Pi and Id Flowchart and Narrative
PI and ID Flowchart and Narrative
The following information provides two flow charts and then a comparison of the information. These charts are performance improvement flow and the ADDIE model.
Image 1 - Performance Improvement flow Image 2 – ADDIE model
After reviewing both flows you can see that there are strong similarities. Both models require that analysis be completed first, this is important as the gap, need, or desire outcome must be determined. Using past data can show areas of improvement for both performance and instruction. The performance improvement model does focus strongly on analysis, notice how the first two steps focus on analysis, there is front-end analysis, analysis and allocate. Front-end analysis according to (2006, p. 313) contains performance, organizational, environmental, learner, needs, and cause analysis. Although analysis is done in the ADDIE model, there is less emphasis and detail on all the components in performance improvement.
Design and development phase are the next two steps in the ADDIE model, but these steps are combined in the performance improvement flow. As a trainer and documentation writer the design and development phase tend to blur, as you cannot have one without the other. The design is the blueprint or plan. Once the plan is determined, then developing the plan phase is next, so that the plan becomes a reality. Personally, I prefer the way the performance improvement combines the two as the steps.
Implementation is next in both processes. By using, what has been developed allows organizations to begin to measure progress. What makes the performance improvement process different is the next step to monitor and manage. This means that during the implementation phase monitoring and managing the performance progress as the individual, manager, teacher, or organization to ensure everything is on target and adjusting the approach as necessary.
Evaluation is next; however, in the flow shown here for
The following information provides two flow charts and then a comparison of the information. These charts are performance improvement flow and the ADDIE model.
Image 1 - Performance Improvement flow Image 2 – ADDIE model
After reviewing both flows you can see that there are strong similarities. Both models require that analysis be completed first, this is important as the gap, need, or desire outcome must be determined. Using past data can show areas of improvement for both performance and instruction. The performance improvement model does focus strongly on analysis, notice how the first two steps focus on analysis, there is front-end analysis, analysis and allocate. Front-end analysis according to (2006, p. 313) contains performance, organizational, environmental, learner, needs, and cause analysis. Although analysis is done in the ADDIE model, there is less emphasis and detail on all the components in performance improvement.
Design and development phase are the next two steps in the ADDIE model, but these steps are combined in the performance improvement flow. As a trainer and documentation writer the design and development phase tend to blur, as you cannot have one without the other. The design is the blueprint or plan. Once the plan is determined, then developing the plan phase is next, so that the plan becomes a reality. Personally, I prefer the way the performance improvement combines the two as the steps.
Implementation is next in both processes. By using, what has been developed allows organizations to begin to measure progress. What makes the performance improvement process different is the next step to monitor and manage. This means that during the implementation phase monitoring and managing the performance progress as the individual, manager, teacher, or organization to ensure everything is on target and adjusting the approach as necessary.
Evaluation is next; however, in the flow shown here for
References: Pershing, J.A. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of Human Performance Technology (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer