Ch 1 Universal Systems Model (2024)

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

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

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

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

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !vml]><![endif]> Output represents the desired result, outcome,or goal

<![if !vml]><![endif]> Process represents the operations that occurto transform the inputs to the desired outputs.

<![if !vml]><![endif]> Inputs represent the basic materials orresources that will be transformed to the output.

<![if !vml]><![endif]> Feedback is the element of control. If thedesired output is not achieved, the process and/or the inputs must be adjustedto achieve the desired result.

<![if !vml]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

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 selectthe process we want to use, which, in turn, determines the resources we need toutilize.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

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

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

An additional factor is that designers need to consider theenvironment in which the process is conducted. External variables often timeshave a significant impact on the inputs, processes, and outputs. Examples ofthis would be weather, politics, company reorganization, or a downturn in theeconomy. Systems that do not account for these variables (assumption that allrelated variables are identified and can be controlled) are called closedsystems. Open systems, on the other hand, recognize that external variableshave an impact on the process. Most often these variables are outside thecontrol of the planner.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Of course, it makes sense that the output from one processcould be the input to another process. The model would represent a series ofprocesses 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 modelrepresents a linear model.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !vml]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !vml]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

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

<![if !vml]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !vml]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

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

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

<![if !vml]><![endif]> Resources can be utilized more effectively,

<![if !vml]><![endif]> Daily work is easier,

<![if !vml]><![endif]> Teamwork is fostered,

<![if !vml]><![endif]> Basis for control is provided, and

<![if !vml]><![endif]> Better programs are developed.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

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

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

From my experience the single most cited reason for notusing a program-planning model is time. Planning takes time, time that is oftenseen as unproductive. Yet, we manage to justify taking more time during the actualdevelopment of a project than in the formal planning. We end up using more timeand resources because of our lack of planning.