DePaul University - Download as DOC

Document Sample
DePaul University - Download as DOC Powered By Docstoc
					                                               DePaul University

                                         School for New Learning

                                          Master of Arts Program




                                                 Executive Summary


                                           Submitted by Nina Adams


                                                    December, 1996

Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc   page   1
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................i

The Big Picture ........................................................................................1

Training Alternatives...............................................................................2

One Motorola Approach .........................................................................5

Why we tried Virtual Reality ...................................................................7

How the training program was developed ............................................9
        Data Gathering .............................................................................................9
        Design ........................................................................................................10
        Development and Testing ..........................................................................10
How the comparison was done ...........................................................11

Results ...................................................................................................13

Other organizations using Virtual Reality for learning ......................16

Presentations and articles ...................................................................17

Personal impact: A personal perspective from Nina Adams ............19

Articles ...................................................................................................22

Appendix
        A - Navigating in a Virtual World .......................................................................................1
        B - Equipment Operations in the Virtual Manufacturing Lab .............................................6
        C- Test Score Sheet ...........................................................................................................10
        D- Test Results ..................................................................................................................11
        E - Test Results Summary .................................................................................................14
        F - Post Test Interview ......................................................................................................15
        F - Activities Schedule ......................................................................................................20
                                                 Acknowledgments

Some people reading the thesis which follows will look at it as the culmination of a research

project conducted as part of the Masters program for DePaul‟s School for New Learning. But the

project was really a beginning, not an end. (This is explained further in the last section: “A

Personal Perspective”.)


And, as I put the final touches on the actual document which culminates my formal studies at

DePaul, I can‟t help think that this is a beginning also. I don‟t know why and I don‟t know how it

will be reflected but something new is on the horizon.


When I started my program at DePaul, I had 3 major goals:


         Become known in the Midwest as a “guru” of Virtual Reality.


         Figure out how to keep current in my field.


         Make a new friend.


I still haven‟t figured out how to “keep current” but my other goals have been met. And, of

course, I couldn‟t have done it alone.


I started listing all the people who have helped me in the past few years and the list was much too

long to include here. But, there are a few people (or groups) who I have to thank specifically.

(I‟m listing them in alphabetical order because it‟s much too difficult for me to figure out an

order of importance.)


    Aaron Agrawal                                   Who authorized the project at Motorola.
    AMC (Association of                             Where I found resources and good friends.
     Multimedia Communications)
    Art Paton, project sponsor                      Who believed in me and believed in Virtual Reality. And who is
                                                      a joy to work with.
Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc
                                                         page i
    Arthur Zwern, General Reality                   Who arranged for Head Mount Displays for the study.
    Ben Delaney, CyberEdge                          Who wrote one of the first articles about the project for
     Journal                                          CyberEdge Journal.
    Dan Heck                                        Who taught the participants during the test.
    Ed Callahan, Thesis Advisor                     Who was the first person who really understood how Virtual
                                                      Reality could be used in training and who helped me find a
                                                      sponsor.
    Ed Costello and Tom                             Who arranged for trackers for the study.
     Knoflick, Polhemus
    Gail Jackson                                    Who has been my friend when I needed her most.
    IICS (International Interactive                 Where I found people who loved multimedia and helped me
     Communications Society)                          understand the best ways to use it. And, where I found out that I
                                                      could be a leader.
    Jan and Doug Kepplinger                         Who took care of us the first year we were on our own.
    Steve and Gail Jackson
    and our other neighbors
    Jay Magid, my brother                           Who has always been there for me.
    Jaymie Esch                                     Who have put up with my moods since mid 1995, not gotten
    John Namest                                      paid very much, and still developed very complex Virtual
                                                      Reality programs to meet our client‟s needs.
    Jean Knoll, Academic                            Whose listened and listened and listened. And cut through red
     Advisor                                          tape.
    Judy Hale                                       Who gave me my first opportunity to think outside the box.
    Leslie Fox                                      Who told me about SNL in the first place and gave me the final
                                                      push at the end.
    Mary Aurand                                     Who took over the design responsibilities for MFG451 when Art
                                                      Paton moved to another job.
    Motorola TEC staff                              Who helped get contracts written, invoices paid, software
                                                      loaded, and people to use Virtual Reality.
    Olaf Westgaard                                  Who not only did most of the actual modeling and programming
                                                      but who cooked me dinner almost every night for 2 years so I
                                                      could hold down my job and go to classes. And who continues to
                                                      help create Virtual Reality programs for Adams Consulting
                                                      Group.
    Richard Lentz, Professional                     Who provided insights about reality that I could never get
     Advisor                                          anyplace else.
    Rob Lowe, formerly from                         Who believed in me and found creative ways to allow me use of
     Superscape                                       the software until I could pay for it.
    Sandra Helsel                                   Who was instrumental in putting me in front of the Virtual
                                                      Reality community and who probably suggested the project for
                                                      the VR World Industry Application award which we won.
    Sanjiv Patel & Thiti Thamsiri                   Who arranged for the rental computers for the study.
    Superscape tech support                         Who helped us learn how to create Virtual Reality programs and
                                                      who are geniuses.
    Tim Gifford                                     Who did some of the modeling.



Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc                              page   ii
                                               The Big Picture

The manufacturing line of the „90‟s is dramatically different from the manufacturing line

of the „70‟s. Today‟s manufacturing work-cell probably works because a computer, or

series of computers, sends a series of pre-programmed instructions to a control unit

within the work-cell. Human intervention may be needed only to replenish parts and to

diagnose problems. Although the operator from previous generations also had to diagnose

problems, they did not have to understand advanced robotics, nor computer technology.


Many of the workers in today‟s factories don‟t have the skills needed to operate state-of-

the-art equipment.


The question many organizations face is:


     How can we efficiently upgrade the skills of our workers so they are able to operate

     technologically advanced manufacturing equipment?


One answer being implemented by Motorola University comes from a research study

conducted by Nina Adams in conjunction with the staff of Motorola University.


Our hypothesis was


     A Virtual Reality simulation can be used to orient new employees to plant operations

     as effectively as the current method of new employee orientation.


This thesis explains how we proved our hypothesis. It includes:


         The pros and cons of a variety of training methods.




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc           page 1
         One training approach used by Motorola to orient employees to plant operations.


         How we decided to modify the current Motorola approach.


         How we compared the current approach to the modified approach.


         The results.


The results of this study have been shared with many people in the Training,

Manufacturing, and Virtual Reality fields. The final sections of this paper will address:


         Other organizations implementing Virtual Reality solutions.


         A short list of presentations and articles about Virtual Reality and this study.


         The impact this study has had on me.


Copies of some of the articles written about this project as well as Virtual Reality training

in general are attached to this thesis for people who would like to see the larger context.


The appendix contains copies of job aids used during the training session as well as

summaries of the data gathered.



                                          Training Alternatives

Organizations use a variety of training approaches to upgrade employee skills.


         On-the job.


         Plant shut-down.


         Classroom.



Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc              page 2
         Hands-on training facility.


         Self-Study.


Each of these approaches has it‟s pro‟s and con‟s.


On-the-job

     There are a number of variations of on-the-job training but almost all involve an

     employee teaching the trainee how to operate the equipment. The employee doing the

     training may be a supervisor, team leader, outstanding performer, or just the person

     most readily available.


     On-the-job training allows each training situation to be customized for the learner.

     Any questions the learner has are addressed quickly. However, the training is

     inconsistent, may not cover all required steps, and is costly since the trainer is less

     productive while he or she is showing the learner how to do the job. The learner may,

     or may not, get hands-on experience during the training period.


     This approach may work well if there are one or two learners but is ineffective for

     large numbers.


Plant shut-down

     Some organizations prefer giving learner‟s a hand‟s on experience as part of new

     equipment training. Since it is too costly in most situations to have a separate

     manufacturing line, these organizations may shut down the line for a specific time to

     conduct training. This approach allows each learner to operate the actual equipment




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc             page 3
     without the possibility of ruining a production run or breaking the equipment.

     However, it is very costly to shut down a line.


     This approach works well if large numbers of employees are being trained at the same

     time and there is no other alternative.


Classroom

     For years, classroom training was the most cost-effective way to teach. The instructor

     follows a course outline to ensure all content which should be included is covered.

     The course may include individual or group activities; videos may be shown; and tests

     given.


     This approach is cost effective if large groups of people are being trained. However,

     even the same instructor cannot present training the exact same way every time. The

     course may be easily customized for a group and may allow for individual

     remediation. Most often, the course is geared to the average attendee -- the one who

     learns more quickly or more slowly than the average suffers.


     For an organization which is geographically spread out, it is expensive to have

     learners travel to a central training facility. In addition, it is usually too costly to

     incorporate hands-on manufacturing activities into the classroom course.


