© 2008 James Desrosier Q UICK C HANGE A RTISTRY : Applying Rapid Prototyping Techniques to New...

© 2008 James Desrosier

QUICK CHANGE ARTISTRY:

Applying Rapid Prototyping Techniques to New Program

Development

JAMES DESROSIER

Director, Business & Management Education


RP—


1980s

INDUSTRIALCOMPONENT

S

Computer Aided Design process

Automated manufacture of components

RP—From CAD


1980s

INDUSTRIALCOMPONENT

S



1990s

INSTRUCTIONAL

SYSTEMS

Interactive learning systems

Way to develop instructional delivery systems

RP—From CAD ISD


2000s

PROGRAMCONTENT

Front-loaded instructional design

Leverages process overlap to produce solid content quickly

1980s

INDUSTRIALCOMPONENT

S



1990s

INSTRUCTIONAL

SYSTEMS



RP—From CAD ISD Content


2000s

PROGRAMCONTENT

Front-loaded instructional design

Leverages process overlap to produce solid content quickly

1980s

INDUSTRIALCOMPONENT

S



1990s

INSTRUCTIONAL

SYSTEMS



W Y S I W Y G

RP—From CAD ISD Content


RP Accepts Reality as Given

THEORY PRAXI

S


Integrated Overlapping ProcessTripp & Bichelmeyer / Rieber Rapid Prototyping Model

Install & Maintain System

Utilize Prototype (Research)

Construct Prototype (Design)

Set ObjectivesAssess Needs & Analyze Content

Front-loaded, Front-loaded,

iterativeiterative

Rolling, simultaneousRolling, simultaneous

Integrated, plasticIntegrated, plastic

Overcomes rigidityOvercomes rigidity

Front-loaded, Front-loaded,

iterativeiterative

Rolling, simultaneousRolling, simultaneous

Integrated, plasticIntegrated, plastic

Overcomes rigidityOvercomes rigidity


RP Principles

Treat content like product

Focus on end-use

Build first iteration quickly

Try it then adjust it—fast

Repeat as necessary

Only getting there matters

DWD — Don’t Wait, Do


Benefit of Treating Content Like Product

Assess needsto identifygoal(s)

Conductinstructionalanalysis

Analyze learnersand contexts

Developassessmentinstruments

Developinstructional strategy

Develop instructional material

Conduct formative evaluation

Conductsummative evaluation

Writeperformanceobjectives

Reviseinstruction

Classic Instructional Design Model

RP Model










Applying the RP Model

Build it — Use it til it breaks — Step Build it — Use it til it breaks — Step back & take stock — Go again until it back & take stock — Go again until it

breaksbreaks

Meta Step Rolling Steps






RP: 7 Conclusions

Works for academic product

Preemptive development tool

Delivers excellent quality

Streamlines process

Improves team output

Parallel paths clear hurdles

Nimble ≠ facile


Case StudySILICON VALLEY STARTUP FOUNDRY

Unique content

Compressed

timetable

Atypical delivery


Pre-set Objectives

Preempt local market

Create entrepreneurship curriculum

Move as quickly as possible

Launch in next quarter


Timeline

Phase 5

RefinementRefinementLaunchLaunch

Phase 4

RapidRapidRedevelopmRedevelopm

entent

Phase 3

RethinkRethinkReorientReorient

Phase 2

RapidRapidDevelopmenDevelopmen

tt

Phase 1

FalseFalseStartStart

25-36 18-24 13-17 3-12 1-2WEEKS


Day 1—Team & Strategy

Phase 1False Start

Team of ~20 consultants/instructors

Adaptations of existing short-courses

Collected under “entrepreneurship”

Marketed outside catalog cycle

INHERITED PROGRAM


Day 7—Raging Instincts

Phase 1False Start

Does anyone have startup experience?

Are we successful with short-format?

What does “entrepreneurship” mean?

Do we have wherewithal to open-market?

META STEP APPLICATION # 1


Day 8—Research

Phase 1False Start

Customer…

Content…

Competition…

Culture…

60k at any given time

No application-driven training

High-end boot camps

Startup-oriented

TELLING MARKET SNAPSHOT


Day 9—Restart

Phase 1False Start

Target startup leaders

Tailored content

Experienced team

Make up for lost time

Maintained deadline

ROLLING STEP # 1—RESET OBJECTIVES


Days 10-15

Phase 1False Start

Litmus Test: Been in a SV startup?

