|
Back to the Performance Improvement Journal Home PageMay/June, 2003 Editor’s Notes
|
|
Home | info@ispi.org | Contact ISPI
|
|
Article Summaries
|
| Updating the Behavior Engineering Model by Roger Chevalier, CPT Thomas Gilbert’s Behavior Engineering Model is a valuable tool for systematically identifying barriers to individual and organizational performance. With some updating and the addition of a performance aid to guide its use, we have a more clearly defined process for identifying the causes that contribute to a performance gap. A detailed case study and a performance aid (that incorporates gap analysis, cause analysis, and force field analysis) guide the reader in learning to use an updated version of the original model. A Behavior-Based Employee Performance System by William B. Abernathy, PhD Human performance technology (HPT) models are useful tools for describing and understanding the complex factors involved in the day-to-day functioning of employees. However, they are more descriptive than prescriptive. That is, their purpose is to analyze an organization as it is currently constructed and then to develop specific remedial interventions within this construction. In contrast, an organizational performance system perspective begins with the lofty premise that enough is known about human performance that an ideal organization can be designed from the ground up. Conventional HPT models require an existing organization for their analyses, much as a doctor requires a patient. In contrast, the performance systems practitioner would prefer to design an organization before any employees are hired and any bad practices are entrenched. Strategic Performance Measurement: The Case of Mississauga Transit by Thomas E. Plant and Janine S. Douglas In this era of heightened scrutiny of public organizations, local government is being put under increased pressure to improve the efficiency of operations while becoming more responsive to the needs of constituencies. However, governmental organizations have not been successful in generating the anticipated improvements in efficiency and effectiveness because they have focused on assessing rather than improving performance through the collection of statistics. This article examines the measurement system established at Mississauga Transit as an example of an organization that has utilized measurement information for performance improvement purposes; it has done this by establishing formalized feedback mechanisms aligned with divisional strategic goals. Mississauga has accomplished this goal by integrating elements of high-performer measurement systems such as alignment between the strategy, business plans, and performance measures; documented root cause analysis; timely reporting on variances and responses; and formal mechanisms to facilitate action. Overall, the one key in implementing a successful system at Mississauga Transit was providing a framework that facilitated the interpretation and use of the data by the employees to improve their work processes. Establishing such a system ensured that measurement information was used for performance improvement. Instituting a Competency-based Training Design and Evaluation System by Daniel J. Kealey, David R. Protheroe, Doug MacDonald, and Thomas Vulpe Clear and measurable statements of the learning objectives in cross-cultural training are rarely found in practice. This article describes the process, its inspiration, and results one training center undertook to address this major shortcoming in the intercultural training field. The goal was to undertake a competency analysis of intercultural effectiveness—that is, to establish clear and measurable statements describing the performance expected of an interculturally effective person. These performance statements are being used for personnel selection, training design, and evaluation purposes. The authors believe the results of this process will go a long way toward enabling training evaluations to be done at the elusive third and fourth levels of the Kirkpatrick framework. In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model by Michael Molenda Many instructional designers refer frequently to the ADDIE Model, but nobody seems to know where it came from. All agree that the acronym stands for analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation, but what does the original author of the model say about elaboration of this skeletal outline? Serious search revealed that the term does not appear in any of the expected reference sources—dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks, histories of instructional design, or surveys of instructional design models. A survey of leading academics and practitioners led to some suggestions of original sources, but none proved to be correct. The conclusion is that the term ADDIE came into use, probably in the late 1980s, through word of mouth. It evolved as a label for the whole family of systematic instructional development models, but there is no original, authoritative source for it. The underlying ideas behind the acronym are easier to trace, and these sources are discussed in some detail. |
