|
These insights give us some important new strategies for training. One of the most important revolves around the distinction between well- and ill-structured problem solving. Every time you do a task analysis, you are probably mapping well-structured procedures: these are the skills you can flowchart. But, it turns out that these procedures are not representative of the way expert engineers, designers, creative types, and even managers think about their jobs. These people use well-structured procedures, but they use them in the service of inventing a solution for a problem they have not seen before. That is ill-structured problem solving, in which the conditions, the actions, and the desired outcomes are not necessarily specified at the beginning of problem solving. Ill-structured problem solving is what is needed for far transfer, or the ability to solve a somewhat similar problem in an entirely new context. It is the ultimate goal of much training—yet our familiar, tried-and-true design practices don’t tell us much about the distinction, or how to teach ill-structured problem solving. Cognitive psychology to the rescue! By adding some new instructional design principles to our practice, based on cognitive psychology, we can deal much more effectively with training for ill-structured problem solving. We know some things about how to teach the mental models which the learner modifies and manipulates to solve the problems. We also know some things about how to teach ill-structured problem solving, when there is no single right answer (though there may be lots of wrong ones). And, we know some things about how to build learners’ understanding from the novice level to the expert level—more than repetitive practice is needed. We even have a better understanding of what the learner is telling you when he or she makes a mistake (simply having the learner try again wastes an important instructional opportunity). So, what are the benefits? More efficient, more transferable training—and perhaps, reduced need for retraining when something in the content changes; deeper understanding; and, new ways to build expertise in the work force, especially for jobs that involve judgment and problem solving.
|
|
||||||||
| |
|||||||||
|
Top
Three Predictions Impact
of These Predictions Organizations are carefully examining the connection between the employee experience and the customer experience. Northwestern University has established the Forum for People, Performance, Management and Measurement to study this phenomenon, also referred to as the service/profit chain. They are investigating how employee behavior influences customer behavior, and how organizations can maximize this relationship for improved results. In most organizations, the human resource (HR) and marketing areas are siloed and frequently work at cross-purposes because they do not share strategies or information. When these groups are more closely aligned with data exchange, joint strategic planning, and shared communication, early research in the UK suggests improved bottom-line results (Explanations from the Marketing/HR Dyad for Market Competitiveness by J. Chimhanzi and R.E. Morgan, The University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK). Organizations are increasingly interested in measurement and analysis. While ROI (return on investment) remains a focus, VOI (value of investment) is of growing interest as a way to measure intangibles or soft results. The increased desire for data seems to stem from the combination of continuing poor results and ever increasing competitiveness in business, and the reintroduction of the quality challenge, where all processes, procedures, and business actions are scrutinized for continuous improvement. The Forum, mentioned earlier, has just launched a study on internal initiatives, and their impact on business results. They are using live organizational data, which should provide valuable information to organizations seeking to learn more about their own results. How
Organizations Will Be Different As organizations make the connection between HR and marketing, HR will become better at making the organization inviting to job candidates and more skilled at demonstrating how the purpose and values impact employees, customers, and the community. In effect, employees will be treated as HR’s internal customers. In turn, marketing will become more sensitive to the fact that workers will be required to deliver on promises the organization has made to customers. HR will help bring systems thinking to marketing. The VOI will be applied at all organizational levels: to the work processes, the workers’ performance, and the organization’s overall performance. This “value” perspective is broader than just finances or ROI because it looks at both leading and lagging measures of performance and value added. Because much of the value of today’s organizations is not found on the balance sheet, much of what we need to be measuring is beyond the financials—people, processes, and performance—areas of focus for HPT! Implications
for HPT Work We, as HPT practitioners, are challenged to help grow the use of HPT by making our systems thinking and variety of tools available wherever they may apply in our organizations. We must expand our range from the traditional transactional roles we take in training and HR and show how performance improvement models and techniques can be used to support organizational strategies and improve results. We must take our mental models and translate them to make what we know and do accessible to our clients. This focus on “intangible measures,” the employee/customer experience, and ensuring that the organization’s purpose and values are embedded in the culture are changing how Maritz views itself and its services. One example of this is Rodger’s effort to explore a VCI, or value creation index, to capture how HPT creates value for an organization. If we look carefully at Rodger’s predictions, we see that ISPI’s Standards of Performance Technology—focus on results, partner with others, add value at all organizational levels—will have a strong and positive impact on the organizations we serve.
