CLOs – Chief Learning Officers and their processes and resources – should be enabling targeted Performance Competence in areas chosen by their customers and stakeholders in some manner that is “formal enough” for their situation and needs – needs both short term and long term.
The “requirements” for Performance , both the “processes” parts and the “human practices” parts – enabled by the environmental resources and the human resources – both at the right time with the right amounts – are set by the stakeholders – including but beyond customers.
I’m talking about the Performance Competence of workers, their work, their workplace and the world – which is the newer way of saying: people, processes, organizations, and society. At each level – a set of Stakeholders exist. Something the situation is fairly simple; sometimes it is very complex. Sometimes it is in conflict – and your Enterprise is simple caught in the middle.
Here is an updated version of an article I published in 1995 on Balancing Conflicting Stakeholder Requirements.
The Big Picture of EPPI – provides a business architecture/architectural view (early published versions of this go back to 1994 – see this here). Architecture, in case you haven’t noticed, is one of the new “hip and happening” word/phrases of our time in our field.
Stakeholder Requirements can conflict. In that case it’s necessary to work through the trade-offs. If there is a conflict – it’s likely that someone’s requirements are not going to be met. And we are talking about both Requirements and Desires – which are a sort of Requirements Second Level – because if all of your competitors offer all other Requirements equally – and you are all at parity – then Desires become the next tier of Requirements on which the decision will rest.
Requirements of the Process (including human practices within those Process steps – as not everything is done by the machines) then dictate the enablers for those Processes.
If the Processes are being adequately enabled – with both the “right” human assets and the “right” environmental assets – then there is only continuous improvements to be made. Incremental.
But if there are issues (problems/ opportunities) with the Processes (including those human practices interwoven throughout the steps of most processes – again, not everything is the machines of life doing everything behind the scenes) then it’s likely to be an Enabler or 2, or 3, or more. That trails back breadcrumb by breadcrumb back to some set of Provisioning Systems that are not getting the job done. Perhaps they are “enabler Deficient” in some way, or 2 or 3 or more.
The Training & Development Systems box – is best detailed using this same sort of architectural thinking – and viewed via my T&D Systems View models…taking a process centric view of the T&D System. See this recent Blog Post here for more about that.
Before we launch a Six Sigma or Training effort to solve this or any set of set of symptoms – let’s do a little analysis using something akin to the 4 Phases of Targeting EPPI – before launching into one or more improvement initiatives – that are wither inter-linked – or not.
My philosophy has always been “focus on the performance, and enable that.” There are many paths to this. I’m just sharing mine.
Note: My PACT Processes – which are Instructional Systems Design methods/processes – are sub-sets of EPPI. My intent was to develop PACT Practitioners and take the analyst and project manager roles further than ISD – and into HPT – Human Performance Technology – via EPPI.
# # #