Millette Reflection – Learning Launch

Challenge

Air Force acquisition program managers lack education that replicates the situation in  which they most often find themselves.  Just about every project or program management class  available to Air Force personnel starts with a blank sheet of paper and teaches the students  how to build a project plan.  This is an effective method of presenting the best practices, tools,  and techniques in project management.  However, very few program managers actually get to  build their own program/project plan.  In most cases, they get dropped into a program or  project that is already underway – essentially executing someone else’s plan.  I had an idea to  build curriculum that would address this gap – providing the Air Force acquisition program  managers education on project execution.

Selection

Based on my experience (as both an Air Force acquisition program manager and an  educator of Air Force acquisition program managers) and discussions with my colleagues and  students, I believed I already had a solid educational design for a course or workshop on project  execution.  What I needed to do was find out if I was on the right track.  Was my assumption  that Air Force acquisition program managers want this type of education correct?  Was my  assumption that our design (immerse the students in a scenario with detailed realistic artifacts,  let them realize what they don’t know, then teach them the best practices) an effective way to  provide this education?  As Robert Mayer suggests in the video lesson, “Learning launches test key  customer, execution and defensibility assumptions”.  Rather than following our arduous and  time-consuming standard course development process – i.e. identify the target audience,  define detailed learning objectives, design content, build course, offer course – I wanted to  engage real students quickly to test my assumptions.

Application & Insight

In order to garner feedback from actual students, I put together a half-day workshop  and scheduled it as part of a regular training session offered at our base.  I built the scenario  artifacts and the best practice lessons.  I created a draft syllabus and teaching notes.  Following  the workshop, I solicited feedback from the students both verbally and via a survey they  received later.  The students reported the exercise-then-lessons design was an effective way to  engage them and enhanced their learning; but that they felt rushed during the exercises (as I  did in providing the lessons).  The primary lesson I learned as a result of this first learning  launch was that a half-day wasn’t long enough.

I then scheduled a day-long workshop as part of a journeyman program manager  training session offered later.  We held the second learning launch.  The result was further  confirmation that the design was effective, but needed some tweaking.  As provided, the  course started with the scenario/exercise in the morning followed by an afternoon of lecture.

The students said the afternoon was too much lecture. In addition, I learned that the course  STILL wasn’t long enough.

A third learning launch event was held; this time as a day-and-a-half stand-alone  workshop with a modified design.  This time, we would start with a portion of the  scenario/exercise, then provide the best practices via lecture, but allow the students to get  back into the scenario to try the best practices themselves.  As such, this third learning launch  would provide additional insight into a couple of areas:  Did we have the right length at 1 ½  days?  And, was the modified design better for the students?  The resulting feedback was a  resounding yes and yes.

With the information gleaned from the learning launch activities, I was confident we  had designed curriculum that Air Force acquisition program managers needed and that  effectively met their needs.  Armed with this information, I handed the design over to  additional faculty to formalize the workshop into a course.  This would close the  administrative/bureaucratic loops (i.e. obtaining a course number and satisfying higher  headquarters paperwork requirements) and get the new Project Execution course on the  academic calendar for offerings in fiscal year 2021.

Approach

Bolstered by the success of applying learning launches to course development, I plan to  make this my preferred methodology for narrowing down target audience requirements and  honing in on an effective course design.  For example, I have identified a requirement for  Innovation education for the Air Force acquisition workforce.  I have a good idea what the  specific education needs are in this area, but will use short workshops to validate my  assumptions as to what the workforce desires.  Further, each of these learning launch  workshops will provide insight into whether my design (still undecided; I will likely employ  other Design Thinking methodologies like brainstorming or mind-mapping to help come up with  an initial design) assumptions are correct.


Millette Reflection – Learning Launch Challenge Air Force acquisition program managers lack education that replicates the situation in which they most often find themselves . Just about every project or program management class available to Air Force personnel starts with a blank sheet of paper and teaches the students how to build a project plan . This is an effective method of presenting the best practices , tools , and techniques in project management . However , very few program managers actually get to build their own program / project plan . In most cases , they get dropped into a program or project that is already underway – essentially executing someone else ’s plan . I had an idea to build curriculum that would address this gap – providing the Air Force acquisition program managers education on project execution . Selection Based on my experience ( as both an Air Force acquisition program manager and an educator of Air Force acquisition program managers ) and discussions with my colleagues and students , I believed I already had a solid educational design for a course or workshop on project execution . What I needed to do was find out if I was on the right track . Was my assumption that Air Force acquisition program managers want this type of education correct ? Was my assumption that our design ( immerse the students in a scenario with detailed realistic artifacts , let them realize what they do n’t know , then teach them the best practices ) an effective way to provide this education ? As Robert Mayer suggests in the video lesson , “ Learning launches test key customer , execution and defensibility assumptions ” . Rather than following our arduous and time - consuming standard course development process – i.e. identify the target audience , define detailed learning objectives , design content , build course , offer course – I wanted to engage real students quickly to test my assumptions . Application & Insight In order to garner feedback from actual students , I put together a half - day workshop and scheduled it as part of a regular training session offered at our base . I built the scenario artifacts and the best practice lessons . I created a draft syllabus and teaching notes . Following the workshop , I solicited feedback from the students both verbally and via a survey they received later . The students reported the exercise - then - lessons design was an effective way to engage them and enhanced their learning ; but that they felt rushed during the exercises ( as I did in providing the lessons ) . The primary lesson I learned as a result of this first learning launch was that a half - day was n’t long enough . I then scheduled a day - long workshop as part of a journeyman program manager training session offered later . We held the second learning launch . The result was further confirmation that the design was effective , but needed some tweaking . As provided , the course started with the scenario / exercise in the morning followed by an afternoon of lecture . The students said the afternoon was too much lecture . In addition , I learned that the course STILL was n’t long enough . A third learning launch event was held ; this time as a day - and - a - half stand - alone workshop with a modified design . This time , we would start with a portion of the scenario / exercise , then provide the best practices via lecture , but allow the students to get back into the scenario to try the best practices themselves . As such , this third learning launch would provide additional insight into a couple of areas : Did we have the right length at 1 ½ days ? And , was the modified design better for the students ? The resulting feedback was a resounding yes and yes . With the information gleaned from the learning launch activities , I was confident we had designed curriculum that Air Force acquisition program managers needed and that effectively met their needs . Armed with this information , I handed the design over to additional faculty to formalize the workshop into a course . This would close the administrative / bureaucratic loops ( i.e. obtaining a course number and satisfying higher headquarters paperwork requirements ) and get the new Project Execution course on the academic calendar for offerings in fiscal year 2021 . Approach Bolstered by the success of applying learning launches to course development , I plan to make this my preferred methodology for narrowing down target audience requirements and honing in on an effective course design . For example , I have identified a requirement for Innovation education for the Air Force acquisition workforce . I have a good idea what the specific education needs are in this area , but will use short workshops to validate my assumptions as to what the workforce desires . Further , each of these learning launch workshops will provide insight into whether my design ( still undecided ; I will likely employ other Design Thinking methodologies like brainstorming or mind - mapping to help come up with an initial design ) assumptions are correct .