HCD.2:0 - Use This When

Use this pattern when one named person has a recoverable later-Work demand and a practitioner, manager, or that person needs several feasible ways to develop the required contributions. Begin with the person’s current mastered and supported configuration, the complete later-Work tasks, and the conditions of participation; do not begin with a topic list or a preferred course.

The first useful result is a programme-comparison account: comparable descriptions of the actual programme candidates, their intended task closure, contribution and access allocations, burdens, uncertainties, evidence needs, applicability conditions, and the smallest change that would reopen the comparison. If only one candidate remains feasible, describe that candidate and the missing comparison rather than inventing a rival or calling it dominant. A separate authorized choice consumes the comparison.

The practical gain is a programme that can be inspected as a finite change from what the person can already do with available support. The practitioner can see whether a proposed component completes a usable contribution, preserves a prerequisite, adds a future option, or merely displaces practice that another required result still needs. When another start competes with unfinished learning, §4.2a compares continuing, pausing and starting together.

Do not use HCD.2 to design a universal course for an unknown audience, diagnose a person, choose on behalf of the decision owner, promise learning, or establish provider competence. When the current recipient is a learning-product author who does not yet know the learners, return the outputs, audience assumptions, existing alternatives, resource boundary, and individualization questions to HCD.28. It constructs and compares the whole learning product; its conditional variants and requirements can then supply this personal comparison. A named person’s compatible Work, entry performance, support, and participation conditions are the retry inputs for personal comparison.