2011 – 40 Minute Video
Shot at the ISPI Conference
# # #
2011 – 40 Minute Video
Shot at the ISPI Conference
# # #
Today is the anniversary of the birth of the late Geary A. Rummler, PhD.
I would normally get my annual booster shot at the ISPI Conferences (and NSPI before that) – every April. But since Geary passed away in October of 2008 – that last time I saw and spoke with him was at the ISPI Conference in 2008 – video below.
Here are 4 videos for your Booster Shots…
This 1986 Video is on Performance Engineering…
Another video from 1986 on Needs Analysis…
I hope you get something of value from these Booster Shots!
# # #
Part 6 in this monthly series will focus on the enabling Human Asset Attribute of:
Personal Values - are very personal, and are tough to generalize. Inappropriate to over-generalize. They can include “items” such as a “like” or “dislike” of any of the other human assets.
I could like or dislike – based on my Personal Values – any of your Personal Values, or your Physical Attributes, your Psychological Attributes, etc.
I can like or dislike - based on my Personal Values – any of the Enterprise’s Mission, Vision, Value Stream, Organization structure, People in key positions, management, computer systems and software, buildings and campuses, products/services, culture, etc., etc., and etc.
Personal Values - are but one of the many variables – boxes – in my EPPI model for Performance Improvement.
According to Morris Massey, values form during three significant periods:
Personal values provide an internal reference for what is good, beneficial, important, useful, beautiful, desirable, constructive, etc.
Values generate behaviour and help solve common human problems for survival by comparative rankings of value, the results of which provide answers to questions of why people do what they do and in what order they choose to do them.
Over time the public expression of personal values that groups of people find important in their day-to-day lives, lay the foundations of law, custom and tradition. Recent research has thereby stressed the implicit nature of value communication.
Personal values exist in relation to cultural values, either in agreement with or divergence from prevailing norms. A culture is a social system that shares a set of common values, in which such values permit social expectations and collective understandings of the good, beautiful, constructive, etc. Without normative personal values, there would be no cultural reference against which to measure the virtue of individual values and so culture identity would disintegrate.
Wyatt Woodsmall points out that “‘Criteria’ are used to refer to ‘the standards on which an evaluation is based’.” Values relate then to what one wants and in what order one wants them; criteria can only refer to the evidences for achieving values and act as a comparative standard that one applies in order to evaluate whether goals have been met / values satisfied.
Note: this next section – still from Wikipedia – shifts from Personal Values to Cultural Values – which in the EPPI model is included in the Culture & Consequences segment (box) in the Environmental Asset Enablers. As one of the key influencers/pressure points that either reinforce or attempt to extinguish Personal Values (rightly or wrongly) we’ll continue with this deliberate or inadvertent shaper of Personal Values and Behaviors.
Individual cultures emphasize values which their members broadly share. One can often identify the values of a society by noting which people receive honor or respect. In the United States of America, for example, professional athletes at the top levels in some sports receive more honor (measured in terms of monetary payment) than university professors. Surveys show that voters in the United States would be reluctant to elect an atheist as president, suggesting that a belief in a God is a generally shared value. There is a difference between values clarification and cognitive moral education. Value clarification consists of “helping people clarify what their lives are for and what is worth working for. It encourages students to define their own values and to understand others’ values.” Cognitive moral education builds on the belief that students should learn to value things like democracy and justice as their moral reasoning develops. Educationist Chaveen Dissanayake says personal and cultural values can vary according to the living standards of a person.
Values relate to the norms of a culture, but they are more global and abstract than norms. Norms provide rules for behavior in specific situations, while values identify what should be judged as good or evil. While norms are standards, patterns, rules and guides of expected behavior, values are abstract concepts of what is important and worthwhile. Flying the national flag on a holiday is a norm, but it reflects the value of patriotism. Wearing dark clothing and appearing solemn are normative behaviors to manifest respect at a funeral. Different cultures reflect values differently and to different levels of emphasis. “Over the last three decades, traditional-age college students have shown an increased interest in personal well-being and a decreased interest in the welfare of others.” Values seemed to have changed, affecting the beliefs, and attitudes of the students.
Members take part in a culture even if each member’s personal values do not entirely agree with some of the normative values sanctioned in the culture. This reflects an individual’s ability to synthesize and extract aspects valuable to them from the multiple subcultures they belong to.
If a group member expresses a value that seriously conflicts with the group’s norms, the group’s authority may carry out various ways of encouraging conformity or stigmatizing the non-conforming behavior of that member. For example, imprisonment can result from conflict with social norms that the state has established as law.
For more from Wikipedia on these two topics – please click – here. – to continue with Cultural Values.
Back to Personal Values.
Remember – Personal Values - is but one of many Enablers.
You don’t have to worry about all Values – only those that truly differentiate.
And which Enablers, that if lacking/that if inadequate, are the Inhibitors, and really inhibit Performance Competence?
At any level?
