Systems, Nontrivial Machines, Circular Causality, and Other Ghosts Haunting Performance Improvement Technology
by Unknown
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.
Sounds like this author's views are in conflict the Gilbert's perspective and approach of engineering human performance. Makes for fascinating views. Good choice!
ReplyDelete