My 60+ Human Performance Technology Practitioner Videos

I created these videos to support my professional home ISPI – the International Society for Performance Improvement – with the help of all of the listed folks below – mostly between 2008 and 2012.

In my personal, professional view:

Human Performance Technology (HPT) is the application of evidence based methods to problems and opportunities for Measured Results – and Performance Improvement (PI).

Means and ends.

And, as the variables of Performance are many – so are the potential solutions or solution-sets. And thus, so are the Practitioners and their practices…

HPT Practitioner Video Podcasts and HPT Legacy Video Podcasts

– Practitioner Series – short 2-10 minutes, following a script; no interviewer. Intended to show the diversity of HPT and HPT Practitioners from within ISPI. 

– Legacy Series – longer 15-40 minutes, also scripted but with an interviewer; with added stories of other NSPI/ ISPI’ers from the earlier days of the Society. Intended to capture the stories of the people from the ISPI’s past.

All were shot, edited and produced by Guy W. Wallace.

See the page of links – here.

Slide1

HPT Practitioner Series

42 practitioners…

Slide2

Continued…

Slide3

HPT Legacy Series

19 longer videos…

Slide4

Master Index of Video Interviewees

Addison, Roger – Practitioner 2008 – 6:55 min

Addison, Roger – Legacy 2009 – 30:23 min

Banchoff, Eileen – Practitioner 2012 – 5 min
Binder, Carl – Legacy 2010 – 43:51 min
Carey, Clare – Practitioner 2008 – 2:10 min

Carleton, Bob – Legacy 2011 – 1:12:20 hrs/min
Chevalier, Roger – Practitioner 2008 – 2:34 min

Chevalier, Roger – Legacy 2011 – 19:36 min
Christensen, Brett – Practitioner 2010 – 7:26 min

Clark, Richard E. (Dick)  – Legacy 2012 – 44:26 min

Daniels, Bill – Legacy 2011 – 43:43 min

DePaul, Gary – Practitioner 2011 – 5:58 min
Desautels, Brian – Practitioner 2008 – 4:46 min

Donovan, Matt – Practitioner 2011 – 6:01 min

Esque, Timm – Practitioner 2011 – 6:29 min

Farrington, Jeanne  – Practitioner 2012 – 7:17 min
Foshay, Rob – Practitioner 2008 – 3:56 min
Foshay, Rob – Legacy 2010 – 8:26 min

Guerra-Lopez, Ingrid  – Practitioner 2012 – 10:11 min
Hale, Judy – Legacy 2009 – 9:54 min

hpt-practitioner-video-podcast-series-script-2012

Haig, Carol – Practitioner 2008 – 3:23 min
Handshaw, Dick – Practitioner 2010 – 5:07 min

Harless, Joe – Practitioner 2008 – 6:08 min
Harless, Joe – Practitioner 2009 – 6:30 min
Harless, Joe – Legacy 2009 – 32:49 min

Hartt, David – Practitioner 2010 – 4:30 min
Hill, Jim – Practitioner 2008 – 3:03 min
Kaufman, Roger – Practitioner 2008 – 5:30 min
Kaufman, Roger – Legacy 2010 – 29:05 min
Kuehn, Andreas – Practitioner 2008 – 6:46 min

Lane, Miki – Practitioner 2008 – 4:52 min
Lane, Miki – Legacy 2009 – 23:22 min
Laurin, Mark – Practitioner 2008 – 3:53 min
Leigh, Doug – Practitioner 2010 – 9:20 min
Marvin, Brian – Practitioner 2010 – 7:29 min

Moore, Tony – Legacy 2012 – 32:57 min
Murray, Margo – Legacy 2009 – 15:37 min

Papaila, Dawn – Practitioner 2011 – 4:36 min

Pearlstein, Richard – Legacy 2011 – 24:52 min

Powell, Russ – Practitioner 2012 – 6:21 min

Ramias, Alan – Practitioner 2011 – 11:19 min
Rooke, Scott – Practitioner 2010 – 7:06 min
Rosenberg, Marc – Practitioner 2008 – 5:08 min
Rummler, Geary – Practitioner 2008 – 5:23 min
Schneider, Luise – Practitioner 2008 – 3:18 min
Sink, Darryl – Legacy 2009 – 12:02 min
Stewart, Fred – Practitioner 2008 – 2:37 min

Stolovitch, Harold – Legacy 2011 – 39:30 min

hpt-legacy-video-podcast-series-script-2012

Stone, Deborah – Practitioner 2011 – 6:56 min
Svenson, Ray – Practitioner 2008 – 5:57 min
Svenson, Ray – Legacy 2009 – 16:43 min
Thiagi – Practitioner 2009 – 3:23 min
Tosti, Don – Practitioner 2008 – 7:49 min