|
|
||||||||
|
You know, it was so exciting for me to again be with people who think like I think, know what I know, and believe what I believe. But now I am back at work at “GIGA-Corp.” The first thing I had to attend to, of course, was all the email. Hey, no big deal, but let me ask you a question? Do you feel like I do? Is that familiar feeling of frustration beginning to raise its ugly head? How is it that what seems so logical when talked about at the Conference is so difficult to implement when we get back in our corporate environments? Maybe I am alone in this, but somehow I don’t think so. Hey, look at the realities. No matter where you turn in the literature regarding implementation of change, failure rates of 70% or more are quoted. Just think about the meaning of that number for a moment. The members of ISPI are all change agents and deeply involved in change. Yet 70%-75% of the efforts we (maybe ISPI members have a higher success rate than everyone else) engage in fail. While most of us know what it takes to effect lasting, performance-related change in our organizations, this is the result. How frustrating! We know it is not enough to train people. We must also enable these people with a performance system in which they are afforded the opportunity to exhibit and be rewarded for exhibiting newly learned skills. There must be an alignment on expectations in the organization. People must have the tools to perform as expected and the consequences of performance must be aligned with the same expectations (you get what you reward). I know this; you know this. But… Here is my problem. I don’t feel executives in our organizations are willing to truly recognize, or at least behave in a manner, that is consistent with a systemic vision of change. Help me! Why is this? Are we, the Performance Technologists, special? No! Are our executives dumb? No! Well, what is it then? I think it is a failure on our part in getting the right amount of respect! Respect that translates into executive behavior. For example, when we suggest something, executives listen and do as we ask. I don’t think executives in our organizations respect our opinions. They still think of us as trainers. We earn respect at the tactical level by doing what is expected of us so that we can earn a seat at the strategic level where we can do what really needs to be done. So, here is my call to ISPI and other members of our profession. Help us get the respect we deserve. How can ISPI do this? I think we are on our way. The Certification program definitely helps, but we need more. I have a few ideas, but I would love to start a Society-wide dialogue on this topic. Therefore, I challenge you to respond. What are your thoughts? Am I right about this need? Am I alone? You can send your comments to JOECPT@stractics.com. I will then summarize the remarks for a future article in PerformanceXpress. If this challenge generates enough discussion, we will research another venue for continuing the dialogue.
NOTE:
While Pierre Mourier was recently elected to be a member of the ISPI Board
of Directors, the opinion above is entirely his own and does not represent
the opinion of the Board and is not written to be regarded as such.
|
|
||||||||
|
The attendance at the conference in Boston was up 15% over last year—great news in these trying economic times! I typically ask attendees at the Conference about their experience as the event progresses, and this year the feedback was almost always exceptional. Kudos to the presenters, to Michelle Halprin and her team (more than 150 volunteers help “make this happen”), and also to the entire ISPI staff for their continued superior performance! Mark your calendar to attend ISPI’s Fall Conference in Chicago, September 17-20, focused on Performance-Based Instructional Systems Design, the ISPI Europe Conference in Paris, September 25-27, or the program being planned for Capetown, South Africa, October 9-10. And, I hope to see you presenting and/or attending ISPI’s 2004 Annual Performance Improvement Conference & Exposition in Tampa, April 19-23, 2004. Make your plans to submit, present, or attend now. New Board members Barbara Gough, Pierre Mourier, Jim Pershing, and incoming President-elect Don Tosti joined Board holdovers Clare Carey, Jeanne Farrington, Executive Director Rick Battaglia, and me on stage during the Annual Conference’s Closing Banquet, and then the next day for a quick, one-day Board of Directors meeting intended to get us all introduced to each other and orient the new members to the Director’s “job.” We had already learned during the Conference that Barbara Gough was the 2003 recipient of ISPI’s Distinguished Service Award, and Don Tosti was the recipient of the Gilbert Award. In addition, we learned that Pierre Mourier, a Dane who has also lived in the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Italy to name a few, speaks seven languages including Swahili. It came in handy when working as a pilot giving Safari tours by air. Jim Pershing has a passion for the research orientation and technology of HPT, and as the recent editor of Performance Improvement journal read more than 1,700 articles during his four-year term. Don presented several models to help orient the entire Board to our challenge of staying “strategic versus tactical” as we explore the needs and alternatives in moving our professional home forward to better meeting the needs of our current and future members. Clare helped us revisit and recalibrate our Board Norms, and Jeanne structured a mini-agenda and process for each topic on our agenda. Rick is our living memory and connection to the good work and intentions of past Boards. He is also responsible for all the objectives the Board establishes each year that do not get directed to our Committees and Task Forces. What