Introduction

The Front End Analysis (FEA) is a crucial step in the instructional design (ID) process.

FEA is primarily done to know whether ID solves the problem.

Usually, a client or stakeholder initiates the request for instruction. However, in some cases, the request for instruction is uninformed, meaning that the requesting party doesn’t fully understand the root cause of the problem, hasn’t explored other solutions to the problem, or both.

Because of this possibility, the instructional designer (IDer) has to investigate the actual cause of the problem and whether ID is truly part of the solution to the problem.

The main questions that FEA answers are
1. What exactly is the problem?
2. What is/are the root cause(s) of the problem?
3. What is/are the solution(s) to the problem?
4. What is the cost-benefit of ID in comparison with the other solutions?

To answer these questions, various analyses are needed to be performed. These analyses are part of the bigger FEA.
If the IDer confirms that ID will be an effective and optimal solution after performing the FEA, the ID process may continue to the next phase. If however the IDer conforms that other solutions will be better, then the IDer has to inform the requesting party about this and recommend other more effective solutions to the problem.

In the succeeding sections, I will discuss the other analyses that can be performed during FEA.

Background Analysis

The first type of analysis that can be performed is a background analysis.

Here, the IDer tries to understand the 5Ws related to the problem namely the Who, What, Where, When, and Why.
Each of these questions leads to more detailed questions allowing the IDer to understand the problem better. Below are examples of detailed questions that stem from the 5Ws:
Who: Who is the requesting party? Who is/are the stakeholder(s)?

What: What is the reason for the ID request? What is the problem that is being solved? What is the perceived timeline for solving the problem? What is the organizational structure of the requesting party? What is the initially expected solution(s)? What is the initially set budget (time, money, manpower, other resources) for resolving the problem? What are the identified constraints?

Where: Where is/are the target venue(s) for delivering the solution(s)? Where can necessary information be retrieved?

When: When did the problem begin? When is the expected completion date?

Why: Why is ID considered to be a solution to the problem? Why did this become a problem?
These questions can be asked from the requesting party, relevant stakeholders, previous team members of past similar projects, and other key personnel who are knowledgeable about the answers to these questions.
After obtaining the data, the IDer moves on to the next analysis which is the root cause analysis.

Root Cause Analysis

The root cause analysis is a methodology used in various disciplines to find out the originating cause of an event or a situation. Several ways are available to perform root cause analysis, but a simple ‘5 Whys’ methodology is usually enough. This method involves asking the question ‘why?’ about five times to find out the actual cause of the problem.

Below is an example of the application of this methodology during the FEA.

Situation: A customer service department in a large retail company is experiencing a significant decline in customer satisfaction ratings over the past six months.

Applying the ‘Five Whys’ Methodology, we can ask knowledgeable personnel the following questions:

1. Why has customer satisfaction declined?
Answer: Customers are reporting long wait times when calling the customer service hotline.

2. Why are customers experiencing long wait times?
Answer: There aren’t enough customer service representatives available to handle the volume of calls during peak hours.

3. Why aren’t there enough representatives available during peak hours?
Answer: The scheduling of staff doesn’t align with peak call times, and many representatives are taking breaks or handling administrative tasks when call volume is highest.

4. Why isn’t the scheduling aligned with peak call times?
Answer: The customer service managers are not using real-time data or call volume forecasts to schedule shifts effectively. Instead, they are relying on a static schedule that doesn’t account for fluctuations in call volume.

5. Why are the managers relying on a static schedule instead of using real-time data?
Answer: The managers have not been trained on how to use the call center software that provides real-time data and forecasting tools. They are unaware of how to access or interpret this data effectively.

Based on this hypothetical interview, we have found out using the ‘Five Whys’ method that although management implemented an initiative to increase efficiency and customer satisfaction, the target result was not attained because the personnel who were supposed to implement the solution were not properly sufficiently trained in properly utilizing the scheduling software.

You can use less or more than five ‘whys’ when using this methodology, but the point is to continually ask what the reason is for the existing situation until you reach what seems to be the originating cause of the problem.

