An Article PDF from 2001 – Updated in 2016
E04 Targeting EPPI – HAMS GWW 2001 – 2016 – 16 page PDF – from the CADDI newsletter Pursuing Performance in 2001 – updated in 2016 – about Targeting Enterprise Process Performance Improvement via Human Asset Management.
More About EPPI
EPPI is an improvement process … and starts with this project management structure.
The traffic-light icons represent Gate Review Meetings – GRMs.
Like ADDIE or any New Product Development framework, it is simply a way to frame the effort, for predicting effort and schedule and costs … and then managing rigorously or flexibly … to a predetermined end or to a flexible (we’ll see when we get there) end.
Stage 1 (I) uncovers improvement opportunities and Stage 2 (II) addresses the solution-set as determined in Stage 1, as targeted by the GRMs – so that the politics and business thinking is wired in – because if you are going to have to deal with it anyway – might as well be as effective and efficient as you can be … meaning … process by design.
A Process that by design is “as rigorous as required (by the downstream needs) and is as flexible as feasible” … of course.
It’s seldom not a balance. It’s almost always a blend.
Sometimes the Stage II efforts are run in parallel as they “connect.”
Imagine, for the example above, that A is a new Pay System, and B is a new Performance Appraisal System and C is the Training & Education to the various audiences impacted – different jobs and levels of management in each of: Payroll, HR-Appraisal and … and … everyone on the payroll … and their managers.
Each target audience with a different terminal objective … a different on-the-job performance application … or applications.
It’s Not About Learning
Yes – Learning & Development is involved – but they are a tail and not a dog – when it comes to: who wags who.
L&D isn’t fixing the “issue” … a problem-set or opportunity-set … but L&D is necessary to deploy the solution-set.
Tail. Not dog. Clear?
Yes, L&D is also in the job of proactively preparing or helping to prepare … onboard … people new to the job … which sometimes includes people new to the company, and the industry, and the function … let alone the job.
But L&D is still a tail in this situation. The client should decide what to leave Informal and what to Formalize.
L&D people, processes and practices are servants and not leaders in the Enterprise.
I guess I needed to write that in response to all the calls I read for folks in L&D to lead the charge on this and that – rather than figure out how to improve already established business metrics and address Critical Business Issues as a role player … not the leader.
L&D needs to lead the charge for its own internal reengineering as needed, but that’s about it.
Back to EPPI….
The Big Picture
Process – Environment – People
Stakeholders set the metrics bar – so to speak. Resolve all conflicts in their requirements. For pags in meeting those needs look upstream to the suppliers of the assets … divided into People and Non-People sets.
The Enterprise as a Network of Departments of Processes-sets
My clients were not about to reengineer the Org Chart to reflect only Processes … instead of Functions (and that’s sometimes a blend as well). It’s the old silo thing.
So I reflect Functional Processes – as many processes of a function/department/team are unique and are not tied explicitly to the Value Chain of the Enterprise. Some are but most aren’t. But each has their roll to play … such as Payroll. Not part of the Value Chain. But necessary, no?
The L-C-S Model
Here’s my mental model shared in a diagram…
Then I begin my analysis with groups or individuals – or blends -parking each data point into the model above or reframing as I go … always letting the data take me where it will.
If this department is involved in the main Value Chain efforts – they would show up in the Core section of the model – perhaps along with some non-Core sets of Processes – that they won – or simply support.
Stakeholders Are King
When it comes to metrics, measures/standards and measurement systems … it is complex … as there may be many Stakeholders … beyond the Customer … internal or external … but always downstream…
Note: all Stakeholders – have Stakeholders. It’s complex … getting this right.
Again, I needed to be able to address my client incrementally and over time but in a systems view – and without them having to completely reengineer themselves as processes versus as functions/departments. I met them halfway with this model. They could see where their uniqueness stood out and where all the other crap, I mean, corporate involvement, was parked as well – in my framework. That my Analysis Teams made theirs.
EPPI Tier 1 View
The Tier 1 View of EPPI looks at the targeted process or processes within a network of processes – but then linked back to the org chart.
Again, I needed to be able to start anywhere at any level and over time and multiple efforts – have all the data eventually link. Think: MRP or MRP II or ERP.
In the example above, the focus could be on HR and then Payroll and then an IT System needing addressing within a particular (red) set of Processes … that have downstream Customers … and other Stakeholders … internal and external. Such as all employees … and the IRS.
Some Stakeholders are concerned with the Outputs of the Processes only … and others are concerned about only the Processes themselves and not the Outputs … and others are concerned about both Process and Outputs. It’s complex.
EPPI Tier 2 View
EPPI’s Tier 2 View help portray the Performance requirements … and gaps.
I use Performance Models but one can use Geary A. Rummler’s Swim Lane Process Map format.
The Performance Model is itself a derivative of the Performance Table of Geary Rummler and Tom Gilbert. Something I learned to use in 1979.
BTW: In Rummler’s approach … Role 1 was always the Customer. At the top of the page … and hopefully “top of mind.”
EPPI Tier 3 View
EPPI’s Tier 3 View captures/reports out the enablers … and their requirements … and their gaps and gap causes. Divided into People and Non-People sets.
Another view of those enablers. More colorful and descriptive.
Each branch on the model above … has sub-branches. For example, my methods have 17 distinct sub-branches to the Enabler Category of: Awareness-Knowledge-Skill.
You can try to make all of this really simple – but unless your Performance Context is really that simple as well, it won’t work. Your framework and data collection needs to be reflective of the complexity without making it too simple for downstream uses.
Know your downstream uses … those being targeted now … and those that might come later, if possible.
I’ve also published the following … Chapter 11 … which covers the detailed Analysis approach … inherent in this.
Modeling Mastery Performance and Systematically Deriving the Enablers for Performance Improvement – by Guy W. Wallace, CPT – Chapter 11 of the Handbook of Human Performance Technology – 3rd Edition – 2006.
This methodology was first published in this 1984 article in ISPI’s (then NSPI’s) PIJ in November 1984.
– a guide for a leadership team to take their Training/ Learning/ Knowledge Management organization and Stakeholders on a 2-Step Journey from Training to performance-based Training, and then on to Performance Improvement Consulting.
To get to ROI that is believable. Take the client on the journey in as visible and predictable a manner as possible given your siutational context.
This is how I generally frame it. To start. The problem/opportunity. The approach. The data.
Your approaches may vary.
Mine also have to, often, as well. Not everything. But components.
Part of that flexible thing.
# # #