Two Key Analytic Tools

At the root of both PACT and EPPI – my methodology sets for ISD and PI – Instructional Systems Design and Performance Improvement – are two data gathering tools and reports: the Performance Model and the Enabling Matrices.

This post is really about how these two data-sets can impact the enterprise systems and processes that deal with people and the non-people “enablers” of Performance.

The Performance Model documents two things: ideal, mastery human performance, and a gap analysis of the current state(s) against that ideal.

The gap analysis identifies where the process’ outputs are not meeting the metrics, and then identifies the probable causes (as input to additional root cause analysis purposes later as needed) and cause type.

Most of the time the “probable cause” is attributed to something other than the performers knowledge/skills.

I’ve spent over 30 years now helping clients see where training won’t do anything but consume resources for a negative ROI, and where it can have a positive ROI.

The Performance Model and its data have been central to my approach for getting that insight in front of them.

Enablers 

The Enabler Matrices for “Awareness/ Knowledge/ Skill” then documents those enabling human knowledge, skills, attributes and values required for mastery performance, and links them back to that performance.

This is sometimes captured in addition to the other enablers of EPPI … that include a well designed Process(es) … that can meet the Stakeholder Requirements for Products and Process.

Here is an example chart for the Enabler Category of: Company Policies/Procedures – one of 17 Knowledge/Skill Categories in the PACT and EPPI methodology-sets.

Human Asset Requirements

There are 5 major categories of Human Asset Requirements that the Enabler Matrices capture:

1. Awareness/ Knowledge/ Skill requirements
2. Physical requirements
3. Intellectual requirements
4. Psychological requirements
5. Personal Value requirements

This 2-part approach has been looking at “competencies” at two levels since 1982, before Competencies became a big thing: performance competence and enabler competence.

Performance competence is what you want.

Enabler competence is just a necessary means to that end.

Too many efforts focus on the latter IMO.

Unfortunately, research has shown that “transfer” of generic learning to specific situations is problematic. Therefore a waste of resources.

Master Performers and Other Subject Matter Experts 

Both the Performance Models and Enabler Matrices should be produced using the insights and experience of Master Performers and other Subject Matter Experts. Just as one pulls together the right people to map a process, the Performance Model is as good as its sources. I typically facilitate groups of 8-12 Master Performers in a 3-4 day Analysis Team meeting. Of course the length of the meeting depends on the scope, complexity, newness and controversy level of the targeted performance to be captured.

And if a Process Map already exists, we typically follow that structure to inform our Performance Model’s structure, so as not to create two views of one process performance. The Performance Model allows one to look more closely at the human role in the processes, and serves to inform additional data gathering efforts, such as the enabling knowledge/skills, but also other non-human, environmental enablers.

Why produce them? To provide input to the enterprise functions, systems and processes that deal with the human variable, AND to the enterprise functions, systems and processes that deal with the non-human variables in the targeted processes. Those are the HAMS and EAMS of the EPPI methodology-set.

The Enterprise Enabling Systems

The HAMS and EAMS of the EPPI are the support functions of the enterprise. They are not configured per the next model – you would use this model – or some adaptation – to determine who owns the responsibilities for the processes and outputs that are inputs downstream.

They are non-core; but critical to the core operations and core processes.

They provision and maintain all of the “enabling stuff” that brings a paper process design to reality. Some, not all, but perhaps many missing or inadequate enabler pieces may prove the process design robustness inadequate. Then either the process is redesigned to fit the human and environmental assets available, or those need to be changed. Or both.

Human Asset Management Systems 

HAMS – Human Asset Management Systems are those enterprise systems and processes that attend to provisioning the right people with the right competencies and the right time and right place, regarding the peoples’

• Awareness, knowledge, skills
• Physical attributes
• Psychological attributes
• Intellectual attributes
• Values

The various processes where the performers work across a complex enterprise require specific versus generic approaches when it comes to putting the right people with the right stuff in the right place at the right time and growing them as continuous change might require. And not treat all jobs as if they have the same risk/reward potential. They don’t.

One cannot forget about the other side of the equation – when tackling the human element. Take into account the non-human elements…

Environmental Asset Management Systems 

EAMS – Environmental Asset Management Systems are those enterprise systems and processes that attend to provisioning the right environmental supports at the right time and right place, regarding the environmental support item assets of the following types

• Information/data
• Tools/equipment
• Materials/supplies
• Facilities/grounds
• Budget/headcount
• Culture/Consequences (+/-)

These enterprise systems and processes providing the process with “all things non-human.”

Both the HAMS and EAMS must operate their systems to provision the proper assets to the processes of the enterprise in a balance that ensures peak performance. And in most cases there is more than one way to achieve the balance. And of course the right balance or mix of assets changes over time due to changes in the process.

So my update to the Ishikawa diagram, with some Geary Rummler and other HPT expert influences, and one that I use to frame my narrow or wide analysis efforts, is shown next…

This is just one part of the overall analysis data framework. It’s intended to be scaleable from a single job up to a department, a function, a business unit, and to the enterprise. This model is usually applied in projects focused on the total job of a performer or group of performers, or on a process with several to many jobs performing process roles.

Having the performance and enabling data organized in this fashion, I can more clearly see and communicate the human variable and its interface with “all things non-human” in pursuit of process improvement for ROI. If one doesn’t quickly see more clearly the host of variables that have high probability for required “improvements” to support an initiative, the ROI calculation will miss these real costs.

That impacts the improvement decision making process negatively.

# # #