It would be good to know.

Last night (August 30th, 2011) I finished reading “Human Incompetence” – the unfinished but published autobiography of Thomas F. Gilbert, which now sits on my non-virtual bookshelf next to his classic: Human Competence. And as we all know to do, as a best practice, I’ve been doing a little reflection from my perch on his shoulders – and the shoulders of others who are also perched on his shoulders.

Quite a convoluted image it should create – but reflective of that reality.

I myself stand, and my thoughts and models and methods stand, on many, many shoulders in fact.

Let me digress.

The Debate about the “H”

Human Performance Technology (HPT) – the means to Human Performance Improvement (HPI) – is the application of science, evidence-based stuff, to the situation at hand, to make improvements. Many decades ago it started – get the “H” – out as one colleague at NSPI now ISPI so famously put it (Danny Langdon).

When I revived a Geary Rummler thought in 2003, when I was the President-Elect of ISPI, from his 1983 article in PIJ, on defining HPT – not by paragraphs but by identifying it as a series of “HPT Technology Domains” – the multi-year Presidential Initiative on Clarifying HPT” wound down with a debate about the name of all of that stuff – and another colleague (Don Tosti) convincingly made the case that as all performance is a “human endeavor” – plus it’s in all of ISPI’s stuff/ a “branding” issue if you will – that debate went temporarily on the back burner.

It has come up again several times to my knowledge – and there is recent talk of “fading” the H over time – into the past.

Whatever. A Rose is a Rose is a Rose – right? Maybe not. In my own version – for the practical consideration of my consulting practice – I left the “H” out – and replaced it with an “E” for Enterprise.  Many others drop the H and just go with that. But an online search will bring up many things “not” HPT w/o the “H” – improvement of car performance, sexual performance, etc. Not my targets as a consultant.

The Inclusion of Enterprise into Performance Improvement 

I used the “E” – for “Enterprise” – as a way to differentiate the models and methods I used from others – as mine were targeted at organizational performance – which itself is inclusive of Process performance and Human performance. The models could be used for home-life as well, but might need additional translation and re-framing in order to communicate. So for any Enterprise – for profit/ not-for profit/ governmental agency – here is my take, my stew of many things from many others – in how to approach, step-by step, a performance Issue  - a problem and/or opportunity – flips sides of the same coin. I like step-by-step – not as the last word on how to adopt something to do (rote) – but as a starting point for adapting – to be more situationally appropriate. I always dislike models, simple or complex that didn’t somehow lead to a model for a “process” on when and how to use the thing.

The Inclusion of Process into Performance Improvement

I also included the word Process in my methods and models for going beyond Instruction for dealing with the Knowledge/Skills required for Performance – and as a life-long Process-oriented kind of guy (remember my desire for a process to adopt or adapt) – for all human behavior for the sake of accomplishments sits inside some process – known or not – documented/mapped or not – formal or not. It was my early exposure to the TQM world – Total Quality Management – of the late 1970s and early 1980s – Deming, Juran, Crosby and many others – that helped me appreciate that Process was important.

But it was really the late Geary A. Rummler, who gave me the best insights about the need to focus on Process. His “put a good performer in a bad system, and the system wins every time” could have  replace the word “system” with “process” – but as I saw system as a bundle of processes (my own definition of system) I had no problem with the word choice or the imagery and meaning – for my purposes.

What I Found Lacking Is That Process Focus

I still find it lacking – an “overt” Process perspective – in many other approaches to Performance Improvement (PI). There are models for looking at/investigating a situation – but unless the person comes with a TQM kind of background – the focus (of their models and methods) is often at the Human element/role in Performance. I prefer to frame Human Performance within the Context of a Process – or many Processes – and I frame Processes in the Context of a Enterprise. So my “BIG PICTURE” of EPPI looks like this:

In this model/method-set – one begins with looking at the Process within its Context – as one (or a set) of Processes within a home-room department – some frame within an Enterprise – which itself sits within a frame of a function, which sits inside an organization which could be (or not) a Division or Business Unit – depending on the scope and complexity of the Enterprise. No Process is an island. But that’s where one might start – with the Process – where the opportunity/problem seems to reside. It might indeed be “rooted” elsewhere – but you’ve got to start somewhere.

