The Performance Competence Mindset of a Performance Analyst
As an Instructional Analyst – I was taught by many to Take a Systems View – of the Performance Context – to avoid creating Training that wouldn’t address the root causes of the problems that may be the reason the client called.
Now sometimes the client called because they wanted Training for New Hires (or new to the job folks). But I still needed my Systems View of Performance for New Hires’ Training too.
Whether the client could address and resolve the Root Causes of any Gap – the Performance Barriers – was always an issue. They were often not in charge of the area causing the pain/issue. And/or that Fix might take months or years. Their need was NOW.
New Hires need to know 1) what the typical barriers to Performance will be – and they need to know 2) what Master Performers do to avoid the barriers in the first place – and 3) what to do if the barriers were unavoidable in the second place.
This is important. This brings authenticity to the Training.
Or to Performance Support – the First Option in the Training menu IMO. Training Instructs – with Direct Training/ Direct Instruction. So does Performance Support . It Instructs. Based on the authentic Performance Context.
Can you imagine Performance Support that was constructed without the understanding of the Performance Context – the expectations of Outputs & Tasks and the Measures for both? Without an understanding of the typical Gaps, their probable Causes, and the strategies and tactics of Master Performers of how to avoid the barriers in the first place – and 3) what to do if the barriers were unavoidable in the second place?
That’s not much Support IMO.
My adaptation of The Ishikawa Diagram below portrays my view of the Enablers of Process/Processes Performance.
That’s how I identify and categorize the Gaps. When the Enablers are missing, or late, or defective, or in any way inadequate to the needs of the Process.
In my View – a Systems View – Processes roll up to their Department that Owns them. And – Departments work on Processes owned by other Departments.
And so therefore I see the Organization Chart – the Org Chart – as a set of Process owning Departments – using my L-C-S Areas of Performance (AoP) framework – where an AoP holds one or more Processes – just as the A in ADDIE holds more than one type of analysis Process (I would hope).
I myself do 4: Target Audience Analysis followed by Performance & Gap Analysis followed by Enabling K/S Analysis followed by Existing T&D Assessments. That then leads to the D of Design – after a Gate Review Meeting where I check in with a Project Steering Team for their concurrence – and approval or corrections – and where I ask them what they want to see next – and where I tell them about what’s going to happen next unless they Stop Me Now.
We often also discuss – at the end of the A Phase (Analysis in my similar but different ADDIE-like framework) – what to do about those Gaps.
Many a time a CAT (Critical Action Team) is set up to work in parallel with the Training effort – which might take less time or more time than the schedule for my project.
Meaning there might be some changes in my project – or some Continuous Improvement of what I produce after I am gone. A few times my Projects have been put on temporary hold and a couple of times when my effort was stopped until they got their act together.
It is helpful to my clients when I can help them see – in that end-of-Analysis-Phase Gate Review Meeting – what kinds of interventions might be necessary to address the Gaps.
That way I don’t come across as some Training Hack who thinks it’s All About Learning.
It Not All About Learning. It’s All About Performance.
Next – Part 2: Capturing the Performance Competence Requirements.
# # #