follows? Four three-day Board meetings and a final one-day meeting just before the Tampa Conference. As I see it, the focus of each of those three-day meetings is: Strategic Planning for the near-term future, followed by future Committee/Task Force/Staff Alignment, followed by future Budget Alignment, followed by Lessons Learned and Planning for Continuous Improvement. There are, of course, many other agenda items that will be brought to our attention. We will address those in light of our strategic focus and current resource capacity. This year remains an Austerity Year. We will move forward and put our limited resources into CPT marketing and supporting our chapters and our non-North American growth initiatives. Currently, four members of the ISPI Board of Directors have their CPT. The Board will also oversee the completion of Phase 3 and 4 of a Presidential Initiative Task Force started last year to Clarify the HPT Value Proposition. The initial focus is not on marketing statements, but is on the very definition of HPT using “technology domains” or “divisions” to frame HPT’s components. We will build on our past and catch up to the evolution that has taken place as we have moved in the past 41 years from Programmed Instruction to Performance-based Instruction to a more holistic set of concepts, models, methods, tools, and techniques that produce measured results that add value. The complete story behind this initiative is told on the pages of the February 2003 issue of Performance Improvement journal, available on our Society’s website. Click here to review the issue. And, if you haven’t already read ISPI’s 2002 Year in Review, you might want to download a copy today. It is a great reflection on our accomplishments over the past year. Please feel free to share your questions, comments, or concerns with me or any other member of the Board of Directors. We are here to serve the membership. Cheers!
|
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
by Mark Munley, CPT |
|||||||||
|
This month I talked with Mark Wood (MW). Mark is a consultant, speaker, and writer specializing in organizational effectiveness, leadership, culture, and compensation. Based in the San Francisco Bay Area, he may be reached at markwoodonline@earthlink.net. MM: What is the Job Aid for Distilling Multiple, Disparate Issues? MW: I use it as a tool for finding common denominators among multiple issues that do not seem to be or look related to one another. MM: Who might be interested in using this tool? MW: People who are the primary facilitators of a discussion around trying to understand the essence or root cause of a situation. MM: When do you employ the Job Aid for Distilling Multiple, Disparate Issues? MW: As you conduct your analysis you find a lot of things are broken. The questions often become how to decide what issues need to be worked. How do we get at the root cause or causes of multiple issues? What is the connection that exists between the issues being examined? Instead of four initiatives or four action plans, perhaps there is one that will address multiple issues. MM: How do you use it? MW: I use this tool after my initial effort at situation assessment. I have uncovered the key issues that need some attention. So, this isn’t the first thing I do. To give you an example, I used this recently on a project where the client asked me to assess their organizational effectiveness. After my initial analysis, I found five major themes all seemingly unrelated and all might take major efforts in terms of time and resources to correct. This job aid allows for a way to filter the information about these five issues in such a way that you get at the root cause. It helps you see what a unified solution might look like. By arraying the issues in the columns as they are laid out and then looking across the columns, root causes become evident. This is the key to using this job aid—when looking across the issues similarities present themselves. These then become the centerpiece for further action. In this particular project, it became clear that two root causes could be worked that would address the multiple issues identified earlier. MM: What is the benefit of using this tool to you and the client? MW: I think it is the same for both parties—to clarify the essence of the problem and therefore to clarify what your priorities are to move forward. It takes something that looks too multifaceted to solve and allows the client to see that action around one or two initiatives could solve more than one issue. It becomes a tool to clarify and manage the scope of a project. When working with the client, it enables us to set clear expectations on what should actually be delivered. MM: Why do you like this tool? MW: I like it because I prefer root cause analysis. A lot of approaches deal only with the symptoms. It allows a more systemic approach to a multifaceted problem. MM: Finally, why is there air? MW: Why not? Click here to download a PDF file of the Job Aid for Distilling Multiple, Disparate Issues discussed above by Mark and Mark.
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Now that you are back at your desks, it is not too soon to begin thinking about participating in next year’s conference. You can submit your ideas, and present at the premier performance improvement event of the year! Prepare a proposal by the September 15, 2003 deadline, and you could be on your way to presenting at ISPI’s 2004 International Performance Improvement Conference & Exposition, April 19-23, in Tampa, FL. The theme of the conference is Partnering for Performance. You can download the submission guidelines and a sample proposal, handout, and performance tool by visiting: www.ispi.org. Click on “Conferences Plus” for conference descriptions and Tampa accommodation information.
