Assumptions will bite you in the end...

Okay, so here's the deal...(I know, for writing on intellectual research, that's not very esoteric, but hey, it's just a blog!). I've been making some pretty broad assumptions. First, I've only very broadly defined my independent variables, i.e. the use of craft, mass, and lean production techniques in the development of instructional products. My definition for Craft production is simply "the most efficient and effective production of limited run items or items with great variance..." usually involving "...a master producer who is highly skilled in many areas and who creates products, one at a time and by hand, that are individually unique (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990, p. 22)." Well, that can be said about almost any instructional intervention, if you begin with a needs assessment, because every situation will have it's own unique set of variables, sometimes even indicating the lack of a need for training. Instead, a job aid might be the least intrusive, least expensive, and most effective approach. But my point is that nowhere do I stipulate what characteristics are manifested in Craft production vis-a-vis instructional design.

The same can be said of my other two definitions for Mass production and Lean production. The former is defined in my proposal as "the most efficient and effective production of large quantities of identical or very similar items. It usually involves narrowly skilled workers creating identical iterations of a product in great volume from large stockpiles of raw materials and parts (Womack, Jones,  Roos, 1990, pp. 22-33)." The latter is defined similarly as having "emerged from and [using] the advantages of both Craft production and Mass production (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990, p. 13), using broadly skilled workers performing several jobs in the creation of the product in response to need for the production with just-in-time (JIT) supplies of raw materials and parts." Yet nowhere do I identify what I'm really looking for.

At first, I thought I needed to identify a taxonomy of production, somewhat like Bloom's taxonomy of cognitive learning. But then I remembered that Bloom's taxonomy is hierarchical. I'm not looking at a hierarchy of development here; I'm looking for specific, individual characteristics that can be used to identify what actions used by instructional developers in the Development phase of ADDIE* can be recognized and categorized in each of the three production types, quantified, and then qualified via production metrics as most efficient and effective. That may be a stretch, given that my population has been initially defined as Defense contractors building courseware for the military and my sample as one office comprising one prime contractor and three sub-contractors working on four separate tracks of training for a single aircraft platform. Additionally, the development was subject matter expert-driven, both by the customer and the production shop. My sense was that most of them had little background in instruction, let alone instructional design or even development.

Some ideas I've been batting around in my mind include the following: stepping away from the mixed-method approach I've been pursuing (to what, I'm not sure); stepping away from the case study and broadening both my population and my sample; or focusing on the classification scheme (if a taxonomy can be non-hierarchical, then it's a taxonomy). This is where I seem to be stuck at the moment. If anyone is out there reading this, I'd sure appreciate some feedback.

*ADDIE--the acronym for "Analyze-Design-Develop-Implement-Evaluate," the process most commonly used in the development of military and other training.

Reference:

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., and Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world: The story of lean production. New York: Rawson Associates.

Errata...

Mea culpa. I erroneously stated in my previous post that a case study would not satisfy a qualitative study. Actually, the opposite is true: a case study will satisfy only a qualitative study. Thanks to Traici Sexton for sending me a message with helpful information.

Transmogrification is imminent.

Yes! Change is coming! Just wait a little while and it will get here. Once again, nothing was broken, so Capella decided to fix it. We have new forms and new ways of doing things. However, the clarification will help (I think!).

It appears that I have erroneously combined a mixed method approach (quantitative and qualitative data) with a Case Study. According to the new parameters established by someone in the IT department, Case Studies will not satisfy a qualitative study. So, what I plan to do is remove references to my former office (I no longer work there and that was always the main contention anyway) and make the population industry-wide. My former connections may provide links to the sample, but to use them exclusively would not provide the randomness necessary to do bona fide research nor pass the IRB.

Anyway, I gotta get on it.