Van Tiem, Darlene – Legacy 2012 – 17:53 min
Villachica, Steve – Practitioner 2010 – 8:12 min
Wallace, Guy – Practitioner 2008 – 2:02 min
Wallace, Guy – Practitioner 2009 – 2:19 min
Watkins, Ryan – Practitioner 2010 – 11:50 min

Wells, Charline and Fred – Legacy 2011 – 55:07 min
Willoughby, Art – Practitioner 2010 – 6:13 min
Wittkuhn, Klaus – Practitioner 2008 – 8:15 min

 

# # #

L&D: Example Outputs from a Curriculum Architecture Design from 2003

CAD Bottom Lines

A CAD effort produces Learning Paths – or Performance Competence Development Paths.

Here are two Learning Paths – or Leadership & Management Development Paths – one for Supervisors and one for their Managers.

The 4 key output/reports for their project are presented below.

Paid for by US Taxpayers. Thank them.

The Supervisor Path

CAD Path Supervisors

The Manager’s Path

nnsy-101-zone-manager-path

Each Path had Performance Competence Tests (not Knowledge Tests) at critical points in each “Phase” of the Path – and then unique and shared Content – formal classes and structured peer/expert coaching and … structured Experiences (interview peers, bosses, stakeholders, etc.) dealing with people and systems and everything needed.

One critical example of what was addressed very early in the Supervisor Path was dealing with Pay issues. THAT was in this situation – both authentic and extremely critical as a Survival Skill.

Critical Business Issue

Why did the Shipyard attempt to Formalize what had been mostly Informal for decades?

Within a few years the average years on the job for shipyard mangers was going to take a huge drop due to upcoming retirements. All at once … due to the spikes in hiring decades earlier.

This had implications for errors and quality issues, and at a US Navy shipyard – at a time of war – THAT was simply unacceptable and something to address.

Continuing to develop managers informally, as was the past practice, was now worrisome practice and something shipyard leadership had recently targeted this for a major response to avoid Murphy. If you know what I mean.

Response

I was brought in to conduct a CAD effort. Others would follow up post-CAD to develop the gap content and update the existing content that was repairable. In less than 90 days during the last few months of 2003 we had completed the 4 Phases of my CAD efforts.

I’ve been doing these since 1982.

Slide1 (3)

CAD efforts figure out what you need and what you have and what the priorities for addressing gaps or currency or adequacy issues with existing content.

CAD Next Level of Detail Re the 4 Phases

Slide15

Those key outputs are what’s presented below – by Phase.

But first – a Roadmap for what’s included…

Key CAD Outputs

Slide16

Phase 1- Project Planning & Kick-Off

This Phase is simple so critical to the entire effort that it should be addressed seriously and thoroughly – or the effort should be dropped at the first GRM – Gate Review Meeting – IMO.

Slide25

Here is an example CAD Project Plan:

cad-p1-project-plan-example-2003-09-15

Note: this is a 34 page PDF document.

Phase 2- Analysis

Analysis of the Performance Requirements first and then of all existing content leads to appropriate ReUse later.

Slide26

Here is an example CAD Analysis Report:

cad-p2-analysis-report-example-2003-10-15

Note: this is a 547 page PDF document.

Phase 3- Design

This is where GIGO – good in/ good out — or — garbage in/ garbage out plays out. In the design of the Path or Paths.

It all depends on the Analysis data being used and the people in the process.

Slide27

My 7-Step Design Meeting process:

CAD DTM 7 Steps

Here is an example CAD Design Document:

cad-p3-design-document-example-2003-11-11

Note: this is a 479 page PDF document.

Phase 4- Implementation Planning

Not all Content that could be – should be.

Here is where “what should remain totally Informal” is decided – as a Business Decision – not an Instructional Design Decision.

Slide28

Here is an example CAD Implementation Plan:

cad-p4-implementation-plan-example-2003-12-02

Note: this is a 140 page PDF document.

The CAD effort led then to the MCD (ADDIE-like) efforts. Another group took on that effort for my client.

Additional Resources

Check the Resource tab for both FREE and FOR a FEE resources.

There are over 400 free resources available on this site.

ISPI Charlotte Poster Session Posters 2010

The Group Process Is Key – IMO

PACT Via a Group Process for CAD Analysis and Design

Check out the articles from 1984…

Slide1

CAD – Training Mag – 1984 – 6 page PDF – the first publication about Curriculum Architecture Design via a Group Process – published in Training Magazine in September 1984. Original manuscript (30 pages) – How to Build a Training Structure That Won’t Keep Burning Down.

Models and Matrices- NSPI PIJ -1984 – 5 page PDF – the first publication of the performance and enabler analysis methods for ISD, from NSPI’s (ISPI’s) Performance & Instruction Journal, November 1984.

