Week 9: Human Performance Technology History & Overview

This weeks materials zoomed out from our focus on IT and ISD, looking instead at a broader perspective that is Human Performance Technology (HPT). Pershing (2006) defined HPT as "the study and ethical practice of improving productivity in organizations by designing and developing effective interventions that are results-oriented, comprehensive, and systemic." He also goes on to describe reasons why these interventions might be seen as necessary; basically when an organization senses a void or gap between where they are and where they think they ought to be, regarding, for example, their belief in a performance problem, a challenge for quality improvement, or a new possible business opportunity.  

From Stolovich (2007), some of the main ideas and historical roots of HPT, were born from the realization that training alone could not solve many workplace performance problems. He explains that HPT has adopted, at its core, the maximization of human capital achievements due to issues such as the growth in organizational complexity and a subsequent focus on performance. Key events that stood out to me as particularly influential to the development of HPT, start with the belief that Thomas Gilbert is generally recognized as the father of HPT (in most of the readings and presentations). Gilbert was a graduate student of B.F. Skinner and went on to create "The Journal of Mathetics." This publication attracted like-minded individuals who all got together and formed the National Society for Programmed Instruction (NSPI). Gilbert and a fellow named Geary Rummler (who had an intriguing article on the history and development of HPT given from his perspective as having lived through this period) created the Behavior Engineering Model  (BEM) in the mid 1970s. At the same time, Joe Harless (a former student of Gilbert's) was developing his own performance improvement plan (PIP) and published "an Ounce of Analysis is Worth a Pound of Objectives" which introduced the front-end analysis methodology (Rummler (2007) explained this as happening "presumably as a counter to Mager's Analyzing Performance Problems and his own company, Praxis', development of the Performance Audit - Stolovich did mention Mager's release, but not Rummlers'). All of these models helped effect two fundamental shifts in thinking:

1. Opened the minds of training and Human Resource Development (HRD) professionals to the fact that many human performance problems could be solved via means other than training (that there are an infinite array of possible interventions to improve human performance).
2. The growing awareness that the HRD/training community could now offer stronger, more convincing arguments to senior management that what they were engaged in should be viewed as an organizational investment rather than a cost.

While another important milestone mentioned in this article was the publication of "Improving Performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart by Rummler, Rummler (2007) himself mentioned that about 5 years earlier than this publication, he was working with Motorola with process improvement work that ,this "subsequently combined with statistical analysis work at Motorola [was asserted] to be the genesis of Six Sigma (I didn't see that mentioned in the other readings and thought it pertinent). 

Backing up to when the NSPI was formed in 1962 (and continuing from Stolovichs' article), this organization flourished through most of the 1960s into the 1970s until the "golden glow of PI began to fade as flaws in the effectiveness of the learning outcomes became increasingly apparent. Foremost among the issues were lack of transfer to the job and impact on business results." In 1973, the name for the organization changed to the National Society for Performance and Instruction. Key influencers at this time (some were already mentioned above) were Robert Mager, Thomas Gilbert, Joe Harless, Geary Runnler, William Deterline, and Roger Kaufman. At this time, the emphasis was also being focused on performance expansion and the attention to instruction declined somewhat. Jumping to 1995, this organization became the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) and ultimately transformed its mission from learning to performance. This natural evolution has been "toward a systemic alignment of human capital management with organizational requirements to meet tough and competitive demands." 

Some common themes, concepts and principles found across the definitions within HPT is that it's an offshoot of the general systems theory applied to organizations in ISD; HPT took form in the 1970s, was recognized in the 1980s, and really emerged in the 1990s. Again, it was that thought, that idea, that seemed to be at the back of many peoples mind, that workplace performance problems were not always a training issue. Stolovich (2007) described the field as something that instructional technologists draw from (rather than always assuming that the cause of poor performance is poor instruction) and they will sometimes recommend non-instructional solutions based on HPT models. HPT appears to me, to be a parent of IT or ISD, without having actually been consciously recognized first. Human Performance Improvement (HPI) can be used interchangeably with HPT, however, one could also look at the two terms as HPI being what we wish to achieve (regarding human performance) and HPT as the means we use to achieve that wish (Stolovich, 2007). HPI, HPT, HRD, Organizational Effectiveness (OE) and Organizational Development (OD) could all be said they spring from basically the same theme (performance improvement). 