That’s what we can use to leverage Performance – for Measured Results – for Performance Improvement for ROI.
Here’s the 12 Boxes in the EPPI Model…the 12 Levers… the 12 Points of Foci in EPPI…
What are the key Personal Values that really enable Performance Competence?
And what is your definition of Performance Competence – and how do you measure that?
The bigger picture…
Besides “The Process” itself – there are the Enablers. But in my view – always start with the Process.
The enablers are either adequate or inadequate in the context of the needs/requirements of the Process. So start there. What is the Process and what are its Requirements – what enables it? And are those enablers adequate?
In Rocket Science it would be:
Start with the Process itself and it’s Gaps – and then, as needed, look to the Process Enablers – and any Gaps there.
The Enablers are again of two types:
The Human Assets are:
Awareness, knowledge, and skills - come in many types and varieties. Further complicating the performance context/ situation, one performer might need to be only aware of what other performers need to know much more about, while yet another group of performers may need to have an actual skill level.
Physical attributes - include “items” such as the five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell; as well as height, weight, strength, endurance, etc.
Psychological attributes - include “items” such as positive attitude, aggressiveness, risk taking, cautiousness, detail orientation, big picture orientation, etc. Many Models exist.
Intellectual attributes - can include “items” such as conceptual thinking, concrete thinking, strategic thinking, process thinking, etc.
Values - can include such “items” as customer satisfaction orientation, teamwork, diversity, fairness, honesty, work ethic, family, etc.
And the Environmental Assets include:
Data & Information - includes all of the work orders and instructions, the policies/procedures, and all data/information needed to enable job holders to perform.
Materials & Supplies - provide all of the materials and supplies needed to enable job performance.
Tools & Equipment - provide the tools, equipment, machinery, and vehicles needed to enable performers to perform at a level of mastery.
Facilities & Grounds - provide the buildings, grounds, facilities and utilities for communications/power/water/and so on, as needed to enable performance.
Financial Systems - provide the capital and expense budgets, and the headcount budgets to management, needed to enable and support job holders in performing.
Culture & Consequences - provide and reinforce the enterprise cultural norms, and all of the management reinforcements (and extinguishments) needed to encourage (or discourage) performance.
The Process View and the Enabler Views I propose here are intended to be used in a scalable manner, for looking at the
And the Enabler Provisioning Systems – don’t look like this as structured in the graphic below – but perhaps this frame might help you determine who the Provisioners of Enabling Assets may be at the root of any Gaps in the key Value Stream Processes or in the Enabling Processes – that from an ROI viewpoint – should be addressed.
Where does this – or these kind of things – happen in the Enterprise? Who “owns” the responsibility for this/these?
Is it centralized, or distributed, or some mix (appropriate or not)? Is it in “enough control” with tolerable variability – or does some or all of it need to be “tightened up?”
Next Month we segue from the Human Asset Enablers side of the equation, to the non-Human, or Environmental Asset Enabler of : Data & Information.
# # #
First – let me answer my own question with a question. Two questions.
Does most Formal Learning most always feel to the Learners as if it were really meant for someone else’s job?
Does it NOT resonate with them because it is too generic and not specific enough – in the application exercises, and the demonstrations and the information?
And a 3rd – most important question…
Does much of it still then transfer anyway and have a positive benefit – somehow making it a wise investment?
If no, it is then just an expense – and not necessarily a wise investment.
Unless you got lucky that time.
The REAL QUESTION here is: Does what you Learn Formally most often FAIL to transfer?
Is it because it feels as if it were somebody else’s job – because it isn’t authentic enough? You can be engaged and give it high marks on the Smiles Tests – what some call Level 1. You can Ace the Test at the end and prove your Knowledge – what some call Level 2. But none of it may feel adequately ready to Adopt as is, and you might not feel adequately prepared to Adapt it back at the ranch so to speak, back to your Performance Context.
Is perfect Authenticity required in Instruction to make the leap from Levels 1 and 2 to Levels 3 and 4?
No. It’s just got to be close enough. For it to have a prayer of transferring.
The R for the I is another issue for another day – here my focus is on the waste of L&D Resources due to the lack of authenticity of the learning content.
The awareness building, knowledge creating, and skills building content that I frame – level-set – in my designs as Instructional Activities of 3 types:
Example Lesson Map
But it’s what feeds the design that is critical in getting to enough Authenticity.
More on that later. Soon.
These are examples of some of the Sub-Types of Content in my own ISD models – that I feel need to be authentic enough – or they are a waste to develop/buy – and then even more is wasted, much more to deploy or enable access.
Can you imagine some of the authentic content for the items listed above – as amended by your own lists of such, of course…
That’s just one part of the job.
Can you imagine the items for the entire job?
That’s my motto.
Avoid NAI in Learning
That’s Non-Authentic Interactivity that NAI.
Success in Level 1 & 2 won’t guarantee any success at Levels 3 & 4/5. It’s got to be authentic – enough?
How to tell?
