Friday, August 2, 2013

Personal Inventory

The most valuable thing I gained from this course is an increased understanding of distinguishing between treating the core issue of a performance problem and treating the symptoms. Early on, I found it easy to identify what immediately appeared to be wrong and come up with a solution for it. In many instances, my solution wouldn’t have solved the program – it just would have made it appear better for a short time. By analyzing these symptoms to develop an understanding of the core issues at hand, I’ve been able to develop interventions more capable of providing long-term organizational growth.
As a part of this, I believe I’ve done well in developing the following competencies:
1. Write statements of performance intervention outcomes: A lot of my strength in this regard seems to have come from my teaching background. When teaching high school, I obsessed over learning outcomes as a tool to measure my students’ successes and shortcomings. When I began ID work and this class, this experience aided me a lot in crafting outcomes that were measureable and job-specific.

2. Communicate effectively in visual, oral, and written form: This, too, is a benefit from my teaching experience. Having taught English for a long while, I spent a number of years helping other communicate effectively in different manners. The HPT course had helped me take this experience and apply it to communicating the benefits of an intervention, giving me the ability to “sell” my ideas better than I have in the past.

3. Promote performance consulting and human performance improvement as a major approach to achieving desired results in organizations: Coming from a very training-centered organization, my awareness of HPT has definitely changed my approach toward improving organizational performance. The knowledge I’ve gained from this course has already led to me making performance improvement suggestions that aren’t based on training. Long-term, I think this could positively shift my department toward future successes.

4. Capable of involving others (authority figures, knowledgeable individuals) appropriately: One of the most valuable things I’ve gained from this class is an understanding of the importance of collaborating with other individuals to understand performance issues and suggest relevant, needs-based results. Without communicating with these individuals, HPT professionals are at a huge disadvantage.

5. Generous with giving credit to others: Similar to the previous competency, I’ve learned that it’s critical to give credit so that relationships remain intact. As a part of positive collaboration, one should be willing to praise others when they’ve done well and intervene when they may need assistance. 

Likewise, I still have work to do on these ones:

1. Analyze the structures of jobs, tasks, and content: I don’t mean to say that I’m terrible with this one entirely, but while conducting analyses during this course, I’ve sometimes struggled to understand what all I must examine as a part of my work. Considering the variety of jobs and tasks that will be impacted by a performance intervention is a huge undertaking, and one that I hope to be continually mindful of moving forward. Continued experience with this will help, as will a willingness to step back and analyze myself during each step of the process.

2. Demonstrate appropriate interpersonal, group-process, and consulting skills: I am sometimes quick to think that, since I am the one analyzing performance, what I say goes. While I don’t often express these feelings, they sometimes creep up in my mind and create frustration. Moving forward, I intend to be increasingly collaborative with individuals to develop a continued understanding that there are a number of pieces that must fit together in order for a performance intervention to be successful, and that many of those are outside of my control.

3. Cause-conscious, not solution-oriented: As I stated earlier, I initially found it easy to simply dive into solutions without a lot of regard for their causes. In many ways, early on, I looked at the symptoms and not the core issue. While I’ve come a long way in this regard, I’d like to continually improve by continuing to analyze performance problems and make recommendations. By collaborating with others in this regard, I believe I will have the tools and feedback I need to be successful in this continued endeavor.

4. Sensitive of the need to verify perceptions: Somewhat similar to the last competency, I sometimes struggle with double- and triple-checking my perceptions. This isn’t always the case, and I’ve gotten better with it, but, moving forward in my practice, I think it would be wise to make this a part of my routine: to always check everything twice (or three times) and to not move forward until I have done so.

5. Able to sort out priorities: As a big fan of instructional technology, it’s easy for me to be tempted to always suggest technology-based solutions. While there are situations where such solutions are appropriate, in a number of instances, there are more affordable options that, more importantly, better address the issue at hand. Moving forward, I would like to receive more information or training on some non-technology based solutions in practice.  

Professionally, I’d like to incorporate my HPT work into my current position on a widespread basis. My current company is very training-oriented and is consistently looking at training as the sole solution. The tools I’ve been equipped with in this class have really broadened my understanding of what we can do as an organization to better increase performance and solve some of our existing issues. I hope to use what I’ve learned to analyze these issues and develop non-training solutions for them. 

1 comment
Sunday, July 28, 2013

Extended Reading

Guerra-López, I., & Leigh, H. N. (2009). Are performance improvement professionals measurably improving performance? what PIJ and PIQ have to say about the current use of evaluation and measurement in the field of performance improvement. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(2), 97-110.

