Precision in training outcomes requires that training assumptions be clarified.
While facilitating a modified DACUM process to determine training outcomes I crashed against the muddy wall of assumptions. All participants in a process of curriculum development approach the task of curriculum development with assumptions. Assumptions are unexamined beliefs. These are the expectations we bring to a process without previous intentional clarification. For example, will these objectified statements of desired results be addressed by traditional delivery systems? Will they lead to courses that are taught in a classroom? Do we know who the students are? What are they supposed to be able to do as a result of the training? Who will do the instruction?
An international group representing a coalition of national associations was set with the task of determining outcomes to train association leaders. When describing training outcomes relating to managing and implementing a variety of funding models the facilitation was easy and progress was pleasing to all. When we moved on to discuss partnerships everything bogged down. Progress was impeded by diverse opinion. We took twice as long to write a dozen outcomes and we concluded with a sense of ill ease. Were we on the same page? Did we really know what we were doing?
Later I realized how the problem was that we had not achieved consensus about what a partnership was. There was suspicion from international colleagues who saw partnerships as a Western concept. Some admitted there was no equivalent word in their own language to communicate the idea of partnership. Since there was no foundational agreement about what a partnership was we could not agree on what the outcomes would be to which we would direct our training. So simple, but so critical.
Clarifying assumptions in the curriculum development process lays a foundation upon which everything else is built. How can you train someone to develop and manage partnerships if you are not sure what a partnership is? I realized this applies to every area. Consensus on the desired outcomes is derived first from consensus on the assumptions.
No matter how messy or seemingly unproductive the process of clarifying assumptions seems, it is absolutely necessary and required. Now the question to answer is, how can we clarify assumptions without creating the mess and chaos during a consensus building process?
