PerformanceXpress Feb. 02 for print

It is true that many people in both training and performance technology fields have training job titles, such as trainer, training manager or director, instructional designer, and so on. In addition, the ADDIE model and the Human Performance Technology (HPT) model are very similar. As a result, training and performance technology (PT) methods and techniques are very much alike, but the mindsets are different.

In a “typical” scenario, the request is for training but the expectation is for performance improvement. Training focuses on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to accomplish the new expectation. PT is the science and art of improving individual or organizational performance. PT involves every aspect that impacts performance change, such as training, rewards, feedback and communication, work design, or work environment.

Training and PT work appears to be very similar and so the differences may not be noticeable at first. Both trainers and PT practitioners begin with needs analysis. While trainers look at desired and actual behavior; PT practitioners also consider the mission, vision, strategic plan, champion, management style, reward system, work design, work environment, culture, and so on, to determine if the organization will support the newly learned behavior. With this expanded analysis comes the determination as to whether the request is actually a training problem. It may be that the employees actually know how to complete the activity, but the culture or supervision does not support the new behaviors.

For example, when people attend training they learn new skills and knowledge, such as team building. However, to apply these skills to the job, the team needs clear goals and expectations and time to accomplish the goals and expectations. At first, new skills are applied slowly, which is called the “learning curve.” Management needs to support this learning curve transition with ample feedback and encouragement. PT practitioners will counsel management as well as training participants regarding the learning curve and what is needed to successfully apply new learning, such as team building.

Next, PT practitioners identify the causes of the situation needing performance improvement. Team building may be a new initiative to produce more timely and appropriate workplace improvements. For example, before instituting work “teams” senior management may have made “top-down” decisions that were cascaded through the workplace. The decisions may not have been explained with sufficient context or the front-line people may have known a better way but were not consulted. Teams may be intended to maximize the experience and capabilities of those closest to the situation and free senior management to focus on strategic issues. PT practitioners use their knowledge of cause to frame the training and provide context for simulations and case examples, and so forth.

PT practitioners and trainers are likely to design training in much the same manner. However, PT practitioners may also include structured on-the-job worksheets for learners to plan and execute the new skills and for management to provide sufficient support and feedback. PT practitioners may design job aids to remind learners of key ideas. They may coach managers to reward successes with pizza lunches, gift certificates, or placing their names in the company newsletter.

Ideally, both trainers and PT practitioners evaluate the results. Trainers determine if the skills and knowledge were applied to the job successfully and whether what was learned was useful. PT practitioners also consider associated factors, such as on-the-job support or appropriate rewards.

It is evident that the actual methods and techniques of trainers and PT practitioners are very similar, but the relationship with learners and their management differs. PT is more holistic and comprehensive.

Over the past decade, partnering among organizations has emerged as a primary expectation for effective service delivery. Organizations as diverse as municipal governments; small, medium and large private-sector firms; universities; school districts; and more are linking with other entities to deliver an enhanced product or service. Partnership embodies valuable principles, by providing a means of:

The performance consultant has a major role to play in adding value to the partnering process. In particular, the performance consultant can facilitate the process of designing a partnership, even one of relatively short duration, to achieve a particular purpose by mapping and tracking the partnership. This can be accomplished by posing and answering several key questions:

An effective partnership is capable of providing enhanced value to clients and participating organizations alike. The wise use of resources and the alteration of organizational definition ultimately comprise a creative act that is potentially transformative to partnering organizations. Calculating the risks and participating in a value-producing partnership can create worth, even wealth, through mapping and tracking shared commitments and activity.

“Value added” is one of the favorite buzzwords in business. Technically, it is the difference between the cost of the materials and services purchased to produce a good and the amount you can sell it for. So in a simple case, a potter buys clay and through (his or her) own labor turns it into a pot. The difference between the cost of the clay and the value of the pot is the value added. The sum of all the value added in an economy is the GDP.

In everyday business parlance, it simply means any activity that adds value to the business. For example, when a Honda worker sticks a bumper on a car, that’s a value adding activity. By contrast, emptying out the trash pails normally wouldn’t be considered added value since while the customer wants a bumper on his or her car, they don’t actually care about the rubbish in the factory. However, technically speaking, emptying trash is just as much a part of added value as sticking on a bumper.

