In analyzing my system of interest, does anyone learn from workplace instructional design (ID), several important factors were identified. First, 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 needed to improve the learning experience. The systemigram highlighted where the ID role comes within the system, which is too far out of the loop to gather accurate 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 learning to raise the bar, the flawed system dictates what needs to be done.
Second, supporting ID processes could positively influence the organization as whole. The level of detail applied in analyzing, developing and evaluation after does not take that much time, but takes the final output to a higher level. In addition, it promotes constant iteration for improvement. The advantage to organizations is developing the team to continuously raising the bar. This is what all organizations need to do to stay competitive and profitable.
In theory this is an easy fix, prioritize the ID higher within the system. This will put them in the loop making it possible to improve training to better fit address needs, as well as influence the overall goals of the organization.