Training in business settings and instruction in academic settings have never taken place in a vacuum, but in earlier times many instructional technology professionals behaved as though they did. Models of instructional systems design (ISD) placed training and instruction at the center of the universe ignoring the impact of the external environment. Some who worked in business consulting, such as Thomas Gilbert and Joe Harless (Ripley, 1997), began to see the larger picture more clearly in the 1970s as they saw training-only solutions fail to have a lasting effect on vexing business problems. The view began to emerge that training or instruction alone was seldom sufficient to enable people to become effective achievers in society or in the workplace. In 1989, Robinson and Robinson captured the essence of this perspective for corporate trainers in their book titled Training for Impact: How to Link Training to Business Needs and Measure Results. Over time, a new perspective emerged that the goal should be improvement of human performance, which could best be accomplished by combining instructional interventions with non-instructional interventions, such as enhanced motivation, better equipment, more supportive organizational structures and so on. The authors challenged their own thinking about the ISD process during the course of five summers spent offering in-depth workshops for groups of training managers from the LG Group of Korea. Each of the cohort groups in this program had the charge of returning to Korea with recommendations for improving the training doctrine of the LG Group. The program provided the authors with the opportunity to have a dialog and to get some feedback about various concepts and models as they evolved and were applied back in Korea. As the dialog progressed, they developed a particular vision of a practical way of integrating instructional and non-instructional activities into one seamless process. The purpose of this article is to describe the current version of this work, known as the Strategic Impact Model, named to emphasize the philosophy of carrying out Performance improvement (PI) in a way that focuses on activities that contribute significantly to an organization's strategic goals. (Contains 1 table and 1 figure.)