A typical use of this term would be, “We need to focus more on value added activities” which typically means we should be focusing on issues that will matter to our customers, not just internal administrative issues.

History of Value Added
Michael Porter deserves much of the blame for popularity of the term ‘value added’. He popularized the notion of seeing firms as a “value chain” (yet one more piece of jargon), that is, the series of activities in a firm that sequentially add value to the “raw material” to produce a final product.

The Value Added of Value Added
Clearly everything a firm does should be worth doing. Is “worth doing” the same as “value added”? Not exactly because something like complying with government regulations is worth doing but would not in everyday parlance be considered a value added activity. So, we really end up with three categories “value added activities”, “worth doing” activities that are not “value added” and worthless activities.

It’s not clear to me that these three categories add anything to our understanding of activities in an organization. Nevertheless, it’s a popular term and if other managers are throwing it around there is no reason why you shouldn’t too.

What HR Needs to Know

Technically, value added is the difference between the cost of the materials and services purchased to produce a good and the amount you can sell it for.
In normal parlance, it means those activities in a business that provide something the customer values.

I know what you’re thinking—hasn’t someone already done that? Yes, I’m well aware of Robert Gagne’s classic, The Conditions of Learning, first published in 1965 (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.). That book, and a number of other classics on learning theory and instructional development, taught me most of what I knew about instruction as I began my training career around 1981. Some of the key principles from those works are no doubt so etched into my gray matter that I apply them, as needed, without even thinking about them.

In the early 1990s, after wrestling with a number of barriers, I transitioned from a focus on learning and training to a focus on individual and organizational performance. Since then I’ve focused mostly on a different set of issues and principles. However, I think I’ve also learned a few things about learning that I didn’t understand before. If I were to summarize today what I think are the conditions for learning, I’d have to say the three most important conditions or principles are:

Respecting the Learner’s Commitment
I suspect all of us have been on both sides of this fence. We’ve experienced being the trainee in a course that we were pretty sure we could live without, and we’ve experienced standing in front (or putting instruction in front) of people who make it quite clear they’d prefer to be elsewhere. Wouldn’t it be ideal if every trainee were personally and fully committed to the training objectives at hand? Ideal yes, but not realistic. It may even be a bit disrespectful to expect others to be committed to something just because we are offering it to them.

However, when working with organizations, I think we can do a lot to approximate the ideal by only offering instruction after people have decided that’s what they need to succeed. In my performance consultant role, part of my approach is to make sure that training (and any other performance intervention) is implemented only when the client (including the performers) demands it. In a sense, this approach aligns training to what the performers are already committed to.

Tapping into the Learner’s Self-management System
The commitment we are looking for is each performer’s commitment to the larger organizational goal and his or her specific contributions to it. Once performers make those commitments, they will be dedicated to closing any gap between current performance and the goal performance. Whether in the classroom or in their work environment, they will not need to be spoon-fed knowledge and skills that help them close this gap. What they may need is assistance generating their own reliable feedback about whether they are succeeding or not. Once they have this, they will be happy to point out what else they need (more instruction, less interruptions, better tools, less punishment, etc.). If you’ve developed or facilitated any criterion-referenced instruction you can probably relate to this.

I first implemented this principle as a performance consultant, helping performers generate their own feedback in regards to their on-job performance. What I have learned is that the natural self-management system is robust and is a critical system to tap into during either instruction or on-job performance.

Recognizing that Successful Performers are Hungry Learners
When I worked in training organizations, I remember frequently talking amongst ourselves about “pull” strategies and “push” strategies. We often felt like we were pushing our support onto the client organization, when what we wanted most was to be valued and in demand. When instruction happens in the context of the above two conditions, it is very likely to be associated with successful performance. The demand for that instruction may swell, but more importantly, the demand for support from instructional specialists (and others that can help remove barriers to success) will go up, regardless of the form of instruction that is currently needed most.