Also see my 1999 book: lean-ISD…

lean-ISD (1999)

Click on image to link to the download page.

Note: the cover design for “lean-ISD” was created by the late Geary A. Rummler.

Note: Guy W. Wallace’s book “lean-ISD” – was a recipient of a 2002 Award of Excellence for Instructional Communication from the International Society for Performance Improvement.

lean-ISD is also available as a $15 paperback book – and $7.50 as a Kindle – for more and to order – please go – here.

And the updated books from 2011…

Slide3

For more info on these 6 books please go – here.

# # #

L&D: Putting Yourself at the Mercy of a Command & Control (and Empowerment) System

Which I Think Is Most Appropriate

Something like this – adapt your view to your enterprise and your targets:

Slide3

See the 3 levels in the diagram above. Rename them.

Begin to own it.

It’s the top of the clock in the next diagram.

Slide2

I believe the only way to climb the Maturity Model for L&D in the next diagram is to define and then improve … as needed and the ROI dictates … your Process set.

My starting point framework for L&D/T&D/Knowledge Management includes 47 Processes within 12 sub-Systems.

Slide1

In any event L&D should be targeted by the powers that be … the governance & advisory system … to improve Performance Competence when and where necessary … and the ROI dictates.

To meet the needs of that targeted Performance Competence’s Stakeholders.

Slide2

This applies to an entire function or department or team or Process-set or Process or Individual.

Targeting is sometimes tricky.

Slide3

Example – modified from a project in the 1980s…

The AoPs frame the detailed analysis …

AoPs TMC

The details

TMC SM Perf Model Chart

Then one might look at the 12 variables 

EPPI Fishbone 14 Variables - Process

Did you count the variables? Some might miss the most important one and the place to start – in my experience.

For Learning/ Training/ Knowledge Management efforts – the analysis would continue into these sub-categories … of Awareness/ Knowledge/ Skill:

K-S Categories

This Is the Big Picture of EPPI

Side 1

Slide1

Side 2

Slide2

For More

Slide7

PACT 6 Pack

Please go here for more info on these 6 books … and more.

# # #

 

Master Performers Are Not Just Subject Matter Experts

I Use the Group Process

I ask for Master Performers … and other SMEs as/if needed.

But if I can only have one group – make it the Master Performers.

Master Performers … by my definition … were doing the job performance to the highest levels of performance – yesterday and last week, month, etc. … and are people for all others to emulate.

Be like Mike.

I’ve been doing this approach in Instructional Design/Development efforts since 1979. I’ve published and presented on this since the early 1980s.

Slide1

Why the Group Process?

It’s harder than the traditional approach – although much, much quicker.

But it can be painful dealing with the typically strong egos of Master Performers – especially when in a group with others … if you know what I mean.

Why go through the pain of facilitating a group?

Groups self-correct sooner rather than later – if facilitated well. Bringing greater accuracy.

And build on each other. Bringing greater completeness.

And … they “get real” real fast. In my experience. Bringing greater appropriateness.

Can It Be Learned?

I’ve also taught dozens of my own consulting firm’s staff and hundreds of clients’ staff and contractors in these methods, both groups since way back to 1983.

Here are 3 staff members … Brian, Alaina and Pete … just a few of the dozens of consultants that I have trained … from my prior firm CADDI and before that at SWI … back in the late 1990s and early 2000s … sitting in front of some of their facilitated Analysis Team’s outputs. It’s good to be done.

CCI03132016_0017

Note: In the key outputs produced – flip charts of data – neatness does not count, but legibility does.

In Analysis

I use the Master Performers as the core or exclusive members of an Analysis Team.

The reason to gather current state best performers together is to define the job requirements and the enabling knowledge and skills and to identify gaps and their strategies and tactics to avoid and response if unavoidable.

Slide4

I use a Performance Model Data Frame. It captures data at the individual levels of performance and scales up as/if needed for department or team or process or functional or Enterprise performance.

But if a Process Map exists – I use that (if judged complete and accurate enough) and adapt and backtrack for missing details from there.

Slide2

It’s all about the data needed downstream in Design. That would include what needs to be known at the awareness, knowledge and skill levels – again on flip charts.

In Design

In design I facilitate the same group of Master Performers – as a Design Team … to create a L&D Path or an Event design or a Module design or the design and/or development of Performance Tests. Or all of those.

In my experience – since 1979 – that use of the Master Performers makes the eventual Design output better, faster, cheaper in most cases – than if done by an Instructional Designer using document reviews and observations and interviews even with the “help” of Subject Matter Experts – who sometimes (too often) don’t do the real job day-to-day … and therefore cannot insure that the design is: authentic “enough” … and just “enough” and timely “enough” to have enough impact to performance to warrant the expense (investment).