In their study, Guerra-Lopez and Leigh look at the state of evaluation in contemporary performance improvement literature to examine to thoroughness and attention given to evaluation by performance improvement professionals. Based off of their findings, they argue that evaluation – despite being critical to the field – is underrepresented in two of the field’s most prominent academic journals: Performance Improvement Quarterly and Performance Improvement. Their analysis – intended for practitioners and researchers alike – analyses articles published in these two journals to evaluate how often topics surrounding performance improvement evaluation are mentioned and written about at length. Simply put, their findings support their theory that evaluation is not being taken as seriously as it should be in the literature.

The claims discussed in this work shed light on a critical aspect of work being done in the field: evaluation. Despite human performance technologists being aware of evaluation and its merits, the depth of evaluation necessary to appropriately measure an intervention’s success is not always being performed. The absence of this discussion in the literature – as made apparent by the authors – demonstrates not only a professional unawareness, but an altogether disregard for one of the most prominent ways human performance technology professionals can understand their shortcomings and, perhaps more importantly, sell their interventions to those they work with. By not producing measureable results and discussing those results in the literature, the field loses both credibility and sustainability.

Missing from their discussion was much mention of practice. While the literature is, ideally, indicative of this, little mention of direct work being completed is mentioned. Speaking directly with professionals and examining evaluative tools that are being used by those professionals would provide a much more direct examination of the evaluation issue being discussed. This is done second-handedly by examining the literature itself, and, with the depth of literature available, this may be logistically inappropriate, but it would provide the authors with a much more direct source of information. 

1 comment
Sunday, July 21, 2013

Extended Readings

Vadivelu, R. N. and Klein, J. D. (2011). The influence of national and organizational culture on the use of performance improvement interventions. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24: 97–115. 

Vadivelu and Klein’s study focuses on the effectiveness of different human performance technology interventions across cultures. Their research, inspired by existing literature and the increasing requirements of corporations dealing with a global economy, consisted of a survey sent to HPT professionals in the United States and South Asia. 100 respondents completed this survey, offering information about their organizations (size, budget, location) and how often they use certain performance interventions.  Their research found compelling cultural implications for the two cultures. For instance, respondents in South Asian countries indicated that they seldom used 360-degree feedback, largely due cultural attitudes toward superiors and a resistance to criticizing them. These interventions, the authors argue, must be analyzed closely before being used in any organization.
In many regards, the study’s diversity is impressive. Respondents came from a number of educational backgrounds, companies, and experience levels. The authors reached out to members of a number of formal and informal organizations, and the survey itself measured their use of dozens of HPT interventions. However, while intriguing, their findings are limited to American and South Asian cultures. This fulfills the purpose of their study and makes a number of interesting points, but expanding the use of their survey tool to other cultures could provide critical information on the implementation of these interventions on a larger scale.
Further interesting would be a discussion on the application of the authors’ findings to the field. Now that they have noted how differently these HPT interventions are used, how can this be employed in practice? This would be especially applicable to the growing number of companies who have offices in multiple locations. Also to be considered is that such cultural differences aren’t limited to location; that is, within individual states, cities, and companies, human performance professionals are consistently developing interventions that are used by individuals of diverse backgrounds. Vadivelu and Klein mention this in their study, though no further consideration of it is given.
          Overall, the authors’ findings have definite implications on how practitioners should look at the interventions they use and how they are employed in their organizations. From small companies to larger ones, Vadivelu and Klein’s work goes a long way in demonstrating that if we are to select interventions that will appropriately enhance performance, we must consider the diverse cultures that will be affected by the interventions chosen. 

leave a comment
Sunday, July 14, 2013

Week 2 Extended Readings

Watson, B. (2013), The Expanding Role of Industrial Human Performance Technology in Corporate Sustainability. Perf. Improv., 52: 30–37. doi: 10.1002/pfi.21341