Hands-On Training Facility

     Some organizations have been able to justify having a separate facility available to

     train employees. These facilities have a series of work-cells available for a variety of

     activities from set-up to maintenance. This approach provides the learner with a safe



Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc              page 4
     environment to practice before having to operate the real equipment and avoids the

     necessity of shutting down the actual line. However, a separate facility is very

     expensive. Not only does the company have to set up the equipment and facility but it

     has to allocate resources to maintain the facility and equipment.


Self Study

     This approach works well if large numbers of employees are being trained. However,

     availability of equipment and safety issues prevent using real equipment for self-

     study.


     Computer-based self study materials may be expensive but the gains reached due to

     reduced delivery costs often outweigh the cost.


The problem of training employees has always been a challenge. But when a large

organization has plants all over the world, each with different equipment, the challenge is

even greater. Most organizations tackle the problem by implementing a curriculum which

incorporates a combination of approaches. This “combination approach” is the way

Motorola tackles the problem.



                                       One Motorola Approach

Motorola has manufacturing plants all around the world. Each year, the equipment in

some of the plants is updated or a new factory is built. Motorola could hire new

employees with the skills necessary to run the new equipment. But, Motorola is

committed to re-training employees rather than replacing them.




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc            page 5
Since many of the factories use robotics instead of manual labor, Motorola wants all of its

associates to understand how a robotics manufacturing line operates.


When this study began, orientation to robotics plant operations was frequently gained by

associates attending a three day class - MFG451: An Introduction to Advanced

Manufacturing Concepts. When the course was conducted in Schaumburg, IL, the class

consisted of lecture, classroom activities, and hands-on activities on a 5 station

manufacturing line set up for training at Motorola University


         cost approximately one million dollars to build.


         must be maintained.


         could not easily be transported to other facilities.


When the course was conducted in any Motorola University outside of Schaumburg, no

manufacturing line was present. Instead of hands-on activities, participant‟s watch a video

of equipment operations.


Numerous studies have shown that learning retention is greatest when participants are

involved with hands-on activities. The natural questions which followed were:


     Is there any way to provide an activity which simulates hands-on equipment operation

     without setting up equipment at all Motorola University sites?


     Would participants who learn in the simulated environment be able to perform as well

     as those who learn in a real environment?




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc            page 6
                                    Why we tried Virtual Reality

When this project began, Virtual Reality (VR) was a fairly new concept. It has, however,

moved into the main stream. There have been articles in Time, Newsweek, The Wall

Street Journal, and many other magazines and newspapers. There have been television

shows and movies incorporating the technology.


There is no agreement about the definition of Virtual Reality. However, most people

agree that Virtual Reality applications provide a 3-dimensional, computer-based,

environment within which a user can navigate at will and interact with objects within the

environment.


Many of the articles, television shows, and movies give people the perception that Virtual

Reality applications are very expensive, take a long time to develop, and require special

computer hardware to implement. In reality, Virtual Reality training applications can be

developed in a few months and can be run on desktop PC‟s with no additional hardware.

These were the major reasons we decided to conduct this study.


Although not included as part of the study, the project team discussed a number of factors

which may be impacted by Virtual Reality training programs. These are potential topics

for future research.


         Development cost. (The cost of developing the training program. This includes

          salaries of all people involved with development, equipment used in development,

          printing, binders, etc.)




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc           page 7
              Development costs for Virtual Reality programs will probably be greater than

               for classroom training but not more than costs for traditional Multimedia

               Training programs.


         Delivery cost. (The cost of actually presenting the training. This includes salaries

          for instructors, time students are away from their jobs, room use. It may also

          include travel, lodging, meals, phone, etc.)


              If the Virtual Reality program is incorporated into a classroom course, the

               length of the class may be either longer or shorter depending on the activities

               which are being replaced. If the program is incorporated into a classroom

               course, there will probably be no change in delivery cost.


              If the Virtual Reality program is being used as a stand-alone program, travel,

               trainers salaries, and facilities costs will probably be reduced.


         Amount of time learner is in training.


              If the Virtual Reality program is implemented as part of a classroom course,

               the amount of time the learner is in training will probably not be reduced.


              If the program is implemented as a stand-alone program, the time of training

               will probably decrease.


         Quality of job. (What is the error rate on the job.)




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc               page 8
              Although the study we conducted was not statistically significant, we believe

               an instructionally sound Virtual Reality training program will reduce the

               number of errors on the job.


The only factor which was addressed by this study was transference of learning. That is,

can a participant learn a subject in a Virtual Reality training program and apply the

learning in a real-world situation?