Getting the Opportunity to Help
My new book, Making an Impact: Building a Top-Performing Organization From the Bottom Up, is mostly about performance consulting (helping teams and organizations reliably achieve their goals). It describes an approach that has expanded my clientele from performers and team leaders to GMs and CEOs. I’d like to think that those of you who specialize in learning and training would also find something of value in it. Performance consulting has certainly taught me a thing or two about a goal I think we all share—getting the opportunity to help people succeed.

Performance Consulting: The Beginning of the ROI Process
by Ann W. Parkman

In order to do a good job of evaluation at the end, it’s important to lay the right groundwork from the beginning. Conducting up-front analysis before engaging in a training or performance improvement solution offers a number of benefits:

Linking Analysis with Evaluation
There are five generally accepted levels of evaluation. These include Kirkpatrick’s four evaluation levels—reaction, learning, job application, and business impact—and Jack J. Phillips’ fifth level—ROI. Similarly, there are five levels of analysis that link directly to each level of evaluation.

1. Feasibility Analysis
A feasibility analysis answers the critical question: Are the benefits of the solution likely to outweigh the costs? It is particularly useful when: a) a lack of consensus exists over whether or not to undertake a performance improvement effort, or b) a project is likely to be very expensive. Calculating the anticipated ROI can help you justify moving forward with a proposed solution. It also provides a measuring stick to help you determine whether actual ROI meets expectations (Level 5 evaluation).

2. Business Needs Analysis
Before proceeding with a performance improvement solution, determine what unmet business needs your solution is designed to impact (such as reducing cycle time or increasing service levels). Quantifying these business needs upfront will give you a solid baseline upon which to conduct Level 4 evaluation of the post-intervention business impact.

3. Job Performance Analysis
Job performance analysis measures actual job performance to specific performance standards. Recording the performance gaps upfront will give you a tangible way to determine whether post-intervention performance has improved, and to what degree (Level 3 evaluation).

4. Learning Needs Analysis
Assuming the performance problem is due to a skill or knowledge deficiency, learning needs analysis will help you determine precisely what people need to learn in order to perform their jobs proficiently. These findings form the basis for specific learning objectives. This, in turn, allows you to determine if learners have successfully mastered what you set out to teach them (thereby satisfying the criteria for Level 2 evaluation).

5. Preferences Analysis
While preferences should not drive any solution, being sensitive to the needs of both performers and managers is an important part of designing a program that will fit your target audience’s work environment and management’s time/resource constraints. While it isn’t essential to perform this type of analysis in order to conduct Level 1 evaluation, considering and accommodating preferences can improve learner reactions to the training program overall.

Some training professionals may be reluctant, even afraid, to conduct comprehensive evaluation, particularly at Levels 3-5, because of what the results may or may not show. But by starting off with comprehensive analysis, you can maximize your chances of achieving positive and credible bottom-line results.

My coffee gone, I bundled my books and headed out the door toward London’s underground—its subway called the Tube—and, ultimately, the offices in Soho near Piccadilly Circus. They will probably expect me to come up with a Big, Bold, Wild Idea at the meeting today, I thought, which was why I carried these two books. Gilbert’s process helps me engineer solutions; Kerouac’s soulful fluidity sparks my creative side.

As I walked down the stairs of the Bond St. Station, I thought that what life needed was a store where we could call up and order one Big, Bold, Wild Idea. A store where we could talk to someone who understood what we were going through and who could give some objective review of how we were doing and maybe point out what we were missing.

At the store, I’d want to find a place where I could just come in out of the cold and talk to someone about what I was doing out there. Maybe a superficial conversation about something new or a deeper conversation about older things that I’ve let rust. I want these conversations to be passionate Kerouac conversations that stream through the work I’m doing, free from the need to prove my own brilliance, free from evaluation, sparked by the desire to learn more about my work and clarify my own thoughts. I want a store where I can do that.

I want a store that’s available around the world, where I could take my team away from the day-to-day to simply walk about the wilderness of alternatives that could free us from having to do things that same old, same old way. I want that store here in London where I could take these clients, and back in Seattle where I could take those clients. I want a place where I could recharge in Detroit and trade stories in Chicago.

