If there's one quality that's required of any species in general but simulation designers specifically, it's adaptability. You can fake your way through many steps of the process--I've become quite adept at it--but if you can't flex your design throughout the project's development cycle, you're doomed.
No project EVER turns out exactly as imagined. There are simply too many forces pushing and pulling against each other, too many parties involved (not the fun kind).
So, when your storyboards are due on Friday and you get a call on Thursday afternoon that impacts a third or more of the project, two things should go through your head:
1. That was expected.
2. I'll make it work.
Now, those seven words are easy enough to type, even if you're like a buddy of mine with unnaturally large hands who's mashed more keyboards than an angry Elton John. They're not as easy to put into practice, though, and that's what separates a good designer from the rest of the pack.
So, the next time you're up against a deadline and a stakeholder who hasn't been to a single meeting steps in and wants to overhaul the whole thing, put yourself to the test. Chances are, your project will be the better for it.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Quick Poll
For any of you out here checking out this blog, answer a quick question for me by adding a comment to this post.
First, the set up. I'm working on a few sims right now, and each have a different approach tailored to a different audience (decisions based on how you say something versus decisions based on a series of actions you follow, etc.)
That got me thinking about the eleventy ways to use simulations and I'm curious...
For those of you building sims, how are you structuring your decisions?
First, the set up. I'm working on a few sims right now, and each have a different approach tailored to a different audience (decisions based on how you say something versus decisions based on a series of actions you follow, etc.)
That got me thinking about the eleventy ways to use simulations and I'm curious...
For those of you building sims, how are you structuring your decisions?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Building on Sims
So, when you're already using simulations to apply learning and, ultimately, assist behavior change, what's the best way to follow up?
Well, maybe it's with a more collaborative, more demanding type of simulation.
Now, bear with me while I speak in drastically oversimplified generalizations for a minute. Traditional e-Learning courses are all about knowledge transfer, right? Learners plug in, learn new content, and take an assessment proving they remember what they just read five minutes ago. To follow up and see if we can make turn that five minutes of retention last...well, longer, we throw traditional simulation at them. They apply that transferred knowledge by making decisions from preset options that take them down branching storylines. During and after the simulation, they receive feedback and coaching on their decisions.
Ba da bing, ba da boom. Learning.
Well, then what? How do you follow up and make sure those skills are being applied, those behaviors being behaved?
One idea is using simulations that don't provide preset options, only general strategies. If instead of choosing from one of five well-crafted, legal-and-marketing-approved responses the learner is given avenues of pursuit that could be articulated in any number of ways, the onus is really put on the learners to put their money where their mouths are. By adding a mechanism of recording the learners' on-the-spot responses--whether typed, spoken, or captured with webcam--and delivering those reponses for evaluation by a coach/mentor/manager, you could get a very real picture of how well that learning has really sunk in.
Would it require concerted pull-through efforts from the coach/mentor/manager? Absolutely.
Would it be worth it? That's for you to decide. How much do you really want to know the real effectiveness of your training efforts?
But hey, it's something to at least think about, right?
Well, maybe it's with a more collaborative, more demanding type of simulation.
Now, bear with me while I speak in drastically oversimplified generalizations for a minute. Traditional e-Learning courses are all about knowledge transfer, right? Learners plug in, learn new content, and take an assessment proving they remember what they just read five minutes ago. To follow up and see if we can make turn that five minutes of retention last...well, longer, we throw traditional simulation at them. They apply that transferred knowledge by making decisions from preset options that take them down branching storylines. During and after the simulation, they receive feedback and coaching on their decisions.
Ba da bing, ba da boom. Learning.
Well, then what? How do you follow up and make sure those skills are being applied, those behaviors being behaved?
One idea is using simulations that don't provide preset options, only general strategies. If instead of choosing from one of five well-crafted, legal-and-marketing-approved responses the learner is given avenues of pursuit that could be articulated in any number of ways, the onus is really put on the learners to put their money where their mouths are. By adding a mechanism of recording the learners' on-the-spot responses--whether typed, spoken, or captured with webcam--and delivering those reponses for evaluation by a coach/mentor/manager, you could get a very real picture of how well that learning has really sunk in.