                        How the training program was developed

The training program was developed using typical Instructional Design project phases.


Data Gathering
To gather the information needed to develop the program


         Nina Adams attended the existing 3 day classroom course currently used to train

          associates about robotics manufacturing.


         Nina Adams and Art Paton, the Motorola University sponsor of the project,

          agreed on


              Which activities from the existing course would be converted to Virtual

               Reality. (We agreed to start-up, running, and shut-down.)


              The learning objectives which would be measured.


              The evaluation criteria.




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc             page 9
         Motorola University gave Nina Adams and Olaf Westgaard, the

          modeler/programmer, 24 hour access to the real manufacturing equipment being

          simulated.


         Nina Adams and Olaf Westgaard


              Reviewed all current course materials.


              Reviewed all equipment operations manuals which were available.


              Video taped the equipment in operation.


Design
Once we agreed that we would model all the start-up, running, and shut-down activities,

we had to figure out how every button, switch, and combination of switches operated.

We needed to know exactly what caused lights to go on, sounds to play, and equipment to

move. We had to figure out how we were going to make the robots in the model move the

same way the real equipment moves.


Once we figured all this out, we had to develop a way to communicate this information to

the people who would approve the program as well as those building the program. Since

the documentation methodology was a by-product of the study and was not critical to the

outcome, the methodology will not be addressed here. Readers who would like more

information about documentation strategies may contact Nina Adams.


Development and Testing
Once the design was approved, we started developing the program. This included:


         Recording and editing all the sounds.


Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc         page 10
         Creating 3-dimensional representations of all the equipment on the manufacturing

          line.


         Making the equipment models operate to specification.


Nina Adams and Art Paton tested the program throughout the development process to

ensure it worked to specification.


The program was developed using Superscape Virtual Reality software.


Development started on a 486/33 computer and was completed on a Pentium/90.


As the simulation was being developed, a hard-copy Standard Operating Procedure check

list was also created. The check list was very similar to the one used in a real factory. It

includes all the steps an operator has to take to safely operate the equipment. (See

Appendix B.)



                                 How the comparison was done

Since we wanted to conduct a controlled test with the actual target population, Motorola

selected 21 people from their manufacturing facilities in Northern Illinois to participate in

the study. The 21 people were divided into three groups. Each group started with a

classroom orientation which is part of the regular training program. Each classroom

orientation was presented by Dan Heck, the same instructor who usually teaches

MFG451.




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc              page 11
After the classroom portion of the program, the control group went directly to the

manufacturing laboratory where they used the existing approach (and real robotics work-

cells) to learn how to start-up, run, and shut-down the manufacturing line.


The second group went to a room with standard 486/66 multimedia computers which

were running the Virtual Reality simulation.


The third group used the same Virtual Reality simulation and computers as the second

group but had two additional pieces of hardware attached to the computers -- A Head

Mount Display and a Tracker.


The Head Mount Display puts the picture displayed on the computer monitor close to

your eyes and prevents you from being distracted by things outside of the virtual

environment. The tracker allows you to look at different views of a scene just by turning

your head. The combination of Head Mount and tracker provides an illusion of being

within the simulation.


In our simulation, if a user is in front of station 3 and turns his or her head to the right,

stations 1 and 2 would come into view. If a user turned his or her head to the left, stations

4 and 5 would come into view.


Each of the people using the Virtual Reality program spent some time learning how to

navigate in the environment. Other than that, the approach to the learning activity was the

same: The instructor explained how the equipment operated and asked participants to use

their check list to start-up, run, and shut-down the line.




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc              page 12
After about an hour of practice, each individual was taken, one at a time, into the real

manufacturing lab. Without the benefit of their check list, they were asked to start-up,

run, and shut-down the line.


Art Paton, who is a certified instructor for this course, observed each participant and

wrote down any error made. (Refer to Appendix C for the form used to note errors.)


When each person completed the evaluation activity, they were interviewed by a person

from Motorola‟s evaluation department. (See Appendix F for the forms used and a

summary of the results.)



                                                     Results

When we looked at the results we were surprised to find


         2 people in the group using immersive systems made no errors.


         1 person in the group using the desktop system made no errors.


         no-one in the group that practiced with the real equipment got a perfect score.


We were also surprised by the average scores which are summarized in figure 1.




