Ok. So here’s the practical side: I sit in an office with a manager who says we need a new training program on employee performance management (correcting poor performers). Typically, I would ask a lot of questions to get around what the issue or problem is. Maybe disciplinary procedures and systems aren’t in place, or are not supported by management. Do managers understand and know where to go to enforce performance standards and discipline? Is it enough to “know” what to do or do they need guided practice or the transfer of new skills? Maybe they don’t confront poor performers because senior management does not consistently support actions taken? Or are they just not clearly communicating performance expectations to employees? Could it be that employees don’t understand their written performance plan or that there are consequences for not performing at desired levels? So we go on and on and round and round…eventually the exasperated managers just says, “Bill, get me the conflict management training course for experienced supervisors…here’s the contact number for the vendor.”
Is an automated approach to ISD even possible or desirable? My assumption is that thousands of instructional specialists spend a good deal of time analyzing performance problems and issues to identify whether—and what—training would be most useful to close the performance gap. But we’re still doing this manually—through conversations that narrow the performance issue to skill building, education, or performance support solutions for the learner.
This leads to another question: In an age of increasing collaborative technologies for learning, is ISD still relevant? Learning technologies have emphasized community learning as a new model (wikis, forums, blogs, etc.). But is ISD dead? A structured approach to designing performance-based training might still be relevant. Airline pilots need structured training to teach flight skills, students of public speaking still require guided practice and feedback, and employee counselors still require interpersonal skills training and coaching to be effective mediators.
The question for this opening thread is whether or not an automated approach to the ISD process is still relevant, desirable, and practical. Here's some research to get you thinking--and I'll be online through ScOPE text chat at 7:30 p.m. tonight Eastern Time (United States) for those who want to expand more...
ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NEDC/isd/app.pdf
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/satmodel.gif
http://www.enterprisesaskatchewan.ca/training
http://www.grayharriman.com/ADDIE.htm
http://defiant.corban.edu/jjohnson/Pages/Teaching/fac_manual.pdf
I've seen similar decision making tools used for other applications. One tool that comes to mind is used in career preparation programs. It is a software program that asks the user a series of questions such as "Do you like to work with others or work alone?"; "Do you prefer working with your hands or to solve mental problems?"; "Do you like working outside or inside?"; etc. At the end of the "interview" a list of possible careers will be displayed, based on the user's responses to the questions. Something that has always bothered me about this program is that it doesn't inform the user why any particular career option may have made it to the final list. You will often have reactions like "Why is this telling me I should be a mortician?" 
Of course, the answer is that the the program is based on simple filtering algorithms as opposed to the more sophisticated, interpretative skills of an experienced career adviser. I agree with Maria's earlier comment "Complex tasks may be impossible to automate, at least at this stage of human know-how."