I felt Rummler (2007) gave me something to keep in consideration regarding the history of this field when he explained "after the initial academic jump start provided by Skinner with the Harvard Teaching Machine Project, almost all the advances in instructional design and performance analysis methodology came from consulting practitioners solving client problems. The resulting reality is that these players were always trying to build a personal brand-trying to distinguish themselves from each other in the marketplace; performance analysis versus performance audit, versus front-end analysis; human performance system, behavioral engineering model, analyzing performance problems. These were different configurations of the same variables influencing behavior and performance. This makes it hard for the historians who were not there. The really dangerous thing is when the historian cannot tell the difference [between the fundamental, significant differences between models and methodology] and fills the air with distinctions that are not real or important."

The HPT field makes sense to me; I'm happy to hear there is an organization (ISPI) that is dedicated to viewing the people as some of the most important capital to an organization AND that throwing training at a problem is not always the best answer (if your goal is in fact, to actually solve the problem.....but that also means an accurate and agreed upon description of the "problem" is also very necessary....). Of course, I spent considerable time trying to relate the readings to my every day life and the impact HPT has on me in my organization - speaking of which, I just attended a training this very morning on developing behavioral based interviews: skills for the interviewer, led by a member of the Organizational Development (OD) department here at IU Bloomington. Great class by the way! Stolovich (2007) described OD as having "less of an engineering emphasis and is characterized more by its communication and facilitation style." The first half of this class focused on providing information on what was meant by behavioral style interviews and the last half was role-play between class members. I KNOW the supervisors series I recently completed through the OD department, helped me get to where I am today. Those facilitated trainings, combined with the fact I really wanted to succeed (and still do), kept my marbles together during that first year as Group Leader of my team. I think it was a combination of the material they provided, the environment in which the classes were held (I didn't know anyone, which was nice to meet new people and to offer up my particular circumstances at work in a "safe" place, without fear of repercussion), AND my motivation to improve. All of that being said, I found these trainings on my own. This is the part where I believe my organization (department) could really work on helping us (the people) and the organization as a whole, perform better and set us up for success. It's not just about getting stuff done (I heard today that many times the "urgent" gets in the way of the "important"), it's about getting the right stuff done. Taking time with your people takes TIME and they always say that it's the people that keeps our place running. I believe we have a gap in performance surrounding our continuing endeavors to become fully FDA compliant (with the repurposing of part of the facility from research to being a Medical Device Manufacturer). Throwing training alone at that shift, isn't cutting it. Let's make sure we're investing enough back into the people - I've already started the conversation with our HR manager to get his thoughts on the topic and have requested funding (starting with myself) for an annual ISPI membership.  

References:

Ferond, C. (2006). The origins and evolution of human performance technology. In Pershing, J. A. (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (pp. 155-187). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Pershing, J. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.) (2006), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 5-34). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Stolovitch, H. D. (2007). The development and evolution of human performance improvement In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 134-146). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person Education.

Van Tiem, D. M., Mosely, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2004). Performance technology – defined. Fundamentals of performance technology. (pp. 2-20). Washington, DC: ISPI.

Rummler, G. A. (2007). The past is prologue: An eyewitness account of HPT. Performance Improvement, 46(10), 5-9.

Week 8: Views of & Issues in Instructional Technology: Trends and Issues

The material this week continued with an overview of the views and issues in instructional technology by exploring current controversies in the field. Molenda's first presentation touched on some of the contemporary issues in Instructional Technology, providing an overview of the forces impinging on the field and the specific issues prompted by those forces. His second presentation reviewed some of the most frequently raised questions about the adequacy of ISD from different perspectives; what I found particularly interesting and helpful in this one, was his suggestion of a general strategy for thinking about criticisms of ISD.  That strategy was that "any response to criticisms [of ISD] must begin by specifying which "ISD" they are defending, and which criticisms they are answering."In such a complex field, it makes sense to me that you should and would want to be, specific. Unless griping in general was your main goal:)

Two of the readings this week focused on a debate of media, in which the essence of this debate had me wholeheartedly saying I'm PRO media. I read Clarks' article first, and at first I thought he had some valid points. One that resonated with me, which he also stated was critical to his argument, was that "a number of very different media attributes serves the same or similar cognitive functions. If there is no single media attribute that serves a unique cognitive effect for some learning task, then the attributes must be proxies for some other variables that are instrumental in learning gains." He stressed that media and method must be viewed separately, and if different media forms served the same function with method being the same, we must always choose the cheaper one. Made sense to me, and that's about where I left off agreeing with him. The term "mechanistic" sprang to mind while I read the rest of Clarks article (I thought him and B.F. Skinner would have gotten along just fine in that he seemed to really be putting his foot down that media will NEVER influence learning). He compared media as "mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition." Clarks' article was in response to a fellow named Kozma, who wrote the second article on media debate in this weeks material, and I think it's important to include they did agree that "evidence does not yet support the claim that media or media attributes influence learning." Kozma's article was actually in response to a previous one submitted by Clark on the same topic, and instead of debating Clark, Kozma reframed the overarching question to "not do, but will media influence learning?" His article provided a few examples of two separate instructional environments to demonstrate the difference media can make for learners (which I wasn't necessarily swayed either way by these examples), and explained this different way of looking at media through examining the role of media, and the implications it has on theory, research, and practice. His parting question/statement was to ask "in what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, task, and situations?" YES - keep looking how to make it better. Overall, I agreed with Kozma's viewpoint. I think the learner of tomorrow not only wants, but is going to demand, what works for them, not necessarily what works broad spectrum for the masses using the cheapest delivery method. I believe they will take their money to schools that offer those choices and that don't take such a rigid stance against the application or even possibilities of new media (in reference to Clarks' viewpoint).