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc          page 13
                                           figure 1
                                Average Test Scores by Activity

    90%

    80%

    70%

    60%
                                                                                            LAB
    50%

    40%                                                                                     DESKTOP


    30%                                                                                     IMMERSIVE

    20%

    10%

     0%
                  Setup               Start-up              Running              Shutdown




As you see, participant scores were separated by four phases of the activity -- Set-up,

start-up, running, shut-down. As you look at figure 1 it may be helpful for you to keep in

mind an explanation of the scores made by Art Paton at a March, 1995 presentation at the

National Society for Performance and Instruction Annual Conference.


          What you need to understand about these four phases of activity is that the

          most complex activities are the startup and set up operations where you

          have to power up each individual piece of equipment in a prescribed

          sequence. The laser alone has about a 40 step sequence.... They're very

          finicky.


          The startup session involved downloading the programs, getting the

          pallets on line, checking to make sure all the material was in place, and so

          on, and so these are the most complex tasks.



Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc                      page 14
          Running is really a set of tasks where you monitor each work-cell, check

          to make sure material is still plentiful, and just keep an eye on the

          messages that are coming up. So, you'll see some lower bars in the

          running segment, but since there are so many fewer tasks, one error drops

          the percentage pretty low.


          Shut down phase involves reversing a lot of the power-up sequences and

          it's more complex but not quite as complex as start up because a lot of

          things that you did when you started up you can simply cancel with one

          button when you power down.


          Something that really got our attention was in the most complex phase.

          The people who were doing virtual reality did either as well as or better

          than the folks who learned in the lab environment . We thought they

          would be handicapped by navigation and working with this unwieldy head

          mount and stuff. We expected they might score lower than the lab

          participants but it might be good enough. When we found their scores

          actually better, we were really surprised.


          If you show this chart as errors (figure 2) and look at the most complex

          phases, there was an average of 14 errors made by the people who

          learned in the lab. But for the virtual reality groups, there was an average

          of one error made over the entire operating sequence of that phase. That's

          a significant error reduction in a critical manufacturing process -- from

          14 errors to 1.



Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc       page 15
                                                         figure 2

                                    Number Observed Errors
           14

           12

           10
                                                                                     Lab
             8
                                                                                     Desktop
             6
                                                                                     Immersive
             4

             2

             0
                      Setup         Start up        Running           Shut down




A summary of all participant data is attached in Appendix D.



               Other organizations using Virtual Reality for learning

Since completing this project, Motorola has contracted with Nina Adams and Adams

Consulting Group to complete the 4 additional training programs for MFG451 - An

Introduction to Advanced Robotics. In addition, Adams Consulting is implementing

Virtual Reality training programs with Duracell, Landis & Staefa, BioBras Software, and

Searle.


Amoco is implementing a Virtual Reality program to evaluate how well truck drivers

follow Amoco‟s internal guidelines.




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc               page 16
Nortel is heavily invested in Virtual Reality. In 1995, Nortel formed a new business unit

of 22 people to develop and implement Virtual Reality training programs for their clients.

As of November, 1996 they have developed at least 2 training programs, both of which

paid for themselves within the year.


George Washington University is using Virtual Reality in their MBA program to help

students learn how to evaluate complex information.


The Natrona school district in Wyoming has been teaching Virtual Reality to their high

school students since 1994.


NASA used Virtual Reality to help the Hubble astronauts practice repairs before they

went into space.


The predictions for Virtual Reality in the training field are very positive. In May, 1996,

The American Society of Training and Development conducted a survey about the future

of technology in training. The survey related to technology in general but it is interesting

to note that 20% of the respondents specifically mentioned Virtual Reality as a

technology which will have a major impact on training in the future.



                                     Presentations and articles

Nina Adams loves to talk about how Virtual Reality may be used to improve human

performance. Here is a list of some of the presentations made:


         "Can Virtual Reality REALLY be used for training?” at Midwest Training

          Conference, 1995, NSPI, 1995.




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc             page 17
         "Virtual Reality? I Can't Even Develop CBT??!?!!" (pre-conference workshop) at

          Ziff Institute's Interactive '94 in May, 1994.


         "VR and Team Development" at the Sig-Advanced Virtual Reality conference in

          March, 1993.


         "An Intro to VR" at the IICS/ITVA Multimedia Workshop, May, 1993, College

          Of DuPage Multimedia Workshop, August, 1993, Joliet Junior College, February,

          1994, NICOL, May, 1994, DPMA, August, 1994.


         "VR - A Training Tool for the '90's" at SALT, August, 1993 and NSPI, March,

          1994.


