learnability matters

This post has been coauthored by Geeta Bose and Archana Narayan.

This month’s Big Question is Stuck? Getting Unstuck? We would like to share three instances where we get stuck and the ways we got unstuck.

1. Getting stuck in the power game

Every professional experiences this at some stage in their career. How many times have you been stuck with a client in a power game? There are clients who believe in a client-vendor relationship despite the fact that they have given you the project purely on the basis of your expertise.

This becomes a tough situation where the client starts micromanaging, starts questioning your professionalism, your skill, and your work practice. I remember one such client who would want us to call her every day just to report the proceedings, irrespective of the weekly call defined in our communication protocol. She freaked out whenever she thought she was losing control over the situation and would send harsh mails escalating the issue. Our team spent close to 2 hours every two days in conference calls where she would pull up everybody to discuss ’serious issues’. Often the outcome of the calls would be series of action points and the impression that we are doing a shoddy job because she being a client has the right to criticize.

How do you get unstuck when in such a situation? You are neck deep in a project and therefore, you cannot quit. Anyway, your reputation is at stake here so you don’t want to quit. What do you do to get unstuck?

• We started giving them more attention. We would typically send them a status update end of day. This seemed to make them happy as they had an update in their mailbox the next morning.
• We are extra flexible. Show them that you are there to work with them as a team. Their opinion and feedback matters a lot. We make the client understand that we are an extension of their team. We are working toward the common goal of creating a good product. We build a trusting relationship where we ensure that we will do everything possible to ensure their maximum satisfaction.
• When client insisted on something that may hinder learning, we were more objective in our response. Instead of saying “Not fixed”, we would rephrase the feedback as “We did not implement this suggestion because research shows that…” and quote the research also. We heard their view points patiently and then explained the logic behind our action, often she would accept this as they were based on proven research/theories. Therefore, the clients make an informed decision knowing all the time where we stand. We remain professional through all discussions and ensure that the client understands that our opinions are based on learner’s needs.

2. Getting stuck in predefined notions

This is another situation where the clients insist on what they want. At times, clients want to pre-decide the delivery mode, change the visuals drastically, include audio uniformly, or alter the flow dramatically. What makes these requests undue is the fact that they are not backed by research. There are simply personal preferences that can be confused with learner preferences.

Most often clients do not have access to learners or do not allow us access to learners. Since they claim to know everything about their learners, they tell us the best way to teach them. Often we are stuck in a situation where the client assumes the “analysis” phase of the development process and simply want us to execute the project.

So, how do we get unstuck? Albeit it takes time, but we show them proof of research to indicate how perceptions can be deceptive and how the outcome can be very different if we base our design on perceptions. We work with them to arrive at an evaluation metrics to measure learning effectiveness. Typically, these steps give us access to a few learners. Accordingly, we propose the research findings and the design directions to the client. This works well for both. Clients have a report to justify the learning need and the design suggestions; we have research to back our instructional design and development process.

3. Getting stuck with scope change

How many times have you been stuck in a situation of expectation mismatch that results in scope change? Your client wants a brilliant training program, but there is no consensus among the stakeholders as to what constitutes a brilliant training program? In one such situation, we had agreed to design an eLearning course at level 2 complexity and as expected we had also planned our efforts accordingly. Most of the client reviews of storyboards passed off peacefully. However, when we submitted the alpha version of the course, the stakeholders were undecided about the “zing” factor in the course. They suddenly found the course too plain and straightforward. They wanted us to change the visual and redesign the interactivities.

The course had an interactive calculation sheet that learners could play with to calculate the cost effectiveness of their projects. The stakeholders were undecided about whether the sheet should be interactive or passive. There were many discussions going back and forth about the feasibility of the sheet because the formula used to calculate cost effectiveness could change over time. This delayed the project substantially.

Finally, we got together to brainstorm about the root cause of the problem. We realized the following:

1. This was a clear case of scope change but the client refused to agree to that. So what was the best we could do in this situation? We had already incurred additional effort for the rework. We decided to change the visuals but a little differently. We shot the photographs in-house and modified the color and composition of some images to give them a very professional look.
2. Since there were too many stakeholders, it was difficult to obtain a final decision. We proposed to stakeholders to appoint one person from their end as the final authority to sign-off the courses. We had a long talk with the trainer at the client’s end to weigh the pros and cons of using an interactive worksheet in the course. We then closed it accordingly.

We documented the changes incorporated beyond the course sign-off period and had a discussion with the client to raise an invoice for the additional effort. Thankfully, by then the course had received a sign-off and we could arrive at a mutual agreeable scope change.

Share this