I boarded the subway train, heading for Piccadilly. I work for a software company and the store idea sounds good, but limited. I’d want the store to have online accessibility. I need a site where I can come inside to chat with peers, find something that will trigger a Big, Bold, Wild Idea. I want to hear how other organizations surfaced their issues, how they solved them, how they knew that they were solved. I want a store where I can say easily, “I hadn’t thought of that” and come away with a basket of hope.

Maybe I could walk the online aisles and find training that would turn my partners into educated partners, turn me into something great, or generate a path that takes me somewhere I cannot foresee today. Two aisles over, they might house job opportunities around the world where the store’s clients could push their careers in a bold manner.

In this virtual store, there would be articles and debates and book reviews where I could come in from the cold and warm myself in radiant energy.

Each year, the store would hold its Annual Giveaway. They would put up a tent and give away those Big, Bold, Wild Ideas to whoever came by. All you could grab and cart away, there for the taking. This year in Dallas, next year in Boston, people would come and invigorate themselves in waters of renewal and leave with ideas buzzing so thickly that they would have to wipe their eyes just to see.

The Annual Giveaway would be so well known for its Big, Bold, Wild Ideas that it would come to be viewed as something of an intellectual spa. People would know that good ideas, well executed, positively impact organizations, and they would come to the store not to hide away from terrorists and recessions and competition, but to strengthen themselves against such influences.

The train slowed, stopped, and the doors burst open to the Piccadilly Station. I thought about the store and realized that I was singing the praises of ISPI, its chapters, its online components, and its upcoming International Performance Improvement Conference & Expo in Dallas. I turned away from the Circus and its statues toward the back streets of Soho and thought only of the warming morning halls of the Annual Conference in April and the Big, Bold, Wild Ideas being given away therein.

New Conference Feature Debuts in Dallas:
Participate in a Talk-About
by Barbara Gough, 2002 Conference Program Chair

Do you have something you want to “talk-about”? Do you have experiences to share with others or want to find out what others are doing? Do you want to extend your network of professional friends? Then, you should attend the ISPI 2002 International Performance Improvement Conference & Expo and participate in the talk-about sessions. This new and exciting event is designed to:

It’s very simple to host a talk-about table. Unlike the concurrent sessions, you do not have to apply to host a talk-about table. Nor are you expected to provide any materials or make a formal presentation. ISPI will provide a sign-up board and a special section in the Exposition Hall for talk-about conversations to take place. And the really neat thing is that the talk-about’s can be held at any time during the conference.

Here’s how it will work. Let’s say you want to host a talk-about session. All you would have to do is pick the time you would like to meet with others, pick your topic, put your name, topic, and time you would like to meet on the sign-up board and show up at the talk-about conversation area at that time. When you arrive, find a table, write the topic you want to discuss on the place cards you’ll find conveniently located on each table, and encourage others to join you for lively conversation. You can also check the sign-up board for messages that others have left you about the talk-about session.

Remember, the idea is to share what you have done, what you would like to do, lessons learned, things you would do differently, or whatever you want to talk about. The key here is sharing information, not presentation.

And just to give you a preview, Carl Binder, Richard Clark, Judy Hale, and Jim Hill will be hosting talk-about tables. This is your opportunity to sit and talk to some influential people in our industry and share what you have been doing. So plan on joining us at a talk-about session at this year’s ISPI conference. Register today!

Is Sales Training a Waste? Why Training Programs May Not Affect Outcomes
by Benson Smith and Tony Rutigliano

After a recent presentation to sales professionals, a national sales trainer for a very large organization questioned us about our comments on sales training. “I was surprised that you appear so negative on training,” he said, “and I’m puzzled about your attitude. What gives?”

His comment and question touched on a controversial point. After all, how can training be bad? Of course, the real question is not whether training is bad or good, but whether it is effective. Do salespeople get better at selling because of additional training? Do companies get their money’s worth when they invest in training programs? In many instances where we have observed training efforts, the results have been disappointing.

When we say “results,” we’re talking about improved performance rather than verbal endorsements from those who have been trained. It’s not unusual to have people leave a training program and express very positive reactions to the session. But will their performance get any better as result?

