Capturing Ideal Performance and Gap Analysis On One Page – The Performance Model Chart

Used for Instructional Analysis – and Performance Improvement Analysis for my PACT and EPPI methodology-sets respectively.

Once you have established the chunks of Performance – the Areas of Performance – such as the performance chunks of an ADDIE, or a DMAIC model – you are ready to detail those AoPs on the Performance Model charts.

Here is an example.

You can detail the A, the D, the next D, etc.

However … I don’t use the ADDIE model per se, I use this variant…

Back to the Performance Model.

Ideal Performance

First – you get the information to complete the left hand side – with quality input. Either based on interviews and observations – or as I do it: with a group of handpicked Master Performers. Handpicked by the client’s Project Steering Team.

The left half of a Performance Model Chart describes ideal performance.

This information includes:

  • The Area of Performance (AoP)
  • Outputs produced and their measures, per AoP
  • Tasks performed, per Output
  • Roles and responsibilities, per Task

Gaps from Ideal Performance

Second – the gap analysis.

The information in the right half of a Performance Model captures and articulates actual performance, via a gap analysis.

That Gap Analysis data includes:

  • Typical Performance Gaps (where standards for measures at any level are typically not being met by job incumbents)
  • Probable Causes, of those Typical Performance Gaps
  • Differentiation of those Probable Causes into one or more of three categories of deficiency
The Gap “Probable Causes” – or “Root Causes” if you really took the time to do that – is identified for each gap.
The causes are attributed to one of three types:
  • dE: deficiency of environmental support
  • dK: deficiency of knowledge and skills
  • dI: deficiency of individual attributes and values
This very visual approach to Performance Analysis is captured in this format and reported out in that same format – for reviews and approval.
Then the data is reported out differently for use in the facilitated process of the group Design process.
Another example:
ABC Sales PM Chart Example


For more on the Performance Model and the Analysis Process – see my new book: “Analysis of Performance Competence Competence Requirements” – for ordering info please see here.
# # #

Who Do You Trust? Is EBP Consistency One of Your Criteria?

With apologies to Bo Diddley and his 1956 hit “Who Do You Love” – for that’s the music I wish to be floating through your head as your start this. Yes, messing with your cognitive load. You can report back on that experiment later. But it’s not science.

I received this message the other day.  

And it was gratifying, to receive such feedback from someone you trust in your professional circles. Someone I had grown to trust. From a distance.

Trust from a Distance.

Who Do You Trust?

And I thought to myself, I don’t know Mike personally, having never met but on the Internet, but this is cool. And then I wondered why that was cool.


I trust that Mike sees the big picture, has a business sense, and has a stellar reputation in his professional circles, and that he is well-known, and favorably well-know – for there is a difference. Like mama said (remember her?):

Your e-acquaintances either average you up, or they average you down. 

I trusted Mike partially because it was my perception that we shared many common professional interests, view points, and along with many others, we seemed to share a preference more for the bottom line results of performance – in a business sense, than for any particular behavior-set, or consulting service, or products (like books) that we sell. More of the end results than for our single contribution to it. A Lot of overlap in our slice of a complex Venn Diagram.

Performance is complex.

It’s Not About Learning

And the % of the variable that is touched by Learning can be debated, has been debated, and Deming would give it around 6% and Rummler 15-20% – so not much Pareto Principle being followed in big time investments there.

So the people online that I trust are never just a one trick pony, with one sparkling thing or idea that they share/promote. And what they share or promote is not so self-promoting, or exclusively self-promoting.

That what they share/they curate – has to have value – to me – where I am looking for 1) some acknowledgement that it’s complex, and 2) here is what I have to offer to the combined efforts with all of the organizational entities representing all of the other parts of the system, the Enterprise’s system and sub-systems.

With never a claim of “this is it.”

Because it cannot be.

Learning isn’t it. HR practices aren’t it. Process Re-Engineering isn’t it. Six Sigma isn’t it. Pay for Performance isn’t it. Better recruiting isn’t it. Less turnover isn’t it. More capital expenditures on robotics isn’t it. A better Business Strategic Plan isn’t it.

So why is it that I trust Mike, an e-acquaintance?  Why will I read his stuff more closely, pay attention to what he thinks is important and “share it” rather than “quick scan and trash” it?

Why do I do that – that trust thing – with Mike – and dozens and dozens of others; but don’t trust and mistrust others?

It not any one thing that I could find in common between all of the people I trust – online – other than their common interest in what is termed nowadays as Evidence Based Practice -EBP. They are not championing things where the data from unbiased research, from independent sources, shows it to be invalid.

And therefore – not EBP.

Or – EBP Not!

Human Performance Technology – HPT stuff – using that or other labels for it should be EVP. There is inconsistency in the language of HPT. It’s a relatively new field (60-80-100 years – take your pick).

But how do people make my list? What are my criteria? 

They were Consistent in their public image, in their writings and presentations, and they were EBP. They were on EBP message. Or messages.

And – are they are preaching and practicing those EBP valid approaches?

Are they sometimes on the side of things dis-proven?   That for me is the Kiss of Death.

For I can no longer trust.

As President Ronald Regan said: Trust. But Verify.

And so I do. We all do, or should.

Shaky sources for what “you know” are shaky foundations for your professional well being.

How “EBP Curation Consistent” is your self-projected online image?

And is THAT consistency – how you wish be known? 

I was thinking about this, in terms of who online do I trust. My Trust in others affects my professional credibility and reputation, however near or far. On the team at work. On the national and international stages of the conferences and publications circuits.

People like Mike curate in a highly, consistent, highly EBP-kind-of-way.

Thank you Mike!

And all you others. For all that you do for EBP – Evidence Based Practices. And for helping others to Perform better!

You can see those who I follow via my Blog Roll, and Friends and Who I Follow lists online – and you can see who I echo, repeat and/or reinforce.

And who and what I question – really a who I challenge about their posted what.

In all of that you can see who I trust. And what EBP I trust in.

Focus on Performance – and Enable that.

# # #

Gather and Organize All of Your Enterprise Content to Enable Performance

Before they leave – get it from them – and then organize it to reflect the processes of the Enterprise…

You have big future reasons – needs – for doing so.

Organize your data using your version of my Enterprise Architecture:

For more on this model – see my past Blog writings – or this recent book…

For information about this book – please go here.

# # #

2 New Books – A Collection of “Lessons in Making Lemonade” Cartoon Strips – Volumes 1 and 2

From my Lessons in Making Lemonade cartoon strip series…

Just under 200 pages – each. Each – with over 350 8-panel cartoon strips!

For more information please go here – for ordering information for Volume 1 please go here – for ordering information for Volume 2 please go here.

# # #