Pilot Test – Beta Test – Field Test … or whatever you want or need to call it… do that.
To insure that your expense is a wise investment however you measure your R for the I.
Which means measuring at transfer and over time.
Book info – here.
# # #
Video is 6:30 in length
# # #
Just so you know… I’m thinking of the tradition view of Instructional Evaluation – the 4 Levels – and the other slight variation – the 5 Levels – splitting hairs IMO – but my focus here is on what’s often labeled as Level 3: Transfer.
And I believe that you can adapt this for any Performance Improvement Intervention as well.
It’s the only way to Level 4/5: Results/ROI. And it does depend on Level 2: Mastery. It may or may not have anything to do with Level 1: Reaction.
So - let’s first begin with the end in mind – on our way to a focus on Transfer.
In 1979 I was taught that Level 4 – Results – was ROI.
What else could it be – when your Instructional paradigm is focused on Performance – as in Performance Improvement using what is called by some Human Performance Technology, or Human Performance Improvement or just Performance Improvement?
And then I learned of other Performance Improvement Inventions, such as Strategic Planning, Business Planning, Product Planning, OD, HR, Six Sigma, Lean, Theory of Constraints, and measurement of Results via Financial Metrics, Key Performance Indicators, and that any and all of that should lead to ROI downstream, because however you measure results – it should fit into an ROI framework – so that opportunities to invest – or spend – can be compared to some common yardstick. Like Common Core.
Not because it’s perfect. But because it levels the playing field for predicting expenses and returns.
Level 4 results are 1st owned by the people deciding the targets for investments to be made – based on ROI or pure hunches – and then 2ndly by whoever owns the Response to that targeting. Sometimes that is the Training/ Learning/ Knowledge Management group, and sometimes it is elsewhere.
See my writings on Governance & Advisory Systems – 12 O’Clock – in the book cover below. It’s a free book as a PDF – or you can purchase it as a paperback too.
Level 3 is Transfer. Did what got taught/learned then make its way back to the Performance Context?
Sadly, most often not. There are many reasons for this IMO and from the Research. But my focus here will be Authenticity.
I’ve seen so many cases – in my 32 years as a Consultant – where the developers or designers had no clue whatsoever of the Learners Applications of their Instruction/ Learning Content and Modes. None. Zero.
They just had some nifty objectives… or some outline… or some cool story boarded… but they did not know how to define Performance Competence.
You know… back at the ranch. Applying what you’ve learned, mastered in some Learning thing or string of things.
If the measures of this are Knowledge-focused versus Performance focused, well, then, stop and fix that. Unless of course this is one of many Modules in a Modular Curriculum or Development Path and you need to look at a bigger picture than just one piece of the pie.
But sadly most Learning Content are seemingly random chunks, large or small, with gaps and overlaps and inconsistencies in language and models – that confuse the Learners – they are collections of content and not configurations of content. They have not been architected.
They have not been rationalized and prioritized and deliberate about what will be Formal, and what will be Informal, and how Learning will be reinforced artificially when/because it won’t be automatically – on the job – over time quickly enough and then the Forgetting Curve will win out.
Maybe because it just wasn’t that important in the final analysis. To really insure Master and then Transfer.
If it is important – focus on Transfer by focusing on authentic Performance for Mastery.
Most evaluations at this level – are worthless. Because they can be misleading.
The Century 21 story from Roger Chevalier is a prime indictment – er, example. The worst rated Instructor out of 100 in a Level 1 evaluation – actually had the best results when you looked at the measures of the students later – back on the job.
And what actually Transferred.
A link to that story is – here.
So if you have to have a Level 1 Evaluation - focus part of it on expectation of actual Transfer to the job – by focusing on expected Performance Competence after Transfer.
If I learn it as proven by your end of Learning measurements but it does not transfer – then you need to look at why it did not transfer.
And fix that.
My guess is that your content wasn’t authentic enough and did not teach the Learners something that exactly – or close enough – resembled their Performance Context.
So I would suggest that if you have a Transfer problem – your look first to your authenticity – and then at the amount of applications practice with feedback, and finally at issues within the broad category of which media/mode was used.
But to understand Transfer issues – one needs to look at the authentic Performance Context – and understand how to measure Performance Competence. IMO.
If your Solution-set did NOT fix the problem by eliminating – or minimizing – some Problem’s Root Causes – then you should look first at the appropriateness from “a point of Transfer” view point.
Did the new Software or Hardware or Reward system actually fit smoothly into the Performance Content? Or was the retro fit bashed in with the proverbial hammer?
Did it have any unintended (unanticipated) consequences – when it attempted to Transfer? Was the Transfer attempted but then dropped because it just didn’t work smoothly enough and everyone reverted to Past Practices or something closer to that than the ideal Future State’s Practices that were targeted?
Focus on Transfer by focusing on “did it enable authentic Performance Competence” as measured equally, authenticity in both in Mastery measures and then in Transfer measures?”
# # #