Up-close Observations
In many occupations, training is an essential ingredient. You wouldn’t want to have your house designed by an “intuitive” architect who has no training. Nor would you entrust your medical care to a “natural-born” surgeon with a flair for operating, but no medical schooling. We take assurance in well-trained pilots, carpenters, computer specialists, accountants, and dozens of other occupations. Shouldn’t training be just as important for sales professionals? Well, according to our research, “it ain’t necessarily so.”

A few years ago we observed a direct sales organization. Every newly hired salesperson attended an extensive training program to learn about the company’s products. These new hires were also put through a course on how to sell. The course focused on crucial parts of the sales presentation, especially a section that involved asking the prospect some very pointed questions. These questions essentially asked prospective customers if they would make a decision one way or the other at the conclusion of the presentation. During the training program, the sales representatives rehearsed this section again and again until they knew it word for word.

Yet once they were out on sales calls, almost eight out of 10 representatives were unable to ask these questions in front of a real, live customer. Yes, the training was effective for 20 percent of the sales force, but for the remaining 80 percent, it was a waste of time, energy, and money. Teaching people how to sell only seems effective when people have the talent to sell in the first place.

What about advanced training for more experienced sales forces? Have we seen better results in those cases? Not much!

From our vantage point, we’ve observed a great many training programs as they were instituted in a number of different companies. These training programs tended to focus on selling skills, such as probing, prospecting, or closing. In some instances the programs presented a completely new approach to selling, such as consultative selling, or some other fad-of-the-month program.

From our observations, we’ve concluded that the individuals who benefit most from training are those who already excel at their job. As performance levels rise, so do the benefits we see from training. And as performance levels go down, the positive impact of training diminishes.

When we have evaluated post-training productivity, we find that half of the people who were trained—the bottom half—showed no performance improvement. The money spent to train low-end performers was completely wasted. Yet many companies pour a majority of their limited resources into training the poorest performers. The initial response to these programs may be quite enthusiastic, and often times there is a spike in improvement. But this spike is usually short-lived, and before long, old performance patterns re-establish themselves.

Perhaps you may think these examples are just from poorly designed training programs. Some of them probably are. However, we have seen the same pattern over and over. The better the salesperson performs, the more likely he or she is to benefit from training. The worse he or she performs, the lower the benefit is from training.

Explanation
Why is this true? Our observation is that training programs often try to teach the wrong things, or they try to teach the right things to the wrong people.

In many cases, companies design training programs by studying what the best employees do and how they do it. Companies then build training that attempts to get everyone else to do exactly the same thing. While this seems logical, the problem is that the people at the bottom of the heap will never attain the same level of success as the best employees because they do not have the necessary talents. For salespeople in particular, success in generating sales and developing customer loyalty does not come from training them to read the right script exactly the same way on every sales call.

The best salespeople gained the most from training, because their existing and constructive patterns of dealing with customers were reinforced. They were encouraged to do more of what they already did well. But most training programs are not designed around the needs of the best performers. Best performers need individual coaching that is built around their talents and strengths. What are the talents they have to influence customers, build relationships, and solve customer problems? How can they enhance their selling style by using their talents more effectively?

On the other hand, poor performers usually don’t benefit substantially from additional training. Yet in many organizations, poor performance is what qualifies a person to receive additional training.

Look around your own organization, and you may find that the worst speakers are the ones who have been sent to speaking classes. The worst closers in your organization have been sent to a program on closing techniques. Or more typically, everyone in the sales organization has been put through the same training program, while management assumes they will all benefit equally.

Of course, training and development are important aspects of improving job performance. We put on many training and development programs each year ourselves. If you are the manager in charge of this important function in your organization, here are some questions you should ask yourself:

The answers to these questions can help you assess how much your training efforts will contribute to the bottom line. When approached correctly, training should be an investment that produces measurable and tangible results, not simply an expense that makes people feel good for a while.

To determine how experts organize their knowledge of Human Performance Technology (HPT), the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) and DLS Group supported a study conducted by the HPT Research Group. Of the 73 people that provided complete data sets, 21 individuals were identified as experts. Their responses were averaged together for subsequent analysis. Using the Pathfinder software, the HPT Research Group created a concept map depicting a statistically derived, “averaged expert’s” cognitive organization of HPT.

