fpf.tools
Library / Engineering DPF Suite Reference
Jump to passage
In this reading
Source · lines 1065–1083

Link to current text

Published source confirmed at last check

Source changed 2026-10-03 11:52:20 UTC · snapshot created 2026-10-03 11:53:41 UTC · last check 2026-10-03 14:00:20 UTC

Recommend a programme before the learners are known

Start with PSD.1: the present recipient is the programme author, and the decision concerns a learning product for a future audience. Use HCD.28 when whole-product variants need construction or revision. It connects subject content, practice, material and support under the audience and resource conditions.

In this planning example, two modules aim to help future engineers and managers first analyse an unfamiliar work problem, then also deliver and verify a bounded engineering or organizational change. The design allows 34 weeks and 340 participant hours, including assessment, feedback and retries. Teaching capacity is a separate 240 hours for twelve participants; producing the materials requires its own resources.

Three compositions remain under consideration. A emphasizes general methods, B emphasizes domain practice, and C combines both. C has detailed topics and cases; A and B are still outlines. Use the developed C and ask a qualified learning-product designer, with the necessary domain specialists, for the smallest comparable fragments of A and B. The request should identify:

  • the shared outcomes and assumptions about entry performance;
  • which methods participants must be able to select and use independently, which details they may retrieve, what controlled AI help is allowed, and which results need a specialist;
  • representative practice, feedback, assessment, retention and transfer conditions; and
  • participant time, teaching support and other resources, including what any added work would replace.

Use PSD.9–PSD.13 for the comparison and advice questions that remain. C’s detail makes it a useful starting design; its advantage over A or B still needs a comparison on those common grounds.

If participant time falls to six hours a week, the limit becomes 204 hours. All three original 340-hour designs need revision before launch under that limit. Retain useful parts and request a revised programme that explains which 136 hours are removed or replaced and how the two outcomes remain attainable. Continue searching for a design that fits; the three over-budget designs do not settle whether any suitable 204-hour programme is possible.

The author can receive advice about further design now. Because future learners are not yet identified, HCD.2 returns a learning-product design request. HCD.28 guides that design work for the audience. Once a particular participant’s later Work, starting performance or profile, support conditions, feasible programme candidates, and finite resources are known, HCD.2 can compare those candidates for that person; an authorized chooser still makes the programme choice. PSD remains available for the author’s present A/B/C comparison and advice. Launch, actual learning, retention and transfer need their respective decisions and evidence.