Process First

I believe that before we spend too much time focused on human knowledge and skills and any Training/Learning (or Knowledge Management Systems) needs – content needs – we need to look first at the Context of that Process/those Processes. That’s why it sit on top in my model – for, to paraphrase Rummler: if the process is broken – then you need to fix that before fixing the people (with training or job aids, etc.). Same thing that Deming suggested.

Enablers Second

I look at enablers as two distinct sets: human and “non-human” – meaning: everything else that the human doesn’t bring to the Process party. Let’s call that Environmental Assets. And then – again like the Russian Dolls – they are the downstream recipients of outputs from upstream organizations that provision what is needed – or not. Those get the same treatment – in my EPPI models.

And as my consulting practice engagements might more often than not start with Training as it’s terminal goal – I needed to start my next steps of analysis – after defining the Process Performance – with the Human K/Ss (Knowledge/Skill) requirements and deficits – and then move into the non-human enablers – called Environmental. If I left the K/S till last my clients might freak. That’s not what they hired me to do – so knowing I’d get to the Environment Enablers (via a Gap Analysis to start with – and another engagement or a scope expansion) I dutifully define the Process via Performance Models and then systematically derived the enabling K/Ss (and left the other Human enablers to a future effort as needed/demanded by the clients).

I used K/S Matrices – an expansion of Gilbert’s Knowledge Maps – to capture the data – and I gathered the data not with Interviews of one SME/Exemplar at a time – but with a Group Process – where I could always engineer a dialogue and debate among the Master Performers assembled for this task - that enriched the  data and didn’t suffer as much from the limitations of the SME’s unconscious knowledge.

Anyway I/we used a Group Process for the Analysis phase, the Design phase, but then when we got to the Development phase – with great confidence that we were on the right track but not necessarily with the right details – we’d observe the performance – ask the SME/Master Performer to “do it” (if feasible) and/or walk and talk us through some output generation that we couldn’t observe in real-time without analysis paralysis – imagine watching a 3-5 year new car development effort when the training and/or improvements are need today. But change the language any way you need to. Adapt what you can not or should not adopt.

I gave up on using my rigid terms to using client preferences long ago – not that that doesn’t have it’s ultimate downside – it just makes the upside easier – to embrace The Language of the Customer to start with. I find that eventually they’ll embrace mine – but only after I’ve first accepted theirs. Whatever. Whatever works, I mean.

Back to Gilbert

I know I owe much to Tom Gilbert – and am thankful to have met him at NSPI/ISPI Conferences. I also know that I owe a lot to Rummler, Mager, Harless and others from NSPI/ISPI. Many, many others in fact. But I am also cognizant that I owe much to folks from the TQM movement and folks instrumental to the formation and continuance of ASQ – the American Society for Quality.

It Takes More Than One Village

When we stand on the shoulders of giants – as I feel lucky to be able to do – it’s good to reflect on who they are – and whose shoulders that we stood/stand upon. It’s quite a complex pyramid of people and thoughts and practices. It’s good if we can cooperate rather than compete – a message from Deming. It’s very important to know a little bit about the history of it all. It’s also important to not embarrass oneself with proclamations of thoughts and ideas – as if brand new – or wrongly attributed – for the sake of one’s own credibility. And – just to be thankful.

My EPPI Models and Methods are covered in this new book (2011): From Training To Performance Improvement Consulting – where I attempted to provide attributions to the key people whose shoulder I stand today upon.

Thank you Tom Gilbert. And thank you to all who influenced him! And then it somehow got to me.

I suggest that you consider reading Tom’s autobiography – order it here.

# # #

Note to Self Re: Innovation. Necessity is the mother of invention. And innovation.

Not the availability or capacity to Innovate. Some innovation is/was unnecessary - and may produce a negative ROI.

Back in the day – 1984 – the editors of Training Magazine added this cartoon image (below) to the first article I had published “nationally” – one co-authored with my business colleagues & partners at R. A. Svenson (later Svenson & Wallace Inc.) on the “group process” for putting together a performance-based Curriculum Architecture Design.

Innovation for the sake of Innovation – was not always a good thing – at least that’s how I read their intent in their choice of imagery and words. That image was not something we supplied them with when we submitted the article for consideration. You can read the 6 page PDF of the 1984 published article here – or the 30 page version submitted here.