After finding out the root cause of the problem, you can then proceed to the next analysis which is the gap analysis.

Gap Analysis

The gap analysis is a process used to find out what the solution to a problem is. This analysis involves identifying three pieces of information about the problem:

1. What is the current situation?

2. What is the target situation?

3. What is the optimal means to get from the current situation to the target situation?

If there are multiple problems, a gap analysis will be done for each of the problems.

Below is an example of gap analysis performed on four hypothetically identified problems:

1. Aspect: Understanding Real-Time Data and Forecasting
Current Situation:
Customer service managers struggle to understand and interpret real-time data and call volume forecasts provided by the call center software, leading to suboptimal scheduling decisions.

Target Situation:
Managers are proficient in interpreting real-time data and forecasting tools, allowing them to make data-driven scheduling decisions that align staff availability with peak call times.

Optimal Means to Bridge the Gap:
Develop and implement an instructional program that includes interactive training modules on data analysis and forecasting. This program should include real-world scenarios, hands-on exercises, and assessments to ensure mastery of these skills.

2. Aspect: Effective Use of Software Features
Current Situation:
Managers are not fully utilizing the call center software’s features, such as automated scheduling tools and performance tracking, because they lack sufficient training on these functionalities.

Target Situation:
Managers are capable of using all relevant features of the software, including automated tools and performance tracking, to enhance their efficiency and decision-making.

Optimal Means to Bridge the Gap:
Create a blended learning solution that combines self-paced online tutorials with live virtual workshops. These should focus on the specific features of the software that are underutilized, providing opportunities for practice and immediate feedback.

3. Aspect: Aligning Staff Breaks with Peak Call Times
Current Situation:
Staff breaks are scheduled without considering peak call times, leading to insufficient coverage during busy periods and contributing to long wait times for customers.

Target Situation:
Staff breaks are strategically scheduled to ensure adequate coverage during peak call times, minimizing customer wait times.

Optimal Means to Bridge the Gap:
Implement a revised break schedule that aligns with peak call times, using the call center software’s forecasting tools.

4. Aspect: Manager Access to Real-Time Data
Current Situation:
Some managers do not have immediate access to real-time data due to technical limitations, such as outdated computer systems or lack of access permissions.

Target Situation:
All managers have seamless access to real-time data, enabling them to make timely and informed decisions.

Optimal Means to Bridge the Gap:
Upgrade the computer systems and adjust access permissions to ensure all managers can access real-time data without delays. 

In our example, there were four aspects identified during the gap analysis, all of which were found during the root cause analysis. Notice that the solution for the first two aspects is related to ID, while the solution for the last two aspects is related to process and infrastructure changes, respectively.

At this point, we already know the originating problems and the optimal solutions. In the hypothetical case, we can also see that ID seems to be a viable solution that will address some of the problems identified.

After performing the gap analysis, we can now perform the last analysis which is the analysis of solution options and their impac.

Solution options and impact

In a simple sense, a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) examines the benefits that may be derived from a solution while also considering the costs or drawbacks that may be incurred when the solution is pursued. Performing the CBA enables us to quantify the positive and negative impacts of various solutions, which enables us to better decide which among the options is the most optimal.

If there are no options to choose from, the CBA allows us to see the impacts of a potential course ofaction, wherein the data from the CBA may inform us whether to continue to pursue or abandon the solution.

Applying CBA to our hypothetical scenario is shown below.

1. Solution: Develop and implement an instructional program on data analysis and forecasting.

Costs:
Development Costs: Creating the training program, including the design of interactive modules and real-world scenarios, may require significant investment in terms of time and resources.
Training Costs: Managers will need to take time away from their regular duties to complete the training, which could temporarily impact productivity.
Software Costs: Additional software or tools may be required to simulate real-world scenarios, adding to the expenses.

Benefits:
Improved Decision-Making: Managers will be able to make data-driven decisions, leading to better alignment of staff schedules with peak call times, reducing customer wait times, and improving overall satisfaction.
Long-Term Efficiency: Enhanced skills in data interpretation will lead to more efficient operations and better use of resources over time.
Scalability: Once developed, the training program can be reused for future hires or ongoing professional development, spreading the costs over time.