Watson’s article focuses on the increasing responsibility of human performance technology specialists in regards to company policies regarding sustainability and environmental responsibility. Watson argues, appropriately, for a systemic approach for aligning organizational goals with job tasks and suggests that human performance technology specialists play an integral part in this process. His argument places weight on the importance of human performance in regards to industrial organizations (i.e. aviation) due to the high liability of human error, arguing that the role of the human performance specialist must move beyond one focused on “soft skills” and toward one focused on intrusion in the industrial decision-making process.
What immediately struck me about Watson’s article was its focus on sustainability. While an integral part of many organizations, and one with increasing attention and importance, it seems that the crux of Watson’s argument – that the HPT professional should be involved in the industrial decision-making process – can be applied to much more than just sustainability issues. If Watson’s suggestions were in practice, and HPT specialists were a part of industrial decision-making, it would seem appropriate that the same ideas could be applied to other fields – that, aside from sustainability issues, HPT professionals would be able to be involved in the large-scale issues surrounding their organizations.
While I recognize the importance of the HPT professional being involved in the larger-scale decisions of an organization and think they can provide input in regards to the industrial aspects of it, it likewise concerns me that such a decision would spread HPT professionals too thin; that is, they would be required to do too much, which, unfortunately, could lead to performance concerns. Likewise, the “soft skills” Watson alludes to are very much a part of what HPT professionals are prone to analyze. It would seem to me that it is more appropriate for HPT professionals to continue working on what they historically have: human performance. While my experience it scant, it would seem more appropriate to leave the industrial decisions to those more qualified to do so.

Evans, M.A. (2004). The Challenges of Knowledge Management to Human Performance Technology. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 48(2), 48-52.

                In this article, Evans describes the user, task, and content analyses he has completed to develop a knowledge management system for the U.S. Navy. In his analysis, he discusses three key components – community of practice, activity theory, and institutional theory – to frame his suggestion that alternative means must be explored when a group is working together on knowledge-intensive practices. As a part of this discussion, he suggests that some aspects of human performance technology are rooted cognitive information processing, which looks at knowledge as an item being transferred from one entity to the next. As a part of his knowledge management project, he argues that such frames of thought promote solutions that lead to isolation -- web-based training, job aids, etc. – all of which fail in environments requiring intense collaboration.
                One of the most intriguing aspects of Evans’ discussion is that its applications aren’t just limited to knowledge management solutions such as his. In a workforce requiring an increasing amount of digital and face-to-face collaboration, the requirement for HPT solutions to have group-centered applications is increasingly relevant. Despite this, however, Evans’ argument fails to consider that some of the tools he mentioned being used in isolation (i.e. web-based training) in fact offer opportunities for non-traditional collaboration. While not immediately applicable to the knowledge management project, alternative schools of thought in regards to HPT may not be as necessary as he suggests.
                As a part of his discussion, Evans suggests knowledge management as a tool for giving novice practitioners access to SME knowledge. While such tools are initially addressing a performance gap, in the long run, this would seem to address performance gaps before they arise. The use of knowledge management as a performance tool in such a manner – being provided to learners immediately – gives them a body of knowledge off of which they can begin their work, reducing the likelihood of additional training or skill development being necessary. While not a perfect idea – and certainly not what Evans suggests – this could have significant implications on the overall performance of the learners in question.  

leave a comment
Sunday, July 7, 2013

Systems, Nontrivial Machines, Circular Causality, and Other Ghosts Haunting Performance Improvement Technology

Wittkuhn, K. D. (2004). Systems, nontrivial machines, circular causality, and other ghosts haunting performance improvement technology. Performance Improvement, 43(3), 33-37. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/237230813?accountid=13360

In this article, Wittkuhn argues against a number of human performance technology practices to better help his readers more accurately address and understand performance issues they come across. He concludes that systemic approaches, nontrivial machines, and performance gaps are inherently flawed due to elements such an unreliability and lack of knowledge or understanding. As a part of his argument, he doesn’t suggest that these practices be avoided; rather, that the considerations he makes be considered by professionals as they use such practices within their organizations.

Wittkuhn’s argument is convincing. In particular, his claim that human performance cannot be engineered is both appropriate and curious; on one hand, such engineering seems to be an inherent part of human performance technology. On the other hand, his discussion of the unreliability of human reactions – that we cannot predict with 100% accuracy how humans will respond to different elements of a system – is entirely correct. What he fails to mention, though, is the reliability with which we can predict a number of behaviors through thorough learner analysis. Simply put, Wittkuhn’s argument suggests that the engineering of human performance is more abysmal than it is. While performance systems cannot be 100% accurate, learner attitudes and reactions can be predicted with a degree of reliability.

He makes a similar argument in regards to defining problems and performance gaps. Essentially, Wittkuhn seems to suggest that problems cannot be defined with accuracy because of the individual’s existing presuppositions, which would distort his or her ability to see the solution. Despite this, he seems to have few thoughts on how human performance professionals can limit such presuppositions in the workplace.