Would it require concerted pull-through efforts from the coach/mentor/manager? Absolutely.
Would it be worth it? That's for you to decide. How much do you really want to know the real effectiveness of your training efforts?
But hey, it's something to at least think about, right?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Training Industry Quarterly
trainingindustry.com publishes a quarterly online journal. The Summer '08 issue is dedicated to Games and Simulations: Playing to Learn - with articles written by several experts in the industry - including yours truly.
I like the format of this journal, they have a guest editor for each issue and follow a clean, easy to read format for the magazine. Enjoy:
http://www.trainingindustry.com/TIQ/home.asp
I like the format of this journal, they have a guest editor for each issue and follow a clean, easy to read format for the magazine. Enjoy:
http://www.trainingindustry.com/TIQ/home.asp
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Great Button Debate
As I currently have several simulation projects underway, each with their own functionality set, I've been up against The Great Button Debate over the last several weeks. No, not the new kids summer action movie starring Abigail Breslin and four animated macrame gnomes who enjoy solving mysteries that baffle the local police force and sewing buttons onto strangers' socks while they sleep. I'm talking about the following learning conundrum: for an immersive learning simulation created to mimic a real world environment (tweaked for optimal training), how much clicking is too much?
In one camp you have the eLearning converts who like Next and Back buttons. If a pice of dialog or a subtle clue is missed, they argue, and the intent is learning, then the learner should be able to go back and review the scene he or she just passed. If there is text on screen and the learner reads quickly or is ready to move on, they argue further, sitting around without the ability to advance the simulation causes him or her to check out mentally. "You'll lose the learner without giving them control over their movement," they wail and gnash.
Of my currently active set of seven simulations in development, three have Next and Back buttons.
In the other camp you have the hardcore simulation designers who argue that no simulation should have Next and Back buttons. Ever. Really. Like never. If the learner can't go backwards in real life, they argue, why let them in the simulation? If a sim is meant to give the learner quality "reps" in a limited-risk environment, they huff, make the repetitions as real and immersive as possible. Advance the simulation through the audio/video elements rather than user clicks. Use the mouse only to make choices at decision points. In fast, this camp has a personal vendetta against the mouse. Too much clicking, they say, leads to the feeling that it's just a training exercise to be completed rather than an immersive story.
Of my currently active set of seven simulations in development, three have no Next or Back buttons.
Is there a middle ground between the two? One of my simulations sure hopes so--it contains a Continue button only. The user is still required to advance the storyline by clicking Continue after each scene, but no backward movement is possible. Thus, the user must be responsible for listening attentively, for accepting the consequences of his or her decisions, and for keeping the simulation moving forward. However, it's still a click after each scene.
Now, I've obviously oversimplified each side of the argument, but this is a blog entry and not a white paper. Plus, what I think isn't as important to me as what you think, so I'll wrap it up with a call to action. In the words of Dennis Miller, "I wanna know what you think, America." Type in your comments on where you stand on The Great Button Debate and get a free "Would you like sims with that?" t-shirt courtesy of PDG and Vandalay Industries.*
*Free t-shirt supply is limited to the first zero people that comment.
In one camp you have the eLearning converts who like Next and Back buttons. If a pice of dialog or a subtle clue is missed, they argue, and the intent is learning, then the learner should be able to go back and review the scene he or she just passed. If there is text on screen and the learner reads quickly or is ready to move on, they argue further, sitting around without the ability to advance the simulation causes him or her to check out mentally. "You'll lose the learner without giving them control over their movement," they wail and gnash.
Of my currently active set of seven simulations in development, three have Next and Back buttons.
In the other camp you have the hardcore simulation designers who argue that no simulation should have Next and Back buttons. Ever. Really. Like never. If the learner can't go backwards in real life, they argue, why let them in the simulation? If a sim is meant to give the learner quality "reps" in a limited-risk environment, they huff, make the repetitions as real and immersive as possible. Advance the simulation through the audio/video elements rather than user clicks. Use the mouse only to make choices at decision points. In fast, this camp has a personal vendetta against the mouse. Too much clicking, they say, leads to the feeling that it's just a training exercise to be completed rather than an immersive story.