Remarks: The benefits, particularly the long-term improvements in efficiency and customer satisfaction, outweigh the initial costs. The investment in training is justified and should be pursued.

2. Solution: Implement a blended learning solution to train managers on underutilized software features.

Costs:
Development Costs: Designing and producing the blended learning materials, including online tutorials and live workshops, may require initial investment.
Training Costs: Time required for managers to participate in the training may temporarily reduce productivity.
Ongoing Support Costs: Continuous support, such as help desks or refresher courses, may be needed to maintain proficiency.

Benefits:
Increased Efficiency: Managers will utilize the full capabilities of the software, leading to faster and more accurate decision-making.
Reduction in Errors: Improved understanding of software features will likely result in fewer errors and less need for manual intervention.
Enhanced Productivity: By fully leveraging automated tools, managers can focus on more strategic tasks, enhancing overall productivity.

Remarks: The long-term productivity gains and reduction in errors justify the costs. Implementing this solution will yield significant benefits and should be pursued.

3. Solution: Implement a revised break schedule using forecasting tools.

Costs:
Implementation Costs: Revising the break schedule may require some initial planning and adjustments to the current workflow.
Potential Resistance: Staff may resist changes to their break schedules, leading to temporary dissatisfaction or pushback.

Benefits:
Improved Coverage: Aligning breaks with peak times will ensure better customer service during busy periods, reducing wait times and increasing customer satisfaction.
Cost Savings: More efficient use of staff time may lead to reduced overtime costs or the need for additional staffing.
Low Ongoing Costs: Once implemented, the new schedule requires minimal ongoing adjustments and incurs no significant additional costs.

Remarks: The benefits, particularly the improved coverage during peak times and potential cost savings, outweigh the relatively low implementation costs. This solution is practical and should be pursued.

4. Solution: Upgrade computer systems and adjust access permissions to ensure seamless access to real-time data.

Costs:
Hardware and Software Costs: Upgrading computer systems and adjusting access permissions may require significant initial investment in technology.
Maintenance Costs: Ongoing maintenance and potential future upgrades could incur additional costs.
Disruption: The upgrade process might temporarily disrupt operations, as systems may need to be taken offline for updates.

Benefits:
Timely Decision-Making: Managers with immediate access to real-time data can make quicker, more informed decisions, leading to better operational outcomes.
Increased Productivity: Reducing the time spent waiting for data access allows managers to focus on other critical tasks.
Scalability: Once upgraded, the system will support future growth and changes in the organization’s needs without requiring further significant investment.

Remarks: While the initial costs are high, the long-term benefits of increased productivity and better decision-making justify the investment. The solution should be pursued, provided that the budget allows for the necessary upgrades.

Overall Remarks about the CBA:
For all four problems, the cost-benefit analysis suggests that the proposed solutions are worth pursuing. The ID-related solutions have significant long-term benefits that outweigh the costs, and the non-instructional solutions offer practical improvements with relatively low ongoing costs. Implementing these solutions would likely lead to a substantial improvement in operational efficiency, customer satisfaction, and overall performance.

Note that in this example, we have not quantified the costs and benefits to make them more measurable, like monetary value, time, efficiency, etc. This CBA we have performed is just qualitative for simplicity in the writing of this blog post.

Concluding remarks about FEA

As we can see, the FEA involves several analyses that serve as a primer before the main ID process is performed. The FEA ensures us that ID is a viable solution or is at least on of the solutions to the identified problems. The FEA also forces us to do a deep dive into the problem, understanding its background, root cause(s), potential solution(s), and what the impact(s) is/are.

The FEA is an important first step in any ID process, ensuring that we perform ID only when we have fully understood that it is an optimal solution to the organization’s problem. Performing the FEA saves valuable resources both for the organization and the IDers who will lessen the risk of performing ID for results that are not as impactful as other solutions.

References:

Pastore, R. (2020). The Instructional Design and Development Process: A ‘How To’ Guide for Practitioners. Kindle Direct Publishing.
https://knowledgejump.com/