2001-2002: From Task Analysis to Critical Incident

The IFF Board planned its mid-year meeting to co-encide with the America Conference (FGNA) in October. This would have allowed several non-American Board members to attend the FGNA Conference.

Further, we had arranged to present our Academy and Competency ideas at the FGNA Conference in October. Unfortunately, the events of Sept 11/01 changed these plans, for our European and Australian were not able to travel. Consequently, the Competency working group was not able to meet face-to-face and begin planning. (However, a meeting was later arranged in Munich, as a kind of update and final tying-up meeting).

The Competency Profile group had numerous on-line discussions and some telephone meetings. At this time, a San Francisco-based management consulting company (Catalyst) offered their on-line services to the Board for free. As we began to become comfortable with the service, we began to develop concepts in a collaborative way on-line. The outcomes of these on-line collaborations were a series of short topics that have now been drawn together into this larger paper, which was presented at the 2002 Assembly. We are, of course, aware that this paper is in "draft" format, somewhat unfinished, but nevertheless useful for identifying some important directions.

We also were acutely aware of the need for an external "specialist". (The TAB's process had demonstrated the immense value in this). Thus, a significant task was the search for a consultant who was interested in the uniqueness of our Method. We also wanted someone who was aware of the different approaches to thinking about Competency between the continents. Of course, we also hoped to find someone nearby one of us. We were fortunate to gain the services of Dr. Walter Goetz of Zurich.

Methodology Revision. Through discussions with Dr Goetz, it became clear that we were not ready for implementing our intended methodology, a Task Analysis. The Task Analysis requires fairly sophisticated understanding of the processes to be viewed (and reviewed). This certainly affirms a concern voiced at the IFF Assembly, 2001.

New Methodology: First Approximation (note: the following represents the first approximation. As we examinted this methodology, we found that it was not practical; nevertheless it led to important refinements the following year) Our first task is to get as clear a picture of the practice of the Method as possible. One process that has been useful with other professions is called "Critical Incident" or "key Situation". The process would be as follows: Practitioners write a scene or event that might happen in one's practice of the Method. This is the "Key Situation". Given this key situation, practitioners identify what a beginning practitioner might do, and what an experienced ("competent") practitioner would do. Then, the two actions are compared with a kind of inquiry such as, "How is it that there is a difference?" or "What qualities are in this difference?"   Although we may not be able to clearly articulate how we practice the Method, we have a sense of congruence in our actions. Thus, we can generate situations a practitioner may find him/herself in, and we can begin to suggest actions of beginning and more advanced practitioners. From: PhaseII Project Proposal, May, 2002. Presented at the 2002 Assembly.