Content analysis and “the talking cure”

One of my favorite client-centred activities is the content analysis session. It’s one of the most exciting meetings of the project, and occurs during the design phase.

Content analysis sessions involve gathering experts into one room or conference call, and giving them time to discuss the material they believe the audience should learn from this new course you’re building. While they’re on the battlefield, arguing for or against others’ ideas, I’m lingering just outside the circle, listening, taking notes, making comments, asking questions and generally guiding the discussion. I call this exercise steering the horse from within the cart. The idea is to let the experts make the decisions about the content while I quietly push them to produce an outline by the end of the session.

This week, I spent a day and a half in a meeting room with three SMEs. The power dynamics were not equally balanced: two of them had recently joined the team and spent less than a month each at their new jobs. They were invited to attend the session because they had previously performed the same job as our future audience; they had recently been the target population. The third SME was their new manager. She had a wide breadth of experience, but hadn’t been working in the field for several years. She was invited because her role was to write the first draft of the course.

In the morning of the first day, the employees deferred to the manager quite often. Everyone was getting their sealegs and becoming comfortable with the process of talking things out in a group. When discagreement arose between the manager and employees, the employees would back down and let the manager assume she was correct. It wasn’t clear to me that they agreed with her.

By mid-afternoon, though, the group had steadily clarified their course outline until they reached some topics on which the manager admitted she was not an expert. She began to ask the employees their opinions. Real discussion started to take place. Real disagreements, too! One topic flummoxed the group and they spent a long time arguing and pouring over thick textbooks as they looked for answers. Eventually they reached a consensus, and everyone looked relieved.

With no emotional turmoil to unvent, this exercise is not a “talking cure” in the psychiatric sense. However, the feeling of cartharsis after reaching an agreement is remarkable. I think that people feel positively about negotiating and compromising, and they put a lot of themselves into the exercise of creating a great outline for future learners.

Happy learning,
Fran

How to work with a Subject Matter Expert - Part III

This is the third post of a series. Read the first post here.

When your SME submits their first draft, get ready to jump into action.

Review the first draft critically

• When reviewing a draft, your goal is to ensure the material is easy to read and understand.
• Focus on the 3 C's of editing:
• Clarity: Is the message easy to understand?
• Concision: Is the message to the point, using the fewest number of words? 
• Correctness: Are verb tenses, sentence structures, punctuation and grammar used properly?
• If you are editing an electronic Microsoft Word document, use the Track Changes function to allow the SME see the changes you made, or would like them to make.

Important: Remember to ask the SME to view your edits to ensure his or her intended meaning is not altered.

Maintain your high standards, but be gentle 

Your SME’s initial draft will require changes and corrections – you can count on it. Stay positive even if the SME submits what appears to be a messy first draft: even the Mona Lisa started out as a simple sketch, which is to say that many beautiful things start out ugly. Every document improves with a little editing.

Be aware that negative feedback can be hard to accept. (By the way, it can be just as hard to give.)

One tried-and-true method of requesting corrections and revisions is the “sandwich” approach. Begin with a positive comment about the work, then mention something that needs improvement, and finish with a second positive comment.

For example: “Frannie, I found your introduction engaging and easy to read. In the second paragraph, I highlighted a few errors using Track Changes, and I was wondering if you would double-check the calculations in the table. Overall, I think you included all the major topics. Good job.”

Some people swear by the sandwich method. Some others disagree, believing that the intention of this strategy is to calm or protect the giver of feedback more than the receiver, and that receivers prefer to hear bad news straight up, with no funny business. How you handle giving feedback is up to you; just be aware that people receive news differently. It might not be a bad idea to ask your SME their preference, especially if you intend to carry on a long-term professional relationship with them.

We'll review the final phase of the series in the next post.

Happy learning,
Fran