From the T&D Blog, here is a review of some basic principles of training from a performance technology perspective:
Dr. Seth Leibler, CEO of the CEP, says organizations should evaluate their training based on these criteria:
- Training is viewed as the right solution only if the cause of a problem is a lack of skill or knowledge. Training is not automatically developed as the solution for every performance problem.
- All training requests are analyzed to ensure the right solutions are developed and implemented. In addition to training, all the potential causes for underperformance are addressed: skill, motivational, and environmental resource and supports.
- Practice situations in training match the actual on-the-job conditions as closely as possible (It?ï¿½ï¿½Ç¨ï¿½Ñ¢s why off-the-shelf training generally is ineffective.)
- Learners receive immediate feedback after each practice to reinforce what is done correctly and coaching on what to do differently.
- Skill checks ensure that learners master all essential skills needed to perform to job expectations before leaving training.
- On-the-job reference tools (job aids) are developed to provide essential information to performers who only need a reminder of how to do a task.
I slightly disagree with #4, as some research shows that it’s better to provide feedback just before the next practice attempt, as opposed to after the previous one. This way the learner can put into practice the correct behaviour/skill immediately after the feedback is provided.
[Some day T&D Blog may make comments and trackbacks available, but at least there is a permalink]
I like to use system models when analysing an organisation, especially for strategic planning purposes. This system model is based on models by Geary Rummler and Roger Kaufman.
I developed this model as a means of communicating with educational institutions. It’s not comprehensive but it gets the conversation flowing. I’m always interested in finding graphical metaphors for the way we work and learn.
Jay Bahlis, President of BNH Expert Software in Montreal, has produced a free, online booklet, From Classroom to Boardroom, that will be a good job aid for performance improvement professionals. It covers step-by-step actions and six strategies for aligning training with business goals. Though not new in its concepts, this booklet is an additional resource that may be helpful, especially for internal initiatives. Some of Jay’s cited references may be of use as well:
- Ford and Weissbein estimated that less than 10% of training expenditures actually result in transfer
to the job. By focusing on the most important initiatives, you can reduce waste and maximize the
impact of training.
- Broad and Newstrom observed that most of the knowledge and skills gained in training (well over
80% by some estimates) is not fully applied by employees on the job. And more recently, Robinson
reported that on average, less than 30% of what people learn (in training) actually gets used on the
job. By focusing on solutions that resolve clearly identified performance deficiencies you can
minimize waste and maximize performance.
- Lance Dublin observed that over 90% of training is conducted through informal means such as web
searches, chats, reference materials and mentoring. Providing the right information to the right
individuals at the right time ?ï¿½ï¿½Ç¨?ï¿½learning at the speed of work?ï¿½ï¿½Ç¨ï¿½ï¿½ can significantly increase the competitive
advantage of the organization ?ï¿½ï¿½Ç¨ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ allowing individuals to do things they have not been able to before.
Many thanks to Jay for making this available to the community.
BPTrends‘ latest e-mail advisor (PDF) discusses the relationship of human performance improvement with other business process improvement methodologies.
Those involved in business process change within organizations need to draw on and integrate a wide variety of approaches and technologies, ranging from strategy change systems and process analysis tools, to ABC, BPMS, a wide variety of software automation systems, Six Sigma, and job design. ISPI represents a well-developed source of theory and practice designed to help improve human performance within organizations. It’s a rare process improvement project that doesn’t require changes in management and the jobs performed, or that wouldn’t benefit from better feedback or an improved incentive system. The ISPI is a resource that business process change practitioners ought to be familiar with.
Jay Cross talks about focusing performance improvement efforts on "worker effectiveness improvement, not KM" [knowledge management]. More and more people are disillusioned with large-scale KM, document management and ERP efforts, that force workers to comply with an imposed structure. I remember delaying the use of Goldmine in my last job, because I had my own system, and really did not want to realign my processes with an imposed one.
Perhaps the reason that blogs are popular, in spite of their limitations, is that they are easy to use, and there is no imposed structure. Many of us believe that our way is the best way, and need proof that doing otherwise would be beneficial. I find that blogging is becoming more and more about building my personal knowledge repository, while staying connected to wide-ranging conversation. As Jay states in his post:
KM should leverage natural processes, not try to change the basic ways things are accomplished.
An organisation’s entire KM effort could start with simple technologies. It could provide a blog to everyone, letting workers blog as they wanted. RSS aggregators could keep an eye on blogs of interest, and maybe even a blog rating system could included in the performance management system. Yes, the better writers would get better rankings, but so would those who solve problems. A bottom-up approach to KM, at a minimal cost, makes a lot more sense than betting that some centralized system, with a huge training bill, will solve all of our problems.
The best coverage so far on ASTD 2004 is from e-Clippings. These posts include an overview of Harold Stolovitch’s session, quoting Harold on the definition of "technology":
Technology is the application of organized and scientific knowledge to solve practical problems.