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| At the recent ISPI Annual Conference in Boston, Timm Esque and I offered a joint presentation called Results Measurement: Building It in from the Start. At the core of the session was a framework that we discovered we have in common—I inherited it from Ogden Lindsley and Timm developed it under the influence of Bill Daniels. It says there are three steps to managing or improving performance: 1) Define goals and expectations in measurable terms, 2) Begin measuring (counting) to monitor progress toward goals, and put measurement processes and data in the hands of the performer(s), and 3) Engage performers in using ongoing measurement to make decisions and to allocate resources to better achieve goals. We share the view that this process should be at the heart of performance improvement, not an add-on. As in a scientific experiment or in navigation, the process of direct and continuous measurement is inherent, providing feedback to performers that allows them to adjust their efforts to achieve goals. This framework is deceptively simple because it is not always easy to decide what to count or how to gather the data. But in principle it cuts right through a lot of the complications that often surround measurement and evaluation and which, as Shrock and Geis (1999) wrote, make evaluation “the most widely misunderstood, avoided, and feared activity in the practice of HPT” (page 185). An interesting aspect of this model is the imperative to put measurement in the hands of performers. It establishes measurement and data-based decision-making as an intrinsic part of work, a built-in feedback loop that is significantly more powerful than direction from above via command-and-control management. Some years ago, Lindsley demonstrated that when performers measure, chart the data, and participate in decision-making, performance improvement happens about twice as fast, on average, as when others gather the data and make decisions for the performers. This finding certainly stands to reason. When performers own both their goals and progress toward them, they’ll be highly motivated to make decisions and execute changes more likely to improve their own progress than when they’re simply told to do so, left out of the loop until the end. An additional point in our presentation, one that was confirmed by comments from the audience, is that there are significant potential benefits of using a standard and widely applicable graphic format for presenting measured results (Lindsley, 1999). I mentioned Lindsley’s original rationale for designing standard charts (examples of which I have mentioned and illustrated in earlier editions of this column). He found that when people shared transparencies of charts they made themselves—each unique in their dimensions and labels—it took 5 to 10 times as long to describe and present each chart as when they used a standard, universally applicable chart that depicts trends, levels, and ratios with standard graphic angles and distances. When I described this improvement in data-sharing efficiency at our presentation, several audience members explained with frustration that they are currently encountering the same problem at their companies in “Balanced Scorecard meetings.” They said that because everyone makes their own stretch-to-fill charts with Excel, the process of describing each chart and then communicating results eats up a lot of time. Significant time savings (by a factor of 5 to 10) might be the most compelling argument of all for considering use of Lindsley’s (1997) standardized charting system. Next month, we’ll share more charts that illustrate the potential for accelerating communication of performance improvement results. References Esque, T.J. (2002). Making an Impact: Building a Top-performing Organization from the Bottom Up. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press. Lindsley, O.R. (1999). From training evaluation to performance tracking. In H.D. Stolovitch and E.J. Keeps (eds.). Handbook of Human Performance Technology, Second edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 210-236. Lindsley, O.R. (1997). Precise instructional design: Guidelines from precision teaching. In C.R. Dills and A.J. Romiszowski (eds.), Instructional development paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 537-554. Shrock, S.A. and Geis, G.L. (1999). Evaluation. In H.D. Stolovitch and E.J. Keeps (eds.). Handbook of Human Performance Technology, Second edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 185-209.