IMG_5643

The team owns the outputs. The facilitator owns the process.

There is work to do besides facilitation before and after each break for the team … and the facilitator’s breaks are therefore fewer and shorter.

IMG_5633

It’s All About the Performance

It’s not about Learning – except as an enabler in some form or fashion.

Performance Competence graphic

Focus on the Performance Requirements – and enable them!

Some Resources

Other resources are available in the Resources tab.

Slide5

Please go here for info about these 6 and several other books from Guy.

# # #

Review: The My First Friday Favorite Guru Series

To Say Thank You – Again

As a Page at: https://eppic.biz/resources/my-1st-friday-favorite-guru-series/

Links To All of the Past Posts in the MFFF Guru Series

My gurus, teachers and professional collaborators … in no particular order …

  • Eliyahu M. Goldratt – December 2015 – here. RIP
  • Brenda Sugrue – November 2015 – here.
  • Karen Brethower – October 2015 – here.
  • Jim Pershing – September 2015 – here.
  • Timm Esque – August 2015 – here.
  • Ryan Watkins – July 2015 – here.
  • Ken Silber – June 2015 – here.
  • Roger Chevalier – May 2015 – here.
  • Darryl Sink – April 2015 – here.
  • Jeanne Farrington  – March 2015 – here.
  • Don Clark – February 2015 – here.
  • Frank T. Wydra  – January 2015 – here. RIP

MFFFG Series

  • Philip B. Crosby  – December 2014 – here. RIP
  • Donald L. Dewar – November 2014 – here. RIP
  • Joseph M. Juran  – October 2014 – here. RIP
  • W. Edwards Deming  – September 2014 – here. RIP
  • Bonnie B. Small – August 2014 – here. RIP
  • Walter A. Shewhart – July 2014 – here. RIP
  • Carl Binder – June 2014 – here.
  • Ruth Clark – May 2014 – here.
  • Rob Foshay – April 2014 – here.
  • John Carlisle – March 2014 – here.
  • Miki Lane – February 2014 – here.
  • Harold Stolovitch – January 2014 – here.
  • Bill Wiggenhorn – December 2013 – here.
  • Will Thalheimer – November 2013 – here.
  • Roger Kaufman – October 2013 – here.
  • Roger Addison – September 2013 – here.
  • Ray Svenson – August 2013 – here. RIP
  • Dick (Richard E.) Clark – July 2013 – here.
  • Allison Rossett – June 2013 – here.
  • Carol Panza – May 2013 – here.
  • Jane Bozarth – April 2013 – here.
  • Judy Hale – March 2013 – here.
  • Margo Murray – February 2013 – here.
  • Neil Rackham – January 2013 – here.
  • Robert (Bob) Mager – December 2012 – here.
  • Joe H. Harless – November 2012 – here. RIP
  • Thomas F. Gilbert – October 2012 – here. RIP
  • Sivasailam Thiagarajan (Thiagi) – September 2012 – here.
  • Geary A. Rummler – August 2012 – here. RIP
  • Dale Brethower – July 2012 – here.

Note: Some did protest after my posts that they were not Gurus. I replied that Gurus are in the eyes and perceptions of the beholder. Me. IMO.

Slide1

And thanks to the dozens and dozens of friends and colleagues, too numerous to mention, who validated my learnings from the people listed above, and also taught me many other aspects of the profession of Performance Improvement and Instructional Design.

Thank you all!

# # #

Targeting EPPI – Enterprise Process Performance Improvement PDF

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.

EPPI Logo

More About EPPI

EPPI is an improvement process … and starts with this project management structure.

EPPI Stage 1

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.

EPPI Stage 1 and 2

Sometimes the Stage II efforts are run in parallel as they “connect.”

EPPI Stage II - Complex Workstreams

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.

Servant First 

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.

IMO.

Back to EPPI….

The Big Picture

Process – Environment – People

Slide1

Side 2

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.

Slide2

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?

Org Chart in L-C-S Mode

The L-C-S Model

Here’s my mental model shared in a diagram…

Slide3

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…

E- Shared and Unique P and S

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.
EPPI Tier 1 View

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.

EPPI Tier 2 View

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.

EPPI Tier 3 View

Another view of those enablers. More colorful and descriptive.

EPPI Fishbone 14 Variables - Process

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.

More Resources

I’ve also published the following … Chapter 11 … which covers the detailed Analysis approach … inherent in this.

Slide28 (2)

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.  

And…

This methodology was first published in this 1984 article in ISPI’s (then NSPI’s) PIJ in November 1984.

Book Resource

From Training to Performance Improvement Consulting (2011) – as Paperback and Kindle

– 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.

Frame-Map-Math

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.

Slide1

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.

Adapt What You Cannot Adopt

# # #