.
Instructional Design: A framework for instructional decision making derived from learning theory, educational psychology, and best practices (Rossett, 2003)
Instructional Imperatives: Any training or business requirement, such as strategies, delivery methods, or constraints that accommodate the stakeholder requirement
Quality Function Deployment: A manufacturing quality design approach in new product development where customer requirements are integrated into product design (Akao, 1990)
House of Quality: A model that describes the modular building process for the QFD matrix in a manner similar to adding features to a house (Hauser & Clausing, 1988)