The key concept in the map is represented by results, which is linked to four other branches (sets) of concepts: ISD, HPT, Business Case, and Workplace Organization/Human Capital.

The International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) is always looking for new and better ways to provide valuable services to our members. One of these services is the annual ISPI Job Fair. Last year we made the transition from a simple on-site job board to recruiters manning tables inside the fair, making connections with candidates. In this employment market, you need all the connections you can get. Use your best career connection, the ISPI Job Fair at the 2002 International Performance Improvement Conference & Expo.

Last year, we had a dozen companies recruiting on site at the Job Fair, meeting candidates, and accepting resumes. This year, we look forward to increased participation among companies, as well as offering more options for employers and candidates. New amenities will include access to an interview room (available on a first come, first serve basis for participating employers), pre-conference promotion of your company in the conference program, and an on-site resume collection service. In addition to these amenities, table space will be available for rent inside the Job Fair. The Job Fair will be conveniently located inside the Exposition Hall at the ISPI 2002 International Performance Improvement Conference & Expo, April 21-25 in Dallas, Texas.

For more information on participating in the ISPI Job Fair contact ISPI by telephone at 301.587.8570 or by email at elizabeth@ispi.org.

The International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) is pleased to announce the schedule for the 2002 Research Grant Program. Proposals are due June 3, 2002, and awards will be announced September 3, 2002. ISPI is interested in awarding grants for research related to performance technology. Such research may include, but is not limited to, investigations that contribute to the understanding, discovery, application, and/or validation of performance technology principles, theoretical underpinnings, and/or practices. ISPI anticipates multiple awards, ranging from $2,000 to $9,000. Further information about the Research Grant Program and the format for submitting a research proposal is available at www.ispi.org.

Performance Improvement Quarterly Enters 15^th Year with Co-Editors at the Helm

Performance Improvement Quarterly (PIQ), one of the most highly respected journals in the field of Human Performance Technology (HPT), proudly announces the selection of new co-editors Michael F. Cassidy and Karen L. Medsker. Beginning in the spring, they will continue the tradition of excellence established by Peter Dean, who has held the position for the past six years.

Michael F. Cassidy, PhD is a tenured Professor in the School of Business at Marymount University, Arlington, Virginia, where he teaches graduate courses in areas including performance analysis, research and evaluation, statistics, and group facilitation and problem solving. He is also Principal, Performance Improvement Services, which specializes in measurement and management consulting services.

He has more than 25 years professional experience in data collection and measurement with emphasis in survey research and statistical analysis; group design and facilitation; organizational diagnosis and performance improvement; and training design and delivery. He has worked with senior and middle management and workforce teams in strategic and program planning; process analysis and improvement; developing measurement and evaluation systems; statistical modeling; customer needs and satisfaction research; diagnosing and improving human resource systems; diversity; and group decision making.

Michael’s current research is focused on several areas, including the measurement of social capital in organizational settings and its impact on intra-organizational learning, productivity, and employee satisfaction; diversity, domestic violence, and ethics.

Michael holds a BA from Manhattan College; a BFA from California Institute of the Arts; an MS from the University of Southern California; and a PhD from Indiana University. He has published extensively and is a frequent presenter at professional conferences.

Karen L. Medsker, PhD is Professor and Chair of the Human Resources Department at Marymount University, where she teaches courses in performance analysis and improvement strategies, instructional design, instructional delivery systems, and evaluation. She is also President of Human Performance Systems, Inc., a consulting firm that specializes in design and development of human resources interventions and intelligent computer-based systems to enhance individual, group, and organizational performance.

Karen earned her PhD in instructional systems from Florida State University, then worked as an instructional technologist and course development supervisor for AT&T Bell Laboratories in New Jersey. Later she was Director of Instructional Development at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis. Since 1988, she has been a professor at Marymount and has consulted regularly with businesses and government agencies.