Unloaded all but two of current team

Identified & recruited new team

Convened team & mapped curriculum

Content & advisory board development

ROLLING STEP # 2—PROTOTYPING


Phase 2Rapid

(Re)Development

12-course Certificate

120 hours of instruction

Complete in 4 quarters

Graded w/ homework

Week 3—Initial DesignROLLING STEP # 2—PROTOTYPING


SPRG O7 SUMM 07 FALL 07 WINT 08 SPRG 08 SUMM 08 FALL O8 WINT 09

BUILDING THE FUNDABLE START-UP—WHAT BEING AN ENTREPRENEUR MEANS & WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

X X X X X X X X

FOUNDING A TECHNOLOGY START-UP—FROM IDEA TO INCORPORATION

X X X X

BUILDING PRODUCTS THAT SELL (THEMSELVES)

X X X X

OPERATING A COMPANY—PROCESSES & ROUTINES YOU NEED TO KNOW AND FOLLOW

X X X X

GETTING START-UP FUNDING—INCLUDING LONGER RANGE FINANCIAL STRATEGY

X X X X

ANTICIPATING, MANAGING & TURNING AROUND CRISES

X X X X

ASSEMBLING & MANAGING WINNING TEAMS & PARTNERSHIPS—INCLUDING NEGOTIATING SKILLS

X X X X

MARKETING FOR TART-UPS

X X X X

SALES FOR START-UPS

X X X X

LEGAL BASICS—FROM PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO EMPLOYEE & CORPORATE ISSUES

X X X X

BEYOND TRADITIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT—EXTREME PM

X X X X

FINANCE FOR NONFINANCIAL MANAGERS

X X X X

DEVELOPING AN ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEA

X X X X


Phase 2Rapid

(Re)DevelopmentWeeks 4—12

8 courses from scratch

Business case

Campus approvals

Advisory board

FOR OUR ACADEMIC FOR OUR ACADEMIC RP PROCESS, THESE RP PROCESS, THESE

WERE THE FIRST WERE THE FIRST TWO “USES”TWO “USES”

FOR OUR ACADEMIC FOR OUR ACADEMIC RP PROCESS, THESE RP PROCESS, THESE

WERE THE FIRST WERE THE FIRST TWO “USES”TWO “USES”

LOTS OF OVERLAPPING PROCESS


Phase 2Rapid

(Re)Development

Entrepreneurs all

VCs, Angels, Incubators

Bankers, Lawyers

Startup managers

Academics, Journalists

Cross-section of sectors

A/B CompositionMATRIX OF THOSE IN-THE-KNOW


Phase 2Rapid

(Re)Development

Market assessment

Target profile

Strategy & objectives

Program architecture

Course thumbnails

CRUCIAL SNIFF TEST

……and they liked what they and they liked what they sawsaw

What the A/B Saw & Debated


Phase 3Rethink Reorient

Incorporated Board input

Convened Board subcommittee

4-hour 3-on-1 review

Identified key design flaw

Weeks 12—13 COMBINED META & USE STEP


Weeks 14-17

Phase 4Rapid

Redevelopment

Delayed launch & edited catalog ad

Synthesized subcommittee input

Documented commentary

Released feedback & rethink exercise

Called new instructor meeting

META STEP REDUX


Weeks 18-24

Phase 4Rapid

Redevelopment

Reviewed exercise output

Set new direction

Started compressing courses

Follow-up peer reviews

Fired instructors = 50% content

Identified & engaged replacements

RE-PROTOTYPING MODE

““USE”USE” ““USE”USE”


Weeks 25-26

Phase 5Refinement

Launch

2-day intensive

12 experts

12 modules

Compressed into 20

hrs

NEW DESIGN FINALIZED


Weeks 27-32

Phase 5Refinement

Launch

1-on-1s with Engineering & Economics

2-on-1s with individual instructors

5-hour dry run with A/B & staff

INTERNAL REVIEWS


Weeks 33-36

Phase 5Refinement

Launch

12 presentations

submitted

Rewrite & reformat

Conducted course

FINAL EDIT & LAUNCH


Results

Hit target enrollment

Radical format worked

Ratings 4.5 on 5.0 scale

Second run even better


RP: 7 Conclusions

Works for academic product

Preemptive development tool

Delivers excellent quality

Streamlines process

Improves team output

Parallel paths clear hurdles

Nimble ≠ facile


RP Principles

Treat content like product

Focus on end-use

Build first iteration quickly

Try it then adjust it—fast

Repeat as necessary

Only getting there matters

DWD — Don’t Wait, Do


THANKS FOR YOUR TIME

JAMES DESROSIERDirector, Business & Management Education

[email protected]

© 2008 James Desrosier Q UICK C HANGE A RTISTRY : Applying Rapid Prototyping Techniques to New...

Documents

Transcript of © 2008 James Desrosier Q UICK C HANGE A RTISTRY : Applying Rapid Prototyping Techniques to New...