         "VR - A New Way To Improve Performance" at NSPI (Technarium), March, 1994

          and March, 1995


         “Designing 3-Dimensional Simulations” post-conference workshop for IQPC,

          September, 1996, and CISPI, November, 1996.



Nina Adams has published articles about Computer Based Training (CBT), media

selection, and Virtual Reality and is often quoted in articles about Virtual Reality and

training. The articles include:


         An annotated bibliography of books mentioning Virtual Reality for VR Report,

          July/August, 1992.


         An article on values was included in Tom Hayward‟s book Adventures in Virtual

          Reality



Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc         page 18
         “VR - A Training Tool for the „90‟s” was published in the Journal of Instruction

          Delivery Systems, Fall, 1993.


         “Lessons from the Virtual World” was published in the June, 1995 issue of

          Training Magazine.



         Personal impact: A personal perspective from Nina Adams

Although this study was initiated as part of my Master Work with DePaul, the project

changed my life. When the project started I had just become an independent consultant.

As of November, 1996, Adams Consulting Group has four full-time employees and one

part-time employee. What the project team learned about the effectiveness of Virtual

Reality as well as what I learned personally has been the basis for building my business.


During the project I learned about


         Negotiating. When the original design had to be changed due to technical

          limitations, I had to negotiate with the project sponsors to make sure the program

          was still acceptable.


         Teamwork. Although I was heavily involved with many aspects of the project, I

          had to work with many other people to get the work done. Each person brought

          different talents, idiosyncrasies, and cultures with them.


         Evaluation. Prior to working on this project I knew about Kirpatrick‟s 4 levels of

          evaluation but I had never conducted any evaluation other than level 1. During




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc             page 19
          this project I worked with Art Paton and Motorola‟s Evaluation department to

          ensure the evaluation methods were sound.


         Object-Oriented Design. I have been involved with Computer Systems on-and-off

          since 1966. However, none of the computer work done before this project used

          Object-Oriented methodologies. The project team had to learn about Object-

          Oriented design and had to develop a method for documenting the design so both

          users and programmers would be able to use the document.


Since the project was completed I feel like I‟ve learned enough for two more degrees. In

my past jobs I learned how to manage people and projects but there are many things that I

never considered when I worked for someone else. I‟ve had to learn about


         Accounting. This includes tracking all income and expenses as well as providing

          all the reports which need to be filed monthly, quarterly, and annually.


         Setting up a business. This includes making sure no one else was already using

          the company name I wanted; Getting a FEIN; Designing business cards and

          brochures; Buying office furniture and equipment; Setting up a telephone system;

          Getting an e-mail provider.


         Marketing. This includes deciding which conferences may have the most

          potential clients; Writing proposals; Writing articles; Staying active in three

          professional associations.


         Budgeting. This includes making sure the proposals which are submitted can

          actually be accomplished for the amount of money bid.



Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc           page 20
I‟ve made plenty of mistakes since October, 1992 but I‟ve learned a lot too. And, I

continue to learn something new almost every day. I know I‟m doing more things “right”

than “wrong” -- I‟m still in business and that‟s more than a lot of companies can say.




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc       page 21
                                                           Articles

This section includes copies of some of the articles written about this project as well as Virtual

Reality training in general. NOTE: Copies of articles are only being submitted to members of

the Masters Review Committee. If you would like copies, contact either Nina Adams or the

publisher.


Articles are listed in the order in which they are included:


“Training the virtual way”, Superscape promotional brochure.


“Lessons from the Virtual World”, Nina Adams, Training, June, 1995.


“Breaking Through into VR”, Louis Brill, Multimedia Producer”, August, 1996


“Immersive VR Tests Best”, Ben Delaney, CyberEdge Journal”, November/December, 1995.


“VR Improves Motorola Training Program”, Laura Lang, IEEE Robotics & Automation

Magazine, September, 1995


“Virtual Reality”, Windy City Scene, September, 1993


“Virtual Training”, Jennifer Atkin, Screen, July 18, 1994


“Virtual Reality - A Tool for Learning”, Art Paton, Motorola white paper, December, 1994


“Virtual Reality Bibliography”, Nina Adams, Virtual Reality Report, July/August 1992


“Virtual Reality - A Training Tool for the 90s”, Nina Adams, Journal of Instruction Delivery

Systems. Fall, 1993




Nina Adams, printed 3/21/2010, file name: 4a013bb3-0b96-491d-9459-7c464aa49a9c.doc
                                                          page 22

				
DOCUMENT INFO