I would like to pick up the following thread and offer some anecdotal comments:
[quoting Foshay's paper] I believe that in the TBT context, ID has almost no "brand integrity" among most of our clients, customers and employers. It's up to us to establish it, through a combination of quality standards (which could be based on any combination of accreditation, certification, or even simple recognition awards, addressed to practitioners, processes, or products). For example, Craig Johnson at Florida State has been leading a long-term effort to establish an ISO 9000 guideline for training and education. The U.S. version (ASQC, 1996) has now been published and adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). This makes it possible for a U.S. training or education organization to be ISO 9000 certified in an ISD-like process. Once there is a definition of what the "ID brand" means, and a means for assuring the brand's quality, then the principles for establishing the brand's integrity in the minds of consumers are well understood by marketing professionals. We would do well to take their advice and act accordingly.
I work for an approximately 500 person software company that is in the midst of ISO certification, and we have just completed our first external audit. The customer training department has consistently led the rest of the company in getting its processes, controls and metrics defined and implemented. It "passed with flying colors." The graphics and multimedia department has been one of the most difficult. We still have a considerable way to go there. Why? I THINK the success in the training department is because there are several ex-GI's there who simply implemented the military ISD model (in a very minimalist form).
In comparison, the senior creative director in the graphics and multimedia department was just tasked to write a response to a request for proposals (RFP) for a CD-ROM/kiosk marketing project and was quite emotional and defensive when the RFP asked a list of questions such as the following: (1) What is your design and development process? (2) What is the review and approval process? (3) What is the testing and acceptance process? (4) How will you determine if the project was successful? (5) What are the credentials, skills, and experience of the team members? Etc.? Etc.?
Since this person has over ten years supervisory experience in the graphics/multimedia business, I couldn't readily understand why he seemed offended by the questions the RFP asked. I've become quite accustomed to those questions in the multimedia training business (and have "boilerplate" descriptions), but he reiterated that he had never been asked for written descriptions such as these. When I questioned further, I found out that as an "artist" he was accustomed to using his portfolio alone to sell his services. When I asked if he was often asked to describe the "customer requirement" that resulted in the piece of artwork, the answer was no. Similarly, when I asked if he was frequently asked for "hard data on the results," again he answered "No, never." It seems that he had been "selling the sizzle" all along, and had never been asked about the "steak."
By the way, this person was recently "relieved" of his managerial duties and someone a bit more process oriented replaced him. He's now relegated to "creative and art direction, plus sales" duties.
ID, to me, is simply a structured process that mirrors the software design (waterfall) process, the continuous quality improvement process, or any other process that is used to create "something proven, beginning with nothing." The steps can be generalized to be the same:
(1) Analyze and define the requirements (including success criteria), and obtain approval, revising as necessary.
(2) Design to meet those requirements, and obtain approval, revising as necessary.
(3) Develop to meet the stated design requirements and test the results (alpha or pilot), revising as necessary.
(4) Implement the product/project (beta, trials, or full-scale), and gather data for summative evaluation.
(5) Evaluate the results, and revise as necessary.
(6) Continue to repeat steps one through five until you obtain the desired results.
ID, alone, makes no attempt to suggest or prescribe ANY instructional strategy, media, or treatment, just as the above model applies to any "quality services organization" or any software program. Most of the comments regarding "limiting my creativity," "violating my pet theory," etc., are irrelevant.
A topic for another needed discussion is how to implement a RAD (instead of waterfall) version of this same process.