This is the correct definition of technology when applied to Human Performance Technology [my field] – which is NOT about information technology, but solving problems in an applied way.
Sometimes learning professionals (trainers, educators, instructional designers) get caught up in their own world. Here’s another reminder about what’s really important – performance. From e-clipping’s interview on collaborative technologies with Jay Cross:
I made up the word elearning because I wanted to highlight learning, but I don’t think learning is at the head of the train.
It is performance that is at the head of the train and only a fool would expect to get results from the technology alone.
It is the technology in support of key organizational goals that is key, and that involves incentives, leadership, innovation, esprit de corps….and this is all mixed in together.
As a matter of fact I’d be somewhat sceptical of any company that would highlight their intense [use] of collaboration technologies if they left out "What is important to us is to serve our customers and this is how we go about it".
Mark Lauer explains in May’s PerformanceXpress how human performance technology (HPT) is closely linked to Lean Manufacturing methodology. He shows the direct connections between Lean’s six elements, and the performance standards for HPT professionals.
We are all fellow travelers on the performance improvement road. We bring to the table a long dedication to human performance improvement and expertise that is not at conflict with theirs but is a perfect complement to it. We are all comrades in arms.
Whether it be Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma or HPT; there are enough similarities in methodologies that we can easily work together. Another comparison, between HPT and Six Sigma, was recently published by Darlene Van Tiem, of the University of Michigan.
Six Sigma can benefit from HPT?ï¿½ï¿½Ç¨ï¿½Ñ¢s broader approaches incorporating theory and practice from a wider variety of fields. HPT, on the other hand, can benefit from Six Sigma?ï¿½ï¿½Ç¨ï¿½Ñ¢s commitment to decisions based on evidence and its involvement with senior management.
It’s not how we help to improve organizational performance that’s important, it’s about making lasting changes that are important to our clients. A multidisciplinary approach makes more sense, and I will continue to learn from other methodologies.
In The Problem, the Balloon, and the Four Bedroom House, the author discusses the critical component of project management – clearly understanding the problem and the expected results with everyone involved.
75% of the work of every successful project is completed in the initial stage. In other words, every project has a balloon phase. And if it doesn?ï¿½ï¿½Ç¨ï¿½Ñ¢t happen at the beginning of the project, then you may get into some serious trouble.
The ?ï¿½ï¿½Ç¨?ï¿½understanding?ï¿½ï¿½Ç¨ï¿½ï¿½ phase needs to provide you with the framework for the project. It should be assembled with all major stakeholders. And its purpose is to define the problem so you can design the solution. The 4 bedroom house.
On 13 March, 1999, Habitat for Humanity in New Zealand made the Guinness Book of Records. They constructed a four-bedroom house from scratch. It took a mere 3 hours, 44 minutes and 59 seconds. (I?ï¿½ï¿½Ç¨ï¿½Ñ¢m sure there?ï¿½ï¿½Ç¨ï¿½Ñ¢s a reality TV show in there somewhere, but I don?ï¿½ï¿½Ç¨ï¿½Ñ¢t believe we need another one of those.) An incredible feat. The significant fact is that it took 14 months of planning to achieve.
The balloon was inflated at the correct end
I often refer to the "first rule of project management", which is – choose the right project. The balloon analogy is similar. If you don’t address all of the issues at the front end, then your project may balloon out of scope (and budget) in the middle, which is probably after you’ve negotiated the price. This is a great little article to remind us of many things that we probably already know about project management, but are worth reconfirming. The discussions are interesting, too.
Klaus Wittkuhn has written an excellent article on the systemic approach required in human performance analysis. This article appears in the March 2004 edition of "Performance Improvement" published by ISPI. The wealth of practical advice in PI is one more reason to become a member of ISPI (unabashed promotion here).
Wittkuhn discusses an aspect of performance analysis that has been bothering me for a while – how can you take a systemic approach when there are overlapping systems as well as multiple sub-systems in any organisation? Where do you start and where do you finish?
Wittkuhn discusses the idea of emerging properties (e.g. the whole is more than the sum of the parts) but also provides a template for intervention, that is practical but considerate of the fact that you cannot engineer human performance. Human performance is an emergent property of an organisation, and is affected by multiple variables.
Witthuhn’s approach for improving performance is to first address what he calls the "Steering Elements". These "ensure that the right product is delivered at the right time to the right place", and include – Management, Customer Feedback, Consequences, Expectations and Feedback.
Once the steering elements have been addressed, then look at the "Enabling Elements" – Management (again), Design, Resources and Support.
Only after the steering and enabling elements (the non-human factors) have been aligned, should you look at work performance. The rationale here is that it is only within an optimized system that we can expect optimal human performance. As Wittkuhn states:
It is not an intelligent strategy to train people to overcome system deficiencies. Instead, we should design the system properly to make sure that the performers can leverage all their capabilities.
This is the most succinct operationalization of performance technology that I have yet read, and I hope that it also makes sense to you. If not, please comment.