How far would you challenge your client?

I could not agree more.

It's great to work with a storyboard or PPT deck that was put together by a person well-versed in instructional design... but this often is not the case. Often it's a subject matter expert, and sometimes the consequences are:

• Including material that the learner doesn't need.
• Leaving out material that the learner does need.
• Including material that the learners already know (targert population analysis is useful here).

In handling the discussion with the author/owner, I like to keep in mind that there's probably a sense of ownership (and pride) to take into account. For me, the magic word is "consider." And I like to use it in e-mail.

For example: "I think I see an opportunity to help you improve this (fill in the blank) ... would you consider changing it to (fill in the blank)?

By presenting this as a choice or option, it helps maintain the author's self-esteem, fosters collaboration, and lets it be the author/owner's decision, preserving the sense of ownership.

I've found that with my regular clients with whom I've worked for a while, that they'll now offer source materials and ask not only for a quote, but for any opportunities that I see to improve it.

On the other hand, there are clients who just don't want to hear it. And that's fine, too. For these, I just take the path of least resistance, and build it the way they want it

I'm with Dave on this.

While there will be a few clients that "know" what they want and give no authority to change anything, I  would feel that it is part of my job to suggest how the material (or even the product or process being trained), could be improved. I see this as being my added value.

i agree with both Dave and Bryan. I feel it's our duty as ISDs to inform the client on what it is we do. Being able to inform them that we may not be able to use their 307 slides can be a challenge but worth it in the end. Sometimes they accept it and sometimes not but that shouldn't keep us from providing them our insight.

It's all about the client's "pain points", or needs, right? If the discussions are framed up from that point of view, you are adding huge value in a way that they've asked you to provide... tacitly or otherwise. 

For example, consider the following choices...

"By making this change, we can improve it. Is that something you are open to"

 VS

"Since helping the learners feel more engaged was one of the key goals of the project, there is a great opportunity to make a change here that will impact that directly. Is that something we want to explore?"

Both are professional and can work. But one let's them know exactly why you are making the suggestion and it ties to their stated needs/desired outcomes.

This is just another reason it's so important to truly understand what is motivating your stakeholders and what their pain points are... so you can help address them.

Hope this helps,

Bob

I think many of us have faced this problem...I used to call it the order-taker mindset. I am a Peter Block kind of consultant, so if I"m not acting as a trusted advisor, then I am not really doing them much good, at least not in my mind.

While not completely an answer to your question Bruce, one of the things that I do when clients have existing content is to categorize topics into the following as a first step:

• Keep - this is content that is good as is (we pick it apart again if I can't discern any instructional value)
• Lose - this is content that is not necessary (even if they don't initially think there's anything to lose, it creates space for that conceptually)
• Change - basic content that is fine, but want to change the delivery or some aspect of it
• Add - content that is missing in current solution

This technique is introduced as the "the opportunity to make the solution effective", and I have found that many times there is content they don't actually like, and want to make changes. 

As I wrote this, another technique I use popped into my head: it is based on the idea that there is content that they'll need to memorize, other stuff that they need to be familiar with, and then some that is truly reference (I wrote about it awhile back: http://sparkyourinterest.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/key-concepts-familiarization-memorization-reference/). 

Is this what you were looking for?

Hope it helps

Holly

Thanks everyone.

Not particularly looking for an answer here, just interested in the discussion.

I've seen so many people acting as the "order taker", and whilst this is the natural thing to do, especially if you are just starting out as a Freelancer, it becomes more and more important (in my opinion and experience) to challenge, and in some cases, turn down work.

I do not want to sound all preachy, but one of the most important things we possess in business is personal integrity. That does not mean we cannot have a good old-fashioned disagreement, but at the end of the day - we have to decide what role we wish to pursue, and travel that road with integrity and laser-like focus.

Bob - your mention of "pain points" is very valid to my own thinking on "reducing business pain". The more and more "ID work" I do in corporate-land, the easier I find it to tie everything back to "...increase profits, reduce losses, or reduce business/personal risk", the only 3 reasons we train people, so for me everything gets framed in those terms. Having that paradigm to work within makes it easier to challenge people.

Having the SKILLS to read and appropriately challenge a client is, of course, a different proposition!

Thanks for all your answers and comments, keep 'em coming, it's a fascinating topic (IMHO) for freelancers and corporate IDs in equal measure.

Holly - I love your simple "Keep, lose, change, add" model. In my view - tie that to my own "3 reasons", and you have a model that is so much more "real-world effective" than e.g. the oft-quoted ADDIE.

Bruce

Bruce,

You are, as usual, on point  with your rationale for why we train. It does usually come down to those three reasons.

That being said, I might suggest that stakeholders sometimes also have other "pain points" that we should be aware of as well. Often they are not stated openly, or if so, they are slid in "under the cover" of the big three you mention. Some typical examples are...

1. I'm trying to put my own stamp on this department/initiative so the course needs to look different just for that reason
2. We are tired of hearing about how much learners don't like the e-learning so make it fun
3. Various departments are vieing for resources so we need to show something "wow" with these modules to keep the funding
4. Eventually we want to take over all of this kind of training, so covering more than we really need to will show we have that capability and desire
5. etc etc

As much as we may not like these sorts of office politics and social pressures, they are a reality in the corporate world today. And again, these kinds of "pain points" are sometimes not openly advertised or stated in the requirements documents. That's where our skill and savvy as business partners come in. We need to do what's right by the learners, what's right by the stated goals of the project.... AND what's right for our stakeholders so we can help them win too.  

When we accomplish all of that, we become an invaluable asset our partners come to again and again.

Bob

Bob,

Completely agree - I would argue those all come under "reduction of (personal) risk" (mostly - some = business - "...reducing departmental risk by becoming busier...".

Many people do not see these as drivers, and as you rightly pointed out, the personal drivers can be staggeringly important.

Bruce