Of my currently active set of seven simulations in development, three have no Next or Back buttons.
Is there a middle ground between the two? One of my simulations sure hopes so--it contains a Continue button only. The user is still required to advance the storyline by clicking Continue after each scene, but no backward movement is possible. Thus, the user must be responsible for listening attentively, for accepting the consequences of his or her decisions, and for keeping the simulation moving forward. However, it's still a click after each scene.
Now, I've obviously oversimplified each side of the argument, but this is a blog entry and not a white paper. Plus, what I think isn't as important to me as what you think, so I'll wrap it up with a call to action. In the words of Dennis Miller, "I wanna know what you think, America." Type in your comments on where you stand on The Great Button Debate and get a free "Would you like sims with that?" t-shirt courtesy of PDG and Vandalay Industries.*
*Free t-shirt supply is limited to the first zero people that comment.
Designers and Producers
Quite often I run into folks familiar with design, but not familiar with adult learning theory. They're often curious about what I do for a living, but have a difficult time grasping what it is.
I've had this conversation a hundred times. I start with an analogy to "Choose your own Adventure" books and end with a discussions about the design process, interface design, and the joys of working in the training industry.
A very close friend of mine is an architect and we often discuss "design" as a universal process that transcends the end product. There are a lot of skills and qualities that make up a good designer, but two of the qualities that I believe make a good designer are patience and self control.
When a client comes to you and asks you to design something for them: a better house, a better hammer, a better learning engagement, etc. many 'creative' folks immediately jump to the solution when they should be asking questions and listening. Keeping my mouth shut is a skill I have yet to master, but when I consciously avoid telling and focus on asking open-ended questions the probability of success increases exponentially.
This is the difference between people that Design and people that Produce. People that produce are good listeners, but they don't continue asking questions once a solution is proposed. Their focus is productivity, getting something done. When they're good at it, they're worth their weight in gold.
If a client says, "I want a 2.5 bath, four bedroom house. I like open floor plans and Victorian designs" an architect who is a producer may ask closed questions like, "Do you want a garage?" or "How many doors?" or, tragically, may begin sketching floor plans and elevations.
An architect who is a designer will ask more questions, "How will you use this house?" or "What do you like about where you live now?" They risk putting the client off by giving the impression that they're challenging their thinking.
But the designer approaches the client's need with the realization that the client has to live with this thing... not the designer. Once the designer has fully defined the parameters of the need, the solutions come more easily. Smart designers work with small armies of skilled producers who ground them in reality.
I've had this conversation a hundred times. I start with an analogy to "Choose your own Adventure" books and end with a discussions about the design process, interface design, and the joys of working in the training industry.
A very close friend of mine is an architect and we often discuss "design" as a universal process that transcends the end product. There are a lot of skills and qualities that make up a good designer, but two of the qualities that I believe make a good designer are patience and self control.
When a client comes to you and asks you to design something for them: a better house, a better hammer, a better learning engagement, etc. many 'creative' folks immediately jump to the solution when they should be asking questions and listening. Keeping my mouth shut is a skill I have yet to master, but when I consciously avoid telling and focus on asking open-ended questions the probability of success increases exponentially.
This is the difference between people that Design and people that Produce. People that produce are good listeners, but they don't continue asking questions once a solution is proposed. Their focus is productivity, getting something done. When they're good at it, they're worth their weight in gold.
If a client says, "I want a 2.5 bath, four bedroom house. I like open floor plans and Victorian designs" an architect who is a producer may ask closed questions like, "Do you want a garage?" or "How many doors?" or, tragically, may begin sketching floor plans and elevations.
An architect who is a designer will ask more questions, "How will you use this house?" or "What do you like about where you live now?" They risk putting the client off by giving the impression that they're challenging their thinking.
But the designer approaches the client's need with the realization that the client has to live with this thing... not the designer. Once the designer has fully defined the parameters of the need, the solutions come more easily. Smart designers work with small armies of skilled producers who ground them in reality.
Friday, May 16, 2008
More on Failure
A friend recently sent me a link to a series of games called Terminal House. These are part of a genre of games called "Escape Games" or "Escape Rooms" where you find yourself in a locale with no memory of the events that got you there. You have to find different things in the room, figure out how they interact with other things, find clues, solve puzzles and get out of the room.