They even retitled the article to go with that issue’s theme – see the cover of that issue next…

You see – the bad reputation of Training goes way back – and I mean way back.

I’ve got stuff from Geary Rummler (a forward to a book he’d written from back in 1969  where he laments the deservedly poor rap that Training was getting).

Here is part of that old PDF of an old article.

My take on that (above) was that there wasn’t as much of a need for Innovation – as there was for getting back to researched-based practices – what is in today’s parlance: evidence-based.

And I think that’s still true today.

My favorite phrase (OK, one of them/one of many) is:

Focus on Performance – and Enable that.

That’s why Mike Kunkle’s post – here – from back this past February – resonates with me. Part of it reads:

Look, I support the concept of “social learning” as it’s being talked about today. But for the record, social learning isn’t new, just the tools we’re using today that are new. Informal learning has been happening since we emerged from the primordial ooze. I guarantee it was around before Mager or Gilbert.  But okay, I agree with the idea of creating platforms to harness, direct, or at the very least “encourage” it. Smart move. Encourage the sharing of information, learning, and especially finding the answers you need when you need them. Not much different than the concept of job aids, EPSS or other performance support aids. Just an evolution aided by more technology and the changes in interaction brought about by the social media movement. (Is that the big deal here? Maybe I am so ingrained in social media myself that I’m not seeing this as something magical?)  I’m still at a loss about how it’s going to improve organizational performance, though. What am I missing?

And Jane Bozarth’s comment on his post also greatly resonates:

What you are missing is that an entire army of vendors, bless their hearts, had not until recently realized they could sell “social learning” and “informal learning” as if the ideas were brand new and could be plugged in, managed, measured and controlled. And bought.

What’s New Ain’t Really New 

Suggestions that equate to “throwing out the baby with the bath water” and embracing new-fangled stuff – Informal Learning, Social Media, etc. – for the sake of abandoning the old practices for the sake of embracing the new – don’t make sense to me. None.

Abandoning bad/poor practices for proven ones that already exist – that have stood the test of time and have been research-validated – is what is really called for.

Just because something is old doesn’t mean it’s no good. Just because something is new and innovative – doesn’t make it valid or useful.

Let’s use the new things now and in the future as they become available to us – if and when they make sense.

Many of them – the new affordances of new technology – do make sense in some contexts. But not in all contexts.

They should just not be universally applied – just because they are new, hip, cool, shiny.

Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware.

Another old proven “thing” from back in the day worth keeping.

Worth keeping in mind when the sales pitches for the shiny new things are just starting to get deep.

# # #

Sales and Sales Management are almost always seen as some of the most critical jobs Performing in the critical Processes of any Enterprise – and therefore worthy of the time and attention and bucks it might take to get their Learning right by getting the Training and Performance Support right. So many of the CADs – Curriculum Architecture Design efforts I’ve done over the years were focused on those Target Audiences.

Here is a listing of those that I directly did – many others were done by my business partners and my staff and the staffs of clients where I was brought in to train and sometimes certify their capabilities and competence in the Analysis efforts, and CAD Design efforts, and the Project Planning and Management efforts for this level in ISD.

CAD is one of three levels of ISD in PACT…

PACT is an acronym…

PACT is done for the sake of the Business, for the sake of the Enterprise – NOT for the sake of Learning. It’s done for ROI.

Imagine that the daily sales goal for 3500 sales people is $750.00 per day.

Imagine that over 50% are actually operating “way below” that – and that the average is closer to about $450.00 per day. Imagine also that some – more than a few – are selling at around $2200.00 per day. Every day.

What’s the PIP – Performance Improvement Potential – in dollars (not intangibles)?

3500 x $450 = $ 1,575,000 is what is being generated. Per day.

What if you could get the majority to average at the difference between the current goal – and the top end, what the Master Performers are actually doing, say at: $ 1,450 per day?

3500 x $1450 = $ 5,075,000 – again “per day.” What would that be worth – that future state versus the current state?

$5,075,000 – $1,575,00 = $3,500,00 (per day) x 240 days per year = (wait – no – you do the math).

That’s what was being left on the performance table – so to speak. That’s the potential R for the I – as in ROI. And that’s business-speak – something that you should get yourself to be comfortable with if you aren’t already. And PLEASE – don’t even mention Level 1, or 2, or 3, or 4 evaluation data-sets – unless your version of Results (L4) “is” ROI or ROA or RONA – or whatever other appropriate business metric resonates with your specific client.