Dr. Medsker is the author of numerous articles and book chapters on training and performance improvement topics. Her most recent book, Models and Strategies for Training Design was co-authored with Kristina Holdsworth and published by the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) in 2001. In 1996, she co-authored The Conditions of Learning: Training Applications with Robert M. Gagne. She is currently working with her co-editor Michael Cassidy on new model to diagnose organizational performance needs, using both performance technology and organization development concepts. She has held several leadership positions at the local and international levels in ISPI and is currently on the editorial board of PIQ. She is active in the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), most recently as a member of the Research Committee.

Performance Improvement Quarterly is published by the Learning Systems Institute of Florida State University (FSU) in cooperation with ISPI and is currently in its 15^th year of publication. The goal of this peer-reviewed journal is to stimulate professional discussion in and to advance the discipline of performance technology through the publication of scholarly works. PIQ emphasizes original work involving technologies such as analysis or evaluation as well as interventions such as motivation, personnel selection, instruction/training, performance aids, or performance guidance.

In celebration of PIQ’s “15 Years of Excellence,” ISPI is offering readers an opportunity to view an issue of PIQ, for FREE! You may access the table of contents and PDF files of the articles by clicking the following link: http://www.ispi.org/other/piq.htm. This will give you a chance to see for yourself why you can’t miss another issue of this publication. Order your copy today!

Over the past few months, U.S. Coast Guard Master Chief Petty Officer Vince W. Patton, III has been sighted at various events around the world. In November 2001, he traveled along with his counterparts from other military services to Bosnia to visit troops involved in the “Operation Enduring Freedom” campaign and appeared onstage with Wayne Newton during a performance that was part of the USO Tour. On December 21, 2001, as the Olympic Torch passed through the city of Washington, DC, he became one of the more than 11,000 individuals that were selected to carry the torch over its 65-day journey to Salt Lake City, Utah, for the 2002 Winter Games. Then, on January 1, 2002, Patton rode on a float that honored unsung heroes of the U.S. Coast Guard in the 2002 Rose Parade in Pasadena, California.

Patton will join his performance improvement colleagues, Frank T. Wydra, Managing Partner, IRI Consultants to Management; Charline A. Wells, Program Manager, Sandia National Laboratories; James M. Schultz, Divisional VP, Performance Development, Walgreen Co.; Kenneth H. Silber, PhD, Associate Professor, Educational Technology Research and Assessment, Northern Illinois University; Steven Hale, Boeing; and Todd Harriett, VP Marketing, Ondeo Nalco on Wednesday, April 24 and Thursday, April 25 to deliver the Masters Series presentations. The Masters Series is designed so that conference attendees are able to meet with leaders who have made significant contributions to the field of performance improvement and discuss provocative issues.

So, what are you waiting for? Click to Register for the 2002 International Performance Improvement Conference & Expo today! Don’t miss out on the opportunity to say, “I saw Patton on his travels through Dallas!”

Want to see around corners? Want the inside track on what’s up ahead? Want the scoop on your colleagues? Watch for TrendSpotters coming in the March 2002 edition of PerformanceXpress.

ISPI is looking for Human Performance Technology (HPT) articles (approximately 500 words and not previously published) for PerformanceXpress that bridge the gap from research to practice (please, no product or service promotion is permitted). Below are a few examples of the article formats that can be used:

In addition to the article, please include a short bio (2-3 lines) and a contact email address. All submissions should be sent to april@ispi.org. Each article will be reviewed by one of ISPI’s on-staff HPT experts, and the author will be contacted if it is accepted for publication. If you have any further questions, please contact april@ispi.org.

Feel free to forward ISPI’s PerformanceXpress newsletter to your colleagues or anyone you think may benefit from the information. If you are reading someone else’s PerformanceXpress, send your complete contact information to april@ispi.org, and you will be added to the PerformanceXpress emailing list.

PerformanceXpress (formerly News & Notes and Quick Read) is an ISPI member benefit designed to build community, stimulate discussion, and keep you informed of the Society’s activities and events. This newsletter is published monthly and will be emailed to you at the beginning of each month.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact April Davis, ISPI’s Director of Periodicals, at april@ispi.org.

ISPI
1400 Spring Street, Suite 260
Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA
Phone: 1.301.587.8570
Fax: 1.301.587.8573
info@ispi.org
http://www.ispi.org