Yes – Another Model – or Set of Models About Performance
And I’m talking (writing) about Performance at the Individual levels, which can be rolled up into the Process levels, and that can be organized by department levels – to cover the entire organization – using mainly a Process Performance View of the Process ITSELF and all of its ENABLERS. 2 types of Enablers: Human and Environment.
I use this framework for both analysis and design and measurement – because it’s the Process Performance Improvement that’s important. Not whether learning was measured anyplace other than on the job – processes. That’s the ticket.
The fishbone (ala Ishikawa) was adapted to my preference to look first to the Process itself, and then to the Enablers required versus available – and go from their. Not exactly lock-step, nor shooting from the hip.
It Could Be the Process
And not some group of Learners – who are really Performers who yes need to learn, to adapt, to collaborate, to tolerate, and to cook-crank-and-wail and hit every deadline and do it at under every cost budget item target.
So why to go to all that time and trouble and expense to train folks when that ain’t gonna solve squat?
IME – In My Experience – working in this manner since 1979 – it’s usually about THE PROCESS – mostly no process, and people just winging it – trying to do the best that they can – but this results in Performance that is both non-Effective and non-Efficient. The sword cutting both ways.
But if it’s not THE PROCESS IME it is usually one or more of the Environmental Enablers that is missing in action, in the Process, gumming up the works. It is usually not the Human Enablers. Not the people.
But it does all to work in balance. If the work eventually gets much heavier, Guy might need a forklift to move it all around more effectively and maybe more efficiently.
It’s a Blend in Balance.
Ya gotta know what the Customers – and all of the other Stakeholders – require. And ya gotta design a Process to deliver that – Product or Service or Combo – and do that better than any of the Customers’ alternatives. Period.
Any questions about what drive Performance Requirements of Individuals, Processes, Enterprises?
But what Constrains Performance – inhibiting Performance Goals being achieved. Rewards Achieved and Risks Avoided.
Some of the Constraints are the lack of sufficient enablers – but sometimes it’s the constraints of the other Stakeholders.
And sometimes the Stakeholders’ Requirements and Constraints – Conflict. Yikes.
There’s some balancing and trading-off that’s gonna have to happen. No way around it – except to be stymied – or it ignore it at your peril.
Or you count on luck.
Next – Chicken or Egg – I’m Going to Go with the Enabler Category of Human Assets First
A person or a group of people have to have enough shared knowledge and skills and other attributes and values – and some unique ones too perhaps – as dictated by their Performance SITUATION.
The real world real requirements. Not some abstract goal or vision.
It’s as simple as defining the Process and its Requirements for certain human variables, based on how a set of Processes are performed reflecting job configurations – and cross training requirements for shared work – so these must be derived IMO.
Next – the Environmental Enablers
Your model may differ.
Mine…? Mine attempts to capture all of the non-Human variables.
Adopt what you can and Adapt the rest.
Why call the Enablers “Assets” – doesn’t that de-personalize the people, the humans?
I’d like executives to see investments in these types of assets – or not investing – having the same impact to Performance of the Processes regardless if it’s machines or men/women. If you don’t feed them with fuel/power – they peter out when that may not be in line with Plans and Goals. So it’s good business to invest in both Infrastructure – and in the People.
But don’t get emotional about it. IMO.
It’s a business decision.
EPPI’s 3 Tier Views of Enterprise Process Performance Improvement
Tier 1 is a reflection of the Organization Chart – as a way to group Process Views.
Every enterprise, division, function, department manages a set of Processes. I organize those in Leadership, Core and Support at the department level – and then roll them up – as they say – to accumulate data when necessary at higher levels or by a department or more.
Above is one branch – so to speak. There are of course, often many branches, of differing lengths.
Process Performance is the Tier 2 View.
There are many ways to look at Processes. here are but two, the late Geary A. Rummler’s – and the late Geary A. Rummler’s.
The Performance Model I first learned to use in 1979 was based on a derivative of a derivative of his work.
Tier 3 are the Enablers.
Of two types.
I have written about this set of views and my approaches to analysis and design – in many places over the decades.
For one of my more recent writings/books (from 2011)…
I present my prescriptions for taking a Training/Learning function to a organization that does that and more – Performance Improvement Consulting…
Here – is a link to the Kindle version…
That book is the 6th in my 2011 Six Pack. All are available as paperbacks and Kindles.
The focus/My focus:
It’s All About Performance Competence
Which you can look at at the Individual, Process and Enterprise levels.
And you should. IMO.
Focus on the Performance Requirements – and Enable Them
# # #