The other night I found myself stuck in one of these games, and rather than google a "cheat" or "walkthrough" of the game, I started clicking on practically every pixel of the screen to see what I was missing. Eventually, I found something behind a piece of furniture and moved on. Now, if I was really stuck in this room, I'd probably do something just like that. But in the gaming world, it was clear to me I was acting in desperation.
Two days before I played this game, I handed in and article on failure, simulations and learning. It's a topic near and dear to my heart. But I've always felt like my presentations and articles on this topic are incomplete. I've been asked about the suspension of elements of reality and how and when to challenge the learner. Often, the answers to this are difficult to quantify. "I'll know when I see it" does not instill confidence in the client... but I think this desperation thing is a clue.
Learners can be motivated by challenging situations, but if you're driving them to acts of desperation, you know you've gone too far. You've probably gone too far if you're even approaching desperation.
I once worked for a company that was on the brink of bankruptcy. As we were slogging through our final six months, sales "opportunities" kept rolling in - but very few of them were qualified or based on our actual value proposition. There's even one legendary story about a sales guy who piled a group of consultants into a car and drove them down to a "sales call on a great opportunity with a very motivated client." The consultants didn't find out that the client had never accepted the meeting until they got down there. After a two-hour drive, they discovered that the client wasn't even in the office that day. This sales guy dragged three very busy consultants to a face-to-face cold call!
In the world of ILS, what would be the purpose of making your learners act desperately like that? None that I can see. At that point, there isn't anything a sim can do to fix your problems...
The other night I found myself stuck in one of these games, and rather than google a "cheat" or "walkthrough" of the game, I started clicking on practically every pixel of the screen to see what I was missing. Eventually, I found something behind a piece of furniture and moved on. Now, if I was really stuck in this room, I'd probably do something just like that. But in the gaming world, it was clear to me I was acting in desperation.
Two days before I played this game, I handed in and article on failure, simulations and learning. It's a topic near and dear to my heart. But I've always felt like my presentations and articles on this topic are incomplete. I've been asked about the suspension of elements of reality and how and when to challenge the learner. Often, the answers to this are difficult to quantify. "I'll know when I see it" does not instill confidence in the client... but I think this desperation thing is a clue.
Learners can be motivated by challenging situations, but if you're driving them to acts of desperation, you know you've gone too far. You've probably gone too far if you're even approaching desperation.
I once worked for a company that was on the brink of bankruptcy. As we were slogging through our final six months, sales "opportunities" kept rolling in - but very few of them were qualified or based on our actual value proposition. There's even one legendary story about a sales guy who piled a group of consultants into a car and drove them down to a "sales call on a great opportunity with a very motivated client." The consultants didn't find out that the client had never accepted the meeting until they got down there. After a two-hour drive, they discovered that the client wasn't even in the office that day. This sales guy dragged three very busy consultants to a face-to-face cold call!
In the world of ILS, what would be the purpose of making your learners act desperately like that? None that I can see. At that point, there isn't anything a sim can do to fix your problems...
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Industry Books
You may have noticed a new area in the right-hand navigation pane of this blog: Industry Books.
Karl Kapp's GGG4L is self explanatory.
As for the others, well, I'm a bit of a User Experience/Interaction Design nerd. Why? Well, two reasons:
1. If I could get into the wayback machine and find 17-year old Phil (17YOP), I'd probably tell him to go study Industrial Design or Mechanical Engineering and spend his youth trying to weasel into one of the superstar companies of Interaction Design like IDEO. Of course, the term "Interaction Design" wasn't used very often back then, but I have faith in 17YOP. He was industrious, he'd figure it out.
more importantly:
2. User Experience &/or Interaction Design, etc. is critical to what we do and there are so few who do it well. For us Instructional Design geeks, a guy named John Keller talked about four major components of motivation in what is known as the ARCS model. At some point during the design process, all good IDs come back to this model and other greats (like Gagne) as a reference to check their work.