|
|||||||||
by Bob Walsh |
|||||||||
|
Task Management is an entirely different approach to getting things done than Time Management. It is based on the fact that appointments and tasks are not the same thing, and can’t be managed with the same tools. Task Management Tool #1 is your Master List of things to do. It can be a notebook, set of index cards, or a word processing document. Its key characteristic is that it’s the one and only place you list your tasks to do; business and personal, major and minor. Keep your entries short. A short description (“Revise marketing intro”), where it fits in your life (“Marketing”), how important it is to you (“A+”), and your gut time estimate (“1 hr.”). If a task has a deadline, add it, but the shorter the entry, the better. When you finally corral the last task into your Master List, don’t be surprised you breathe a big sigh of relief and then feel dismayed seeing the hundreds of things you need to do down in black and white. Now its time to for Task Management Tool #2: My Current List. Re-read your Master List. On another pad, sheet, or computer file, start a list called My Current List, writing down tasks you can and should get done now. In each and every case, also write down your time estimate for that task. This is important. When you get 8 hours worth of tasks on your Current List, stop. Have other tasks that are more important to add? Make substitutions. Your goal is a Current List you can actually finish in a day. Whether we like it or not, we can only get 8 hours of work done in 8 hours. And that is if everything goes perfectly, which it probably won’t. By keeping your Current List short, you keep it real and you make it possible to successfully finish it. This is the power of Task Management. Now, go to work and get your Current List done. As new items pop up, add them to your Master List, or if you absolutely must, substitute them into your Current List. When you cross the last item on your Current List off, give yourself a well-deserved pat on the back, go back to your Master List, and create another doable Current List, based on your priorities now. The form your lists take isn’t as important as the functions they provide, so you can use whatever materials you have at hand. Try managing your tasks with a Master List and serial Current Lists for a week. Compare how much you get done, and how you feel about it. You will find that these simple task management tools work, and work well.
|
|
||||||||
| |
|||||||||
|
Quick recap: Every month, three sites, one theme. While far from comprehensive, hopefully these sites will spark readers to look further and expand views about human performance technology (HPT). Please keep in mind that any listing is for informational purposes only and does not indicate an endorsement either by the International Society for Performance Improvement or me. These are the general categories I use for the sites featured:
The theme for this month’s column is “Go international!” Are you inter-, multi-, or transnational, that is? We all contend with the international phenomenon of, well, internationalism. (If you’re growing weary of that word, pick your own from Theasaurus.com. Let’s pay a quick visit to some places across the globe that may be of interest. And, if you would like to connect with other members of ISPI interested in international issues, send me an email! Pets are welcome, too. E-Klatch
HPT@work I-Candy Until next time, this busy-bee will still buzz (Bengali: bhonbhon, Estonian: summ-summ) the global hive of the Internet, gathering more digital honey for the June PerformanceXpress!
|
![]() |
||||||||
| |
|||||||||
|
If everything is a process, it can easily become a muddled mess without a good organizing scheme. The systems model that I present is intended to help you better identify, clarify, and differentiate the critical few from the important many. The training and development (T&D) systems view model helps in:
There are 45 distinct processes within 12 subsystems of a complete T&D systems view. These processes are sometimes formal, and sometimes not. They are either strategic or operationally critical, or they are not. They are either in control or they are not. And they either need tight process control, OR THEY DO NOT. We are not suggesting that EVERY system and process be in tight control. As always, it depends. It depends on your situation. You need to gather the data, do the math, and decide what is broken and what is not, and where to strategically place your enterprise’s bets for greater returns in the short-, medium-, or long-term. The
12 Subsystems that Make Up a T&D System 12
o’clock: Governance and Advisory System 1
o’clock: T&D Strategic Planning System 2
o’clock: T&D Operations Planning and Management System 3
o’clock: T&D Cost/Benefits Measurement System 4
o’clock: T&D Systems and Processes Improvement Program and Project
Management System 5
o’clock: T&D Product and Service Line Definition and Design System 6
o’clock: T&D Product and Service Line Development/Acquisition System 7
o’clock: T&D Product and Service Line Deployment System 8
o’clock: T&D Marketing and Communications System 9
o’clock: T&D Financial Asset Management System 10
o’clock: T&D Human and Environmental Asset Management System 11
o’clock: T&D Research and Development System Summary This should allow you to better calculate your forecasted total improvement costs and total improvement returns. Without that view, your attempts at value add might inadvertently end up as a value deplete.
|
|
||||||||
| |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Through our Annual Research Grant Program, the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) continues to show a commitment to investing in the future of the field and in the research that is pivotal to realizing the return on that investment. Normally, the research program officially launches with ISPI’s annual spring conference. To better serve the membership, the Research Committee accelerated its efforts to post the Request for Proposals (RFP), thereby giving you more time to hone your research ideas and prepare great research proposals. Click here to download a PDF of the 2003 Research Grant Program Request for Proposals. The deadline for submissions is June 6, 2003.
|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
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 ISPIs 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.
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
PerformanceXpress is an ISPI member benefit designed to build community, stimulate discussion, and keep you informed of the Societys 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, ISPIs Senior Director of Publications, at april@ispi.org. ISPI |
|||||||||