In analyzing my system of interest, does anyone learn from workplace instructional design (ID), my biggest takeaway was being able to articulate what I had felt but didn’t know how to logically express. It is easy to ask for more information but that doesn’t mean I will get it or relative information that is needed to improve the learning experience.
The systemigram highlighted where the ID role falls within the system, which is too far out of the loop to gather accurate and relevant information. Sadly, I think most organizations don’t understand what an ID can do. As in my case only a fraction of my skills are used. The reality is instead of the ID analyzing challenges that learning can address, or improving upon current processes to raise the bar, the flawed system dictates what needs to be done.
Supporting ID processes could positively influence the organization as whole. The level of detail does not take that much time, but makes the final output a higher quality and promotes constant iteration for improvement. In theory this is an easy fix, prioritize the ID higher within the system, and open communication instead of working in a silo. This will put IDs in the loop, making it possible to improve training, processes, addressing challenges of a company, as well as influence the overall goals of the organization.