Universal Systems Model

A systematic approach implies that the designer has a conceptual model of the process. Models are abstractions of reality. Physical models (model cars, airplanes, dolls, etc) are the closest visual representation while mathematical models (formulas) don’t look anything like the real object or process. Schematic models, such as blueprints and flowcharts, allow us to rapidly understand a process and how its parts relate to each other.

The Universal Systems Model (Fig. 1) is a general conceptualization on how a process can be represented. There are four basic elements to the systems model: output, process, input, and feedback.

Output represents the desired result, outcome, or goal

Process represents the operations that occur to transform the inputs to the desired outputs.

Inputs represent the basic materials or resources that will be transformed to the output.

Feedback is the element of control. If the desired output is not achieved, the process and/or the inputs must be adjusted to achieve the desired result.

Most of the time we, we have an idea about the product, outcome, or end result of an endeavor. Knowing what the outcome is, we select the process we want to use, which, in turn, determines the resources we need to utilize.

For example, assume that we want to raise the productivity of a particular business unit. The output of our activity has just been specified. In order to raise the productivity, we have several options. We could purchase new technology, redesign the workflow, mandate a change in work effort, or provide additional training (an instructional intervention). Assuming that the problem was related to the worker’s training, we could chose an instructional intervention, which would then influence the type of resources (inputs) we needed.

An additional factor is that designers need to consider the environment in which the process is conducted. External variables often times have a significant impact on the inputs, processes, and outputs. Examples of this would be weather, politics, company reorganization, or a downturn in the economy. Systems that do not account for these variables (assumption that all related variables are identified and can be controlled) are called closed systems. Open systems, on the other hand, recognize that external variables have an impact on the process. Most often these variables are outside the control of the planner.

Of course, it makes sense that the output from one process could be the input to another process. The model would represent a series of processes connected together. The traditional instructional design model (ADDIE) represents a series of five general processes; analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation resembles Figure 2. This model represents a linear model.

Figure 2 Linear Instructional Design Model

The reality, though, is that a star with interacting and dynamic elements is better representation of the ADDIE model (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Star Representation of ADDDIE

Cafarella suggests that the following benefits can be achieved when one utilizes a program-planning model:

Resources can be utilized more effectively,

Daily work is easier,

Teamwork is fostered,

Basis for control is provided, and

Better programs are developed.

In light of these benefits, it makes sense to utilize a program-planning model. To go into the process without a solid understanding of program-planning models invites an inefficient, complex, and lengthy process that will provide inferior results. Chapter 2 in Cafarella presents her model for program planning and is the one we will use in this course.

From my experience the single most cited reason for not using a program-planning model is time. Planning takes time, time that is often seen as unproductive. Yet, we manage to justify taking more time during the actual development of a project than in the formal planning. We end up using more time and resources because of our lack of planning.