Alignment Isn’t all That…

There’s a kind of irony in how we sometimes talk about alignment in L&D.

We say things like,

“The course should align with the learning strategy,”

“It needs to comply with the standard methodology.”

And it sounds reasonable.

But something I learned some time ago:

Sometimes a narrow focus on alignment can become a vehicle for unquestioned assumptions and a drag on progress.

Different Strokes

I worked on a project some time back where I led the design of a field training course aimed at solving an urgent, practical operational need. But early on, there was, ah, directional bias to ensure we followed the company standard development model. That being a waterfall-based process (ADDIE) with clear phases, gates, and documentation requirements.

To be clear, I respect ADDIE. It exists for good reasons. It brings structure, consistency, and quality control; especially valuable for enterprise programs that require scalability.

But the philosophy that was reinforced for me during that project was that even time-tested processes can carry assumptions that don’t always serve the problem at hand.

In this case, the standard waterfall approach was optimized for centrally managed, long-cycle projects with relatively stable content. It assumed ample time for deep up-front analysis, and a linear path from design to deployment.

What I was dealing with, though, with my Ops stakeholders was different:

• A relatively novel course and delivery modalities

• Dynamic field challenges

• A short timeline driven by operational needs

• A high value on immediate usefulness—even if imperfect

Going “Off Script”

So we took another path (see also MVLP accelerator).

• We started lean and delivered course iterations in sprints (iterations).

• Built a first version.

• Piloted it on-site.

• Observed what worked, and adjusted accordingly for the next iteration based on live feedback.

• Rinse and repeat.

It Worked

It wasn’t perfectly aligned with the corporate methodology.

But it was responsive.

And it worked.

That experience reinforced how I think about “alignment.”

Sometimes it’s a directional compass.

Other times it can be a proxy for control.

It can unintentionally preserve the status quo, shaping both the solution and the process before the actual problem is fully understood.

New Questions

So now, I ask new questions at the start of every project:

• What assumptions are we carrying forward without questioning?

• When does our process support us, and when might it be limiting us?

• Can we deliver incrementally without increasing risk?

Here’s my take

You can follow a solid process and still build the wrong thing.

Alignment doesn’t always equal effectiveness nor quality.

And usefulness delayed is still a missed opportunity.

——-

Have you ever had to go “off script” to meet a need?