Another topic in the readings this week, focused on the major criticisms being made of the "systems approach to ISD." Gordon and Zemke (2000), summarized those major criticisms in the following:

• ISD is too slow and clumsy to meet today's training challenges.
• "ISD takes too long, it costs too much, and by the time you're through, the opportunity you were trying to exploit through training has passed you by."
• There's no "there" there.
• "Pretending that the model represents a real technology can lead you into trouble because training actually is not-and was never meant to be-a lock-step, engineering-like endeavor."
• "The beginning of the end was when universities developed curricula to produce Ph.D.s in ISD. The whole thing became process-driven rather than results-driven."
• Used as directed, it produces bad solutions.
• Because ISD is deeply rooted in behavioral psychology it demands that a training designer address only demonstrable skills and knowledge. [But many executives are] more concerned with developing a creative and resilient work force than with having employees memorize and play out some predetermined set of steps."
• It clings to the wrong world view.
• "The need for people who just follow set procedures is limited in today's average work environment. Knowledge resides all over the place, and you've got to create mechanisms for conversations-for mutual teaching and learning-rather than for better top-down information feeding."

On the flip side, there were alternative paradigms to ISD being proposed in reference to these criticisms.  Gordon and Zemke (2000), stated, "The ISD model assumes that a job is a known quantity. It assumes the presence of a master performer who knows how to do the job in the best possible way." That's not necessarily the case today and has been characterized "as a shift from prefigured work (the job is clearly laid out for you to do) to configured work (you have to make it up as you go along)... The core skill then becomes problem-solving, [and] if we're all figuring it out as we go, our preferred teaching strategies should include things like coaching, open classrooms (instead of rigorously structured ones), and Web-based forums as opposed to pre-programmed Web-based instruction." Another alternative paradigm presented in the same article, was in reference to ISD becoming more process-driven instead of results driven. "Blind observance of ISD is a characteristic of designers who lose sight of the real problem and focus on coming up with the perfect instructional program instead of the right business result. [Instead] start with outcomes. What are you trying to accomplish? What value are you trying to create? Then work backwards. If you keep working back down that value chain, you are more likely to come up with a variety of approaches to creating the change you need." An alternative presented in Zemke and Rossetts' (2002) article, was to "define ISD as a set of general guidelines, a heuristic, and not a rigid step-by-step algorithm. If ISD is a heuristic, then it is all about guidance for decision-making on matters as diverse as developing interactive elements, instructional programs, and selecting performance and support over instruction."

I must admit, I got a little nervous for the future of ISD while reading these other two required reading articles this week. A lot of the criticisms seemed valid enough, BUT, before I went off the deep end, I reminded myself of Molenda's recommended strategy that "any response to criticisms [of ISD] must begin by specifying which "ISD" they are defending, and which criticisms they are answering" and also of an earlier caution he gave in the week 4 presentations, against "leaping too quickly from descriptive theories to prescriptions" and to also be concerned when prescriptions are supported "by force or argument rather than evidence." Something I felt seemed pertinent to the material this week and so, I'm not throwing in the towel yet - I still believe a "systems approach" can serve in many different ways, it might just be time to make some adjustments.

References:

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. ETR&D, 42(2), 21-29.

Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 42-53.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? ETR&D, 42(2), 7-19.

Zemke, R., & Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD. Training, 39(2), 26-34. 

Hendel-Giller, R., & Stepich, D. A. (2007). Diane King: Rapid design approach to designing instruction. In P. A. Ertmer & J. Quinn (Eds.), The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design (3^rd ed.) (pp. 201-205). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48-53.

Presentations:

Molenda, week 4, Theories of Learning

Molenda, week 8, Contemporary Issues in Instructional Technology and Current Controversies - ISD