The key thing is to be working on efforts where there is significant R for the I. Not the low hanging fruit.
Otherwise – why bother?
That requires determining the probable I before you start. That also requires determining the probable R before you start. Both. Unless you are flush with cash and need to spend it rather than return it to the owners in dividends, etc. Not likely.
Determining the Probable I
Determining the probable Invest Costs should include everything compared to doing nothing at all.
Determining the Probable R
Determining the probable Returns Values should include everything compared to the results from doing nothing at all.
Determine the R before the I, and then immediately skip Rs where the R-bang isn’t going to be BIG ENOUGH regardless of the size of the I. Small I mean. Small Is have nothing to do with the decision – unless you are down to your last I capability.
Determine the CoNC first – and then the CoC. Show the CoNC first – and then the CoC. It scares people less that way – the investment costs required that is.
Here is a prior Blog Post on that:
Who is the Decider?
The Customers/Clients and Other Key Stakeholders! Are you aligned to them – in sync?
Here is a prior Blog Posting about that.
HPT and/or HPI?
Oh- and I think there is a wide difference between HPT and HPI. Human Performance Technology and Human Performance Improvement.
HPI – the “brand name for “it” of ASTD” is really all about the people’s knowledge and skills – whether put in place by selection, development, etc. But its focus is on people enabling.
HPT – the “brand name for “it” of ISPI” is really about everything that impacts human performance – regardless if that human performance is “performance” represented at the level of Society/Humanity, the Enterprise/Organization, the Process/Workflow, and the Learners/Performers.
HPT includes Lean and Six Sigma approaches/methods because they work at the Process/Workflow level of human performance. Human Performance in an HPT is all encompassing – because humans direct and control (or don’t) all of the activity that rolls up to the P/W, E/O, and S/H levels. Getting that aligned is what ISPI’ers talk about, argue about, debate about (more civilized than just arguing).
And as Don Tosti remarked – all business processes and systems are human performance systems.
We aren’t at the point where it is systems/processes/machines created by systems/processes/machines – they were created by humans to perform in place of or to better enable humans.
I don’t mean to pigeonhole anyone in what follows…
ISPI’ers like Roger Kaufman and Mariano Bernardez and Dale Brethower advocate for a look at Mega first – get aligned to what the Society/The World level needs as a whole. Then develop your Enterprise/Organizational charters, missions, visions, values, yada, yada, yada.
ISPI’ers like Don Tosti and Bill Daniels and Jim Hill advocate for improved competence of the Enterprise/Organization level.
ISPI’ers like the late Geary Rummler and Alan Ramias and Ray Svenson advocated for improved competence of the Process/Workflow level – aligned appropriately to the needs at the higher levels.
ISPI’ers like Ruth Clark and Judy Hale and Harold Stolovitch advocate for improved competence of the Learner/Performer/Individuals and Team levels.
It’s all good. All points of view are valid. Not everyone is “in charge” – some are in the trenches. Their needs are different. We work interconnected with people who work at various levels of Performance Improvement.
The 2009 ISPI Spring Conference in Orlando – April 19-22.
Click here for details.
Come to learn from some serious folks – who don’t always take themselves so seriously. Well, most of the time anyway.
And again, I don’t mean to suggest that anyone named above focuses only on one level. No way Ray!
# # #