Once we did that math with the Project Steering Team present – no one, I mean no one – wanted to get into challenging me about the I in the ROI that I had ball-parked for them. They just wanted to know how soon could we have the post-efforts done – the MCD in PACT – and have the new content in place and working in training their constant flow of new hires – as they had terrible turnover rates – which would drop once their people got the training they needed to be successful – another benefit.

Plus with some of the content being “appropriately being shared” those maintenance costs would also be dropping – over the life cycle of these 7 sets of curricula.

Below – one of 7 T&D Paths for the Call Center Sales Associates from that one project – there were 7 Sales Regions which previously had 7 totally different sets of curricula – with zero shared content, structure, philosophies, etc.

By the end of the project the amount of content for each of the new 7-sets – had been almost halved – and the focus of the content was not on isolated facts about sales, and products, and regulations, and the systems one had to use to do the job – what you’d get from a whole bunch of bite-sized sets of content (easily distributed on mobile devices or desktops – a collection of modules – but not a modular curriculum) but content that was integrated into and on Sales and the Sales Process. Where “skills building” was happening with each new topic or task added in to the Learners’ repertoire each day.

Here is the case study from the effort.

This below – is the Sales Model I created with the team of Master Performers assigned to both the Analysis Team and the Design Team of the CAD effort – a model which was to be “one” of the anchors for the organization of all of the content. Note: many times their are two models that organize the content.

Those Master Performers were then assigned to the MCD efforts (the ADDIE-like level of PACT) and help integrate the next sets of teams (Analysis, Design and Development teams) to build and alpha-test, beta-test and then Pilot-Test the content.

We took the effort through MCD Phase 3 – which was combined with Phase 2 – for this effort – where we handed it off to our client and their people to build out the content – Phase 4. And then we got busy with other projects and other clients.

And – as I’ve discovered over and over again since the early 1980s – most clients do not want to share the actual changes from the baseline data that I had been made privy to when we started. So I only ask once – and then drop it.   We were asked to do more work for this client not long afterwards - which is feedback in itself.

Here is another model – adapted from another Sales CAD project I did from back in the mid-1980s…

Our clients aren’t always concerned about how much of the content can be shared within the Enterprise with other audiences (and that’s a dang shame) – but I am always concerned with that – and a promoter of that.

For I like to think of myself as a good steward of shareholder equity – for each of my clients and their shareholders.

I don’t believe in training for the sake of training, or for the sake of learning. I see it for the sake of the Stakeholders – and mostly for the Shareholders – who like to invest a buck for much more than a buck in return.

# # #

DIY = Do It Yourself – and DIT = Do It Together

This is the model my new book on Developing Your Management Areas of Performance Competence uses to frame your “Performance Competence” self-diagnoses and “Performance Competence” development planning efforts. Scan the graphic (click on it to make it bigger) and quickly assess “if these AoPs – Areas of Performance” in the boxes of the 3 tiers of the model – have anything at all to do with your current role as a manager – or your future role as a manager.

This model is an adaptation from one my consulting business partners developed in the mid-1990s after reviewing over 20 different sets of analysis data we had in our possession from Instructional Analysis efforts we had collectively conducted for building Curriculum Architectures – that produced what today are known as Learning Paths – for our F500 clients.

I’ve done many of these efforts myself.

25 in fact, since 1984 – but my efforts doing performance-based Curriculum Architecture Design projects go back to 1982.

My staff also did many more. And my clients’ staff that I trained also did numerous efforts for their management populations.

Here is an example of a performance-based T&D Path for Manager:

Each “box” on the Path represents a modular T&D Event – that is linked back to both the performance captured/articulated from the analysis efforts – and the systematically derived enabling knowledge/skills from the analysis efforts – all analysis typically completed in a 2-3-4 day team meeting with top performers, Master Performers – to build an authentic consensus model of Performance Competence – for managers or any Target Audience.

Performance Competence is defined/informed by the Stakeholders’ Requirements.

The key is that these Manager – and all – development efforts – didn’t just address the typical topics found in almost all leadership/management development efforts – it’s that it tied them all back to actual on-the-job performance in the first place – and in the last place.

Initially one could readily see how “any topic or task training” related back to the job – using this model.