But on the user experience side, we often forget that the learning experience goes beyond content. We can have the most relevant, attention-getting learning project known to man, but if the user has no idea how to navigate through it or if it doesn't actually meet her goals, she'll shut it down. If she's REQUIRED to go through it by her employer, she'll slog through it, but reluctantly... We're destroying her confidence in the learning engagement, we're killing her satisfaction of completing the program... we've gotten her attention, but it's only because her brain is screaming, "I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WANT ME TO DO!" And the only thing that is making the learning relevant is that her boss won't let her leave at 5 if she doesn't finish the program.
Think about it, how many times have you stumbled upon a web site that will solve a problem for you, but it's completely unusable... How many of those sites are in your bookmarks now?
Too often IDs throw their work "over the wall" to the graphic design and web development folks and don't participate in the design of the usability of the product. I started my career as a graphic designer / multimedia developer, but when I stopped programming and designing interfaces, I retained a passion for the process. Your creative team likes discussing and debating usability. They DON'T like being TOLD what to do, they want to brainstorm solutions - just like YOU. Some of my favorite times on the job have been spent in a meeting room with whiteboards, dry erase markers and creative minds.
So, to keep my UX senses up to date, I read books and I think about usability every day. In the some of the books I recommend you can learn why doors shouldn't need instructions, you can feel better about not being able set your hotel alarm clock, and you can be fascinated by all the natural incarnations of the Golden Mean.
17YOP should have read these books, but he was too busy trying to figure out what he wanted to be when he grew up. If you see him, tell him to wait until Amazon opens and pick them up. While you're on the subject, tell him to take his life savings and invest in the Amazon IPO on May 15, 1997 at $18 a share. Man, I could kick 17YOP for not catching that one.
Karl Kapp's GGG4L is self explanatory.
As for the others, well, I'm a bit of a User Experience/Interaction Design nerd. Why? Well, two reasons:
1. If I could get into the wayback machine and find 17-year old Phil (17YOP), I'd probably tell him to go study Industrial Design or Mechanical Engineering and spend his youth trying to weasel into one of the superstar companies of Interaction Design like IDEO. Of course, the term "Interaction Design" wasn't used very often back then, but I have faith in 17YOP. He was industrious, he'd figure it out.
more importantly:
2. User Experience &/or Interaction Design, etc. is critical to what we do and there are so few who do it well. For us Instructional Design geeks, a guy named John Keller talked about four major components of motivation in what is known as the ARCS model. At some point during the design process, all good IDs come back to this model and other greats (like Gagne) as a reference to check their work.
But on the user experience side, we often forget that the learning experience goes beyond content. We can have the most relevant, attention-getting learning project known to man, but if the user has no idea how to navigate through it or if it doesn't actually meet her goals, she'll shut it down. If she's REQUIRED to go through it by her employer, she'll slog through it, but reluctantly... We're destroying her confidence in the learning engagement, we're killing her satisfaction of completing the program... we've gotten her attention, but it's only because her brain is screaming, "I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WANT ME TO DO!" And the only thing that is making the learning relevant is that her boss won't let her leave at 5 if she doesn't finish the program.
Think about it, how many times have you stumbled upon a web site that will solve a problem for you, but it's completely unusable... How many of those sites are in your bookmarks now?
Too often IDs throw their work "over the wall" to the graphic design and web development folks and don't participate in the design of the usability of the product. I started my career as a graphic designer / multimedia developer, but when I stopped programming and designing interfaces, I retained a passion for the process. Your creative team likes discussing and debating usability. They DON'T like being TOLD what to do, they want to brainstorm solutions - just like YOU. Some of my favorite times on the job have been spent in a meeting room with whiteboards, dry erase markers and creative minds.
So, to keep my UX senses up to date, I read books and I think about usability every day. In the some of the books I recommend you can learn why doors shouldn't need instructions, you can feel better about not being able set your hotel alarm clock, and you can be fascinated by all the natural incarnations of the Golden Mean.
17YOP should have read these books, but he was too busy trying to figure out what he wanted to be when he grew up. If you see him, tell him to wait until Amazon opens and pick them up. While you're on the subject, tell him to take his life savings and invest in the Amazon IPO on May 15, 1997 at $18 a share. Man, I could kick 17YOP for not catching that one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
