I have a tradition of laminating some of my favorite stuff. And I have a “laminator” – which makes it easy!
You know, to laminate the stuff that use to get too dog-eared from use/overuse. Well, these next two graphics – which are updates from what I’ve been calling my “Big Picture of EPPI” Laminate since 2002 – I share with you here – and the story behind their slight updates.
That was side 1. Click on it – to make it bigger and to copy it if you’d like. Attribute as needed/when needed/when used as is or after you’ve modified it.
The only changes on side 1 were the numbering of The Human Asset Enablers and The Environmental Asset Enablers. Whereas The Process remains #1, these two enabler-sets gets a 2/3 for 2 or 3. More on why in a moment.
Here is side 2. It has greater changes than the earlier versions. More on that in a moment too.
The EPPI model is kind of the same and kind of different from other HPT – Human Performance Technology models, methods, tools and techniques. There is Gilbert’s BEM and Carl Binder’s Six Boxes, and Addison’s Performance Architecture – and then there are all of the Rummler methods, models, etc. Mine is a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of Rummler work, plus the Ishikawa Diagram. I’ve written on that before in this Blog many times. You know how to search.
I’ve taken the Process out of the Environment box – so to speak – to take a special look at that first. It’s number one for a reason. If that’s messed up (a technical phrase) then all of the fixin’ to everything else is a waste of time and money. For naught as it’s been said. With a negative ROI guaranteed for your trouble. Double trouble.
So it’s called out separately. As Rummler said: put a good person in a bad system, and the system wins every time. Systems are bundles of Processes in my view (maybe not yours) – and any paper process – can look good on paper – but it’s brought to life by the enablers – human and non-human. And if it – The Process – isn’t designed from the git-go to meet the needs of the stakeholders (including those non-King Customers) then that’s where you’ve got to start. Start with Business Process Re-engineering paying attention to the Theory of Constraints, etc., and then apply Lean thinking, and then the VR (Variation Reduction tools/techniques of Six Sigma. You don’t always want innovation here there and everywhere – despite some with their over-hyped messaging about such. Sometime you want the car door to slam with the same sound and feel each and ever time. Some times you want the knowledge worker to get the paperwork processed faster, cheaper, and better – by following a process pretty much to the letter. Or cut the deal with the client and do it to the letter of the laws, regulations and codes. And perhaps contracts.
The enablers are labeled 2/3 (for either 2 or 3) due to the reactions of the ISPI Armed Forces Chapter attendees in my webinar from February 15th. A couple asked why not start with the Environment as that’s where most issues’ causes are found. I had my reason – which someday when that is posted some of you will be able to check) – for starting with The Human Assets – and a couple really didn’t seem to like it. But in my context – typically doing an Instructional Design effort – I drag this model out to help explain how to think about the gap analysis done when Performance Modeling – and where our focus is on determining the K/Ss required – the awareness/ knowledge/ skills required. And if any problems – gaps – where processes’ outputs don’t meet established (formal or informal) measures – then what are the other probable causes’ categories.
That’s when I hit them with the EPPI model. Or a portion of it. I draw it out on a flip chart page or a whiteboard – explaining it as I draw it up. Then I might hand out something like this – which can be too overwhelming if taken in in one big eye gulp.
Anyway – you do what’s most comfortable for you. But I do HAs before I do the EAs. And as I will eventually do them both – leaving no stone unturned as we explore the probable causes for gaps – it doesn’t really matter – except in certain contexts with certain audience expectations. I’m certainly not going to stop after finding out that data/information – such as the expectations – are missing/unclear. Even tough that’s typically number one in other people’s models’ data.
Side two now is missing the L-C-S Model for a Department (would be on side 3 – but that’s hard to laminate). And the Stakeholder Hierarchy (example) is now a new addition. Process and their Product are measured to make sure they meet the requirements of Stakeholders – including but beyond the Customer(s) and the Customers’ Customers. The HAMS and EAMS models are now large enough to read – when 11×8.5.
Here is a recent post – on the old model. Search on “EPPI” for the many prior posts on this topic.
Hope you find this of use! Laminate it at some point if you think it might get too dog-eared!
# # #