And the terminal objectives all related back to on-the-job performance.

Level 2 evaluations could be about authentic performance capability rather than just knowledge demonstration. And Level 3 evaluations were also already clear about what performance transferred back to the job would/should look like – before any development was started.

My book – below – is intended to enable managers or future managers to self-assess and plan for their own development. It also provides a fairly inexpensive way for an organization to get everyone on the same page with linking their current development resources back to one model of managerial performance – for sharing. Making everything more effective and efficient. Hallmarks of good stewardship of shareholder equity.

For information about this new book (2011) – and if you are on the supplier-side of the development equation – my 5 other related books – please go here.

Or if you’d like to know about my Staff Development Workshops (formal), Coaching Sessions (less-formal), or general consulting services to conduct these types of efforts – please go here.

# # #

Too often the focus seems to be on Learning.

And Learning for the Sake of Learning.

I disagree. Learning is a means to an end – not an end unto itself. Not in an Enterprise Learning Context.

Oh sure – some – a very few – are self-actualizing. But not many if any Enterprises are. If you are simply “all for Learning” – then you have no way to measure the effectiveness or the efficiency of all that Learning. Which means you should just do more, I guess, but I don’t agree.

Nose to the learning grindstone – it’s all good – and we’ll know it when we get there? You’ll never get to the end of learning when learning is the goal – so that you can at some time focus on the work.

Informal Learning? We’ll let’s try to manage that. Not that we can stop it from happening. And if we try to make it happen – aren’t we beginning to formalize that?

If it’s all about Social Media – what are we expecting people to do with that? Socialize? To what ends? To performing? Then give the people the data and the tools and then get out of the way.

Let them pick their own tools – if they are far enough along the learning curve to make wise choices. But if they are noobs – newbies - new folks who don’t know what they don’t know (yet) – then don’t ask them. Because they just might give you an answer - and how would they know!?!

But don’t ask the first grader what they want to learn – ’cause they’ll want more recess. Learning is play and play is learning – is true. But will that help them with their GEDs or their GMATs someday?  Don’t ask the new hire what they want to learn – it should be obvious that they (should) want to learn the job (unless you’ve hired/selected poorly). Then fix that – and then teach them the job to get them started up that learning curve. After they have climbed that curve to some point (it varies for varied jobs) let them learn on their own and share what they learned with others.

But be careful – the best performer does not make the best coach/ mentor/ instructor.

Good stewards have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders in any Enterprise – be that a for-profit, or a non-profit, or a government agency. Invest the money and invest the time (time is money as it’s been said) for a return. Not for frittering.

Most of the time – in response to management’s requests for help in solving a performance problem – Learning – improving the awareness/ knowledge/ skills of Performers – isn’t the BIG LEVER for improving performance.

It is for most new hire situations – or where there never was much Formal Learning/Training – and people, the incumbents, learned things not true. Myths. Falsehoods.

Most of the time the answer to existing problems is much simpler and much less expensive than a Training/Learning solution. It is:

Greatest effects on human performance (is) just by measuring performance correctly & making the information available.

- Thomas F. Gilbert

Not always. But probably often enough that maybe you should just start there. And see what happens. See if “that” is enough.

Be a good steward of shareholder equity.

Focus on Performance – and Measure that. Then think about and test what interventions improve that.

If someone Learns – and Performance does not improve – what has been accomplished other than the wasting of shareholder equity?

# # #

My Instructional Design Services at EPPIC Inc.

All about Curriculum Architecture Design and Modular Curriculum Development – kinda like architecting a house – and then building it.

The Benefits of CAD and MCD:

My Books about these 2 ISD methods and related methods and models:

For information about these new books (2011) – please go here.

Or if you’d like to know about my Staff Development Workshops (formal), Coaching Sessions (less-formal), or general consulting services to conduct these types of efforts – please go here.

# # #

In 1987 my firm, R. A. Svenson & Associates was hired by NASA to conduct a CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design effort. Two of my colleagues conducted the Analysis efforts and I was brought in – as was our firm’s practice – to lead the Design phase efforts, and facilitate the Design Team “to process” the analysis data into the design of the T&D Path (Learning Path) for managers.