Overall, Wittkuhn’s argument, while convincing, is remarkably pessimistic and lacking solutions to the problems he suggests. While many of the practices he discusses are inherently flawed, it would be interesting to read his thoughts on how human performance professionals may use their understanding of such flaws to better impact their own success in the field. 

1 comment

Linking Versus Searching: A Case Study of Performance Support Use

Nguyen, F., & Hanzel, M. (2007). LINKING VERSUS SEARCHING: A CASE STUDY OF PERFORMANCE SUPPORT USE. Performance Improvement, 46(10), 40-44. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/237240992?accountid=133604

In this study, Nguyen and Hanzel distinguish between external and extrinsic performance support systems by observing the implementation of each at an unnamed company over the course of four years. At the conclusion of their study, they note that performance support systems that link to relevant support content (extrinsic systems) are more likely to be used than those that require the learner to search for information on their own (external systems). This, they argue, is in agreement with existing literature on the subject, suggesting that extrinsic systems that are integrated into the employee’s existing workspace should be used over external systems whenever possible.

Nguyen and Hanzel’s work has significant implications on human performance technology professionals. Their study provides a highly-applicable, research-based examination of two differing systems of performance support, and their evidence for the use of extrinsic systems over external systems is overwhelming. Their study isn’t lacking in depth, as it covers an expansive length of time, though their argument would be further solidified by conducting similar research at another organization. Doing so would ensure that their conclusions are applicable in diverse workplace scenarios.

 Most concerning is the absence of internal performance support systems in their study. According to the article, the organization implementing the performance systems themselves chose not to apply internal options due to time and cost concerns; however, based off of Nguyen and Hanzel’s findings, it would be of interest to note how intrinsic systems, which are increasingly simpler than extrinsic and external options, would be received by employees of an organization. Providing such an analysis would give human performance professionals a more conclusive set of information off of which they could make better decisions for their organizations.  

leave a comment
Sunday, June 30, 2013

Human Performance

So, I’ve changed the direction of my blog for two main reasons. The first reason is that I’m no longer a teacher. The second -- and perhaps more pressing reason -- is that I have to write a blog for my current grad school course.

See, the transition from teaching to corporate training was something I had considered for a while, which, more than anything, piqued my interest in pursuing a graduate degree in learning design and technology from Purdue. This has led to me to take a course in human performance technology, which will, at least for the time being, be the new focus of this blog.

The problem with this is that I don’t necessarily know what human performance technology is. I do know (or, at least I’m fairly certain) that it isn’t training. The fact that it isn’t this, coupled with the inherent clue in its name, leads me to believe that it involves the use of non-training tools to increase workers’ (or learners’) abilities to perform a certain task. I try to think of it in the context of when I make cookies. I don’t need to be trained on how to make cookies because I don’t make cookies that often; however, I know that when I do want a cookie, it’s a cookie made by my brother – so, I had him write down the recipe so that I can make them when I want. I don’t necessarily have to know how to do it – I just need to know where to access the document that tells me how.

While not all-inclusive, I think this is perhaps a smidgen of an understanding of what human performance technology is – the dichotomy between training and non-training alternatives for improving performance in a variety of settings. If this is correct (and I hope it is), I feel that I’m well on my way to succeeding in my current course because I’m obsessed with performance improvement in my daily life. I create checklists to ensure that my bills are paid, to remember to pack everything I need to in a suitcase, etc. I visit websites that help me pair wines with meals, fix my car, and tend to my garden. Simply put, I keep resources available that help me do things I don’t know how to do – more importantly, things I don’t need to know how to do. I think this perspective will help me in my contributions to this course, as they have helped me look at a number of performance gaps in my own life and given me tools to address them.Looking at the weeks ahead, I hope to build on this basic understanding to better help people other than myself.

Looking above, I’ve done a good job of surrounding myself with resources to help with my own performance gaps. Because of this, I don’t really know how to go about analyzing performance gaps in other individuals or in organizations. More than anything, I’m looking forward to building on my understanding of instructional design and human performance to establish a means by which I can identify holes and explore them on a larger level to best discover potential solutions.

Having just started the course, I’m already excited to see how it will benefit me in my career. I’m currently in charge of staff training and development at my company – however, we’re very training-oriented, which oftentimes leads to training being labeled as the solution for just about everything. I’m hoping that by taking this course, I’ll be better equipped to suggest non-training alternatives to increase my company’s efficiency and decrease the amount we spend of staff training.

2 comments
Powered by Blogger.

Followers