Here is the first section from the 2 volume Design Document…

Why was NASA doing this effort? The short answer: From Wikipedia…

The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred on January 28, 1986, when Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, leading to the deaths of its seven crew members. The spacecraft disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of central Florida at 11:38 am EST (16:38 UTC). Disintegration of the entire vehicle began after an O-ring seal in its right solid rocket booster (SRB) failed at liftoff. The O-ring failure caused a breach in the SRB joint it sealed, allowing pressurized hot gas from within the solid rocket motor to reach the outside and impinge upon the adjacent SRB attachment hardware andexternal fuel tank. This led to the separation of the right-hand SRB’s aft attachment and the structural failure of the external tank. Aerodynamic forces promptly broke up the orbiter.

The crew compartment and many other vehicle fragments were eventually recovered from the ocean floor after a lengthy search and recovery operation. Although the exact timing of the death of the crew is unknown, several crew members are known to have survived the initial breakup of the spacecraft. However, the shuttle had no escape system and the astronauts did not survive the impact of the crew compartment with the ocean surface.

The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in the shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed by United States President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The Rogers Commission found NASA’s organizational culture and decision-making processes had been a key contributing factor to the accident.

That was the initial impetus - training to fix managers – as the finding were known long before that report came out. Doing this project was initially resisted by most of the NASA management that was “tagged” with making this happen with our firm. But as we discussed the overall effort, process and outputs, in the upfront planning phase with our clients – it became apparent to them and to our sponsors that this was going to address a real need – and a big deal worry.

From the Curriculum Architecture Design Report…

The following trends/issues identified by Langley Engineering and Research management are viewed as having implications for the design and implementation of the
curriculums and their courses.

Engineering Trends/Issues
• Within 7-8 years, many of the existing Engineering managers could retire.
• There is an age and experience gap -- many employees have 20+ years, few with 10-20 years.
• Trend is toward fewer people; we need to learn to manage with less and increase productivity.
• We are facing a more restricted, more rule-oriented, tighter environment -- management decisions

are being made one level higher than before.
• Fame comes in the technical area, not management.
• The values of the younger people are changing. They have more self-awareness and tend to do what

they want rather than what NASA wants.

Research Trends/Issues
• We are moving to a more participatory management style.
• Current emphasis is on
- Safety
- Productivity
- Quality

Also from the Curriculum Architecture Design Report…

Curriculum Architecture

A curriculum architecture is a logical sequence of training courses or modules developed to

support the job requirements of the target audience.

The curriculum provides a visible link between training requirements and job requirements

and can be used to:
• Establish training development planning data
• Provide priority-driven, phased training development and implementation
• Quickly restructure training when jobs/functions change.

In addition, each module in the curriculum is described in a one page specification to include:
• Learning Objectives
• Typical Training and Prerequisite Requirements
• Delivery Method
• Duration
• Content

The project was a big success. We did several more CAD efforts for NASA after this first. And then we got busy and distracted by our other clients. We never chased government business as the contracting process was often too much of a hassle and added to our upfront costs – and were always “iffy” in terms of – would we actually get the project after jumping through so many hoops?

But it was a very satisfying effort – doing something for NASA – even if it was the only project were the Project Steering Team and the Analysis Team and the Design Team shed many tears of sadness – as they all knew the people who had perished in the Challenger accident – throughout out all of our facilitated meetings during the course of the CAD project. So there was a great sadness over the course of entire effort.

I’ve been thinking about NASA a lot lately. And wondering if the current track – downsizing and outsourcing to the private sector – is a good one, or not.

# # #

My 2010 SlideShare Slideshow on CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design:

And there is my new (2011) book on CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design:

For information about this book – or my other 5 new books – please go here.

# # #

Upstream. Look upstream.

Look to the Enterprise Systems that provide the assets, the people and non-people assets, that are at the root of the gap – that are deficient in the targeted Process or Processes that have the key issue – the problem or opportunity – or problems or opportunities – to be addressed.

There are many intertwined systems in a modern Enterprise that affect the processes capabilities and capacities – their ability to Perform effectively and efficiently. Understanding what those systems are and where they are in any specific Enterprise is required for any Performance Technologist.

The HAMS

Organization & Job (Re-)Design Systems

These provide a set of job designs and an organization design conducive to the needs of the process, it’s volume, and configured for the likely abilities and capabilities of the human performers who will be selected into those jobs in the locations where the performers will perform.

The job designs then roll up into the organization design. It is a “bottoms-up” approach driven by the visible top down “end goals” of the process performance.

Staffing & Succession Systems

These provide the strategies, plans and mechanisms for staffing plan development and succession the strategies, plans and mechanisms necessary to populate the organization’s jobs with people in an efficient manner, providing career and growth opportunities where possible/feasible.

Staffing & Succession Planning Systems takes the job designs, their process performance requirements, and the enabler requirements, and determines who to recruit, how many, from where, and how.

Recruiting & Selection Systems

These provide the strategies, plans and mechanisms for first recruiting and then selecting the best candidates in the right quantities, consistent with the Staffing & Succession plans, and populating the organization’s jobs.

This system must bring humans into the enterprise that have as much of the human attributes needed as possible.

Training & Development Systems

These provide the strategies, plans and mechanisms to train and develop the new hires and incumbents consistent with their performance requirements in the organization’s jobs, as they have been designed.

This system takes the individual and back-fills them with the missing key knowledge and skills not acquired during the recruiting and selection processes.

Performance Appraisal & Management Systems

These provide the strategies, plans and mechanisms for appraising the job task performance and managing all issues (problems/opportunities) as appropriate, and consistent with laws/regulations/codes and enterprise policies/procedures.

Where performance is falling short of the requirements, performance management, including “development planning (back to the T&D System) as well as last resort efforts such as “progressive discipline” and possible “termination” may be required to resolve the issue and meet the process needs.

Compensation & Benefits Systems

These provide the strategies, plans and mechanisms to ensure that the total pay and benefits attract and retain competent staff, appropriate for the various labor markets for the various locations of enterprise operations, and are consistent with laws/regulations/codes, any labor contracts (if applicable), and enterprise policies/procedures.

Pay for performance, or knowledge, or skills, is fairly easy to structure, build and maintain when you understand clearly the process performance requirements and the human enablers. And it is ultimately more equitable.

Reward & Recognition Systems

These provide the strategies, plans and mechanisms for providing non-monetary and small-monetary rewards and recognition to appeal to the ego needs of staff, and are consistent with laws/regulations/codes, any labor contracts (if applicable), and enterprise policies/procedures.

Recognizing a job well done requires understanding what a well done job looks like.

The EAMS

Data/Information Systems

This EAM system responds to the needs of the process, reflected in the EPPI analysis data, by providing non-human “data/information” assets of the following type/nature:

• Strategic Plans
• Operational Plans
• Policies
• Procedures
• Work orders/instructions
• Safety Guidelines
• Legal Guidelines
• Customer Satisfaction data results and interpretation
• Employee Satisfaction Survey results and interpretation
• Raw and processed data specific to the targeted process’ outputs and tasks
• Etc.

Determining the specifics of your enabling “Data/Information” requirements for a process or a set of processes can be complex. The first thing is to determine what the process needs, who should provision it, and how the provisioning system should be measured given its importance/criticality to enterprise results.

Materials/Supplies Systems

This EAM system responds to the needs of the process, reflected in the EPPI analysis data, by providing non-human “materials/supplies” assets of the following type/nature:

• Brochures/Sales Literature
• Paper
• Printer cartridges
• Pens, Pencils
• Other process consumables (sub-assemblies, chemicals, nuts and bolts, etc.)
• Forms
• Templates
• Etc.

Materials and supplies are typically much easier to determine than data/information, even in complex processes. As is determining who should provision them, and how the provisioning should be measured given its importance/criticality to the enterprise.

Tools/Equipment Systems

This EAM system responds to the needs of the process, reflected in the EPPI analysis data, by providing non-human “tools/equipment” assets of the following type/nature:

• Cars/trucks/vehicles
• Trailers
• Overhead cranes
• Heavy machinery
• Fork lifts
• Computers
• Printers
• Copy machines
• Phones
• Fax
• Video Players
• Cameras
• Etc.

Tools and equipment are typically easier to determine than data/information. As is determining who should provision them, and how that provisioning should be measured given its importance/criticality to the enterprise.

Budget/Headcount Systems

This EAM system responds to the financial and staffing needs of the process, reflected in the EPPI analysis data, by providing non-human “budget/headcount” assets of the following type/nature:

• Capital budgets
• Reserve budgets
• Operational budgets
• Headcount/Staff budgets
• Outsourcing budget
• Etc.

The budget and headcount requirements of a process or set of processes are typically easier to determine than the data/information requirements. As is determining who should provision them, and how that provisioning should be measured given its importance/criticality to the enterprise.

Facilities/Grounds Systems

This EAM system responds to needs of the process, reflected in the EPPI analysis data, by providing non-human “facilities/ground” assets of the following type/nature:

• Office Buildings
• Parking Lot
• Office spaces
• Conference rooms
• Storage rooms
• Restrooms
• Water Lines
• Gas Lines
• Phone System
• Lighting
• Receiving Dock ramps
• Etc.

These are typically fairly easy to determine based on adequate details about the process itself, and other insights such as its projected work volume and variability. And not all

Culture/Consequences Systems

This EAM system responds to needs of the process, reflected in the EPPI analysis data, by providing non-human “culture” and “consequences” assets of the following type/nature:

• Open or Closed Door Culture
• Customer and Supplier or Self Orientation
• People First or Business First
• Punishing good performance with more work or providing real incemtives
• Rewarding everyone equally or differentiating based on an equitable approach
• Team and/or individual incentives and combinations as needed
• Etc.

For the individual performer, or team, or department, function, business unit, enterprise and industry, “culture” is established by the consequences applied by and from “above.”

Your overall “Big Picture” of how this all fits together needs to be all inclusive – here is mine:

Mine is not an extension of Gilbert’s BEM (Behavior Engineering Model) as much as it is an extension of the Ishikawa Diagram…

Conducting the analysis of Process Performance Requirements – a.k.a: the Performance Competence Requirements is covered in my new book: Analysis of Performance Competence Requirements…

…and using that analysis methodology-set for Instructional efforts and then extending that into Performance Improvement is the topic of another new book: From Training to Performance Improvement Consulting…

For information about these two books – and my four other new books – please go here.

Or for my workshops – please go here.

# # #

HR – Human Resources – has a blended role in the Enterprise – that many seem to rail against. But then, it’s not their money in the form of shareholder equity that’s at stake. Perhaps if it was they’d think differently about it.

There are many “Stakeholders” for any one Enterprise. The following is one model – shared for illustrative purposes.

And when you look at your situation, the context for your Enterprise – you might be able to adapt this model to your situation – and then use it to look further at all of the specific Stakeholders that each of your Stakeholders’ have. It’s often a very complicated situation. Such is life.

When HR – or whatever your Enterprise calls the function – which is known by many names and is configured in many ways – does its thing – or things – it serves the Shareholders and does so within the guidelines and constraints of the law – and they do so in a competitive environment – unless the humans do not have options on where they can work. Which is the case for a variety of reasons. Another blend.

And HR doing its things is in service to the rest of the Enterprise and the rest of the Enterprise systems in place to serve the Processes that serve the Customers and their Stakeholder-sets that serve their Customers and their Stakeholder-sets. Oh what a tangled web we weave – when we set up an Enterprise and its internal functions.

Here is my model for untangling a real situation – with a fairly simple model to help me figure out that age old question: whose on first?

The first 7 blue boxes in the “stack” are what I consider HR-type functions that may or may not look like the names of the departments/functions in your Enterprise.

Some are focused on PROTECTING and constraining the Enterprise – keeping them within the boundaries of law and cultural norms. Others are focused on IMPROVING the Enterprise via the Human Capital, the Human assets, the Human Resources, or whatever you call the people in the processes in the Enterprise. Note: there is no one right answer – only many personal preferences expressed by those who feel a need to speak up about their preferences on “labels” for such things.

The old saying – at least old for me – is: Protect and Improve the Enterprise.

First Protect. Then Improve. Not the other way around.

HR is is almost always in the “Can only lose for winning” box. Maintaining a balance means that the opposite “side/need” somehow cannot go full tilt.  I think many leaders “get this.” I am afraid that many others, most in fact, do not.

I’m guessing that those who do not get it – who do not see the need for this wise-balancing act – would only think differently about it if THEY owned the Enterprise in its entirety – and suffered the financial and a little jail-time consequences – for HR being out of balance.

Feels like a Simulation Exercise design concept. Gamification anyone?

For real money and free (as opposed to jail) time? Those are the real stakes of some Stakeholders.

Otherwise it’s only a game concept.

# # #