Fundamentals of Performance Technology: A Guide to Improving People, Process, and Performance

There is an old children's rhyme that goes something like this:

Too often the implied focus of PT is the performance problem. "In fact, the technology can and should be used proactively to address new opportunities and to make that which is good even better." [34]

Analyzing the desired and actual performance states (gap analysis ”see Table 3-7) is the last step in the performance analysis phase of the HPT Model, and the first step toward making a poor performance better and a good performance best. During this step all of the performance pieces come together. Gap analysis identifies the type of performance improvement opportunity that exists and paves the way for cause analysis and intervention selection or design.

 
Table 3-7: GAP ANALYSIS COMPONENT OF THE HPT MODEL

Definitions and Scope

From the perspective of many leaders in the field, performance gap analysis is much like needs assessment. During a needs assessment, needs are often viewed as "gaps in results, consequences, or accomplishments" and needs assessment is defined as "a very valuable tool for identifying where you are ”the current results and consequences ”and where you should be ”the desired results and consequences" [35] (see Figure 3-4).

Figure 3-4: KAUFMAN'S DEFINITION OF NEED

The two major differences between needs assessment and performance gap analysis are as follows :

  1. Needs assessment tends to focus on knowledge, skills, and attitude; performance gap analysis "identifies any deficiency or proficiency affecting human performance."

  2. Needs assessment tends to focus on the past and present; performance analysis also looks to the future. [36]

Performance gaps may also be viewed as performance improvement opportunities that provide a chance to:

There are six potential gaps in performance: present positive, present neutral, present negative, future positive, future neutral, future negative. [37] Figure 3-5 illustrates the concept of the six gaps in terms of the HPT Model.

Figure 3-5: ROTHWELL'S SIX CELL GAP ANALYSIS

The PT practitioner should be aware of three yellow caution flags regarding positive and neutral gaps:

  1. Decisionmakers and PT practitioners should not become complacent about positive gaps.

  2. "Organizations that experience breakthrough improvements in productivity are sometimes able to distinguish themselves by applying innovation to a neutral gap."

  3. The greatest opportunity for performance improvement may occur when future neutral gaps exist "because competitors tend to overlook them." [38]

Purpose and Timing

Within the framework of the HPT Model and the work cited above, the purpose of performance gap analysis is to identify present and future gaps between the desired performance state and the actual performance state. Along the way the analyst performs the following three tasks :

  1. Identifies the gaps as positive, neutral, or negative.

  2. Identifies the type of performance improvement opportunity offered by each gap.

  3. Prioritizes the performance gaps according to how important (criticality) the gap is to meeting the goals of the organization, how difficult (complexity) it will be to resolve the gap, and how often (frequency) the gap occurs.

The proverbial horse-before-the-cart problem applies here. Performance gap analysis must occur before cause analysis, which in turn must occur before intervention selection and implementation. Performance gap analysis is truly the key to successful performance improvement or enhancement.

Conducting a Performance Gap Analysis

The systems approach to analyzing performance gaps includes three sequential steps:

  1. Identify the gaps (present and future; positive, neutral or negative) between the actual performance state and the desired performance state.

  2. Prioritize the gaps that are identified.

  3. Analyze the causes.

The first two steps are discussed below. The third step, cause analysis, is examined in the next chapter.

Identifying the Performance Gaps

Identification of performance gaps may be approached by one or a combination of the following methods : [39]

Prioritizing the Performance Gaps

Ideally, a group of people, preferably the stakeholders in the performance improvement effort, is involved in prioritizing the performance gaps. It is a crucial part of performance gap analysis because "...merely identifying a difference between what people are doing and what you would like them to be doing is not enough reason to take action." [43] In addition to the Delphi method discussed above, there are a number of process tools that help groups prioritize items and reach agreement or consensus on the results. As facilitator, the PT practitioner may provide a list of performance gaps or begin with a brain- storming session to generate the list. [44] Then the facilitator may use one or a combination of the following sorting tools to prioritize the gaps and to gain consensus:

Each of the above activities involves listing the performance analysis gaps (either in matrix form or on separate cards) and manipulating the list through several rounds, using criticality rating scales or physical sorting techniques. Using some form of the Priority Matrix (Job Aid 3-3) is the key to effective sorting and the attainment of consensus.

Job Aid 3-3: SAMPLE PRIORITY MATRIX

Directions to the Participants: After considerable analysis, we have identified the following performance gaps within our organization. The gaps are listed in the first column. We are asking you to help us determine how critical each gap is to the attainment of our organization's strategic goals. Rank ( ¼ ) each gap on the Criticality Scale; then be prepared to compare your results with the rest of the group. Together we need to reach consensus on which gaps are the most critical and need to be resolved first.

 

Low

Criticality Scale

High

Performance Gap

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     

ISPI 2000 Permission granted for unlimited duplication for noncommercial use.

 

Case Study: University Development Center

The following case study has been adapted from an actual faculty consultation session at a university faculty development center. References to department and nationality have been changed to ensure client confidentiality. Faculty development specialists are experts in various course content areas and are exemplary performers.

Situation

The faculty development center director at a large urban university received a call from a department chair. According to the department chair , students, including department majors, were complaining directly to him about one of the department instructors. The complaints included the following:

Of the 30 students originally enrolled in the course, 10 dropped out during the drop-add period.

Gap Analysis

The faculty development center director suggested that the instructor should call the faculty development specialist assigned to his content area. Shortly thereafter, the instructor made an appointment with the specialist for an initial interview and for a class observation. The specialist interviewed the instructor over the phone, reviewed student course evaluations and complaints made directly to the department chair, and observed the instructor during one of the course sessions.

The faculty development center uses the following criteria to describe desired performance in teaching:

Results

The initial interview revealed that this instructor had been in the U.S. for five years . Before his current assignment, he had spent one semester as a teaching assistant at a research university, working with small groups of students. The instructor believed that he was teaching skillfully and that it was the students who were the source of the problem. He stated that he did not like his current students because they were unmotivated and had poor attitudes toward the class.

During both the initial interview and the class observation, the specialist noted English language communication problems, including the following:

The classroom observation established that the instructor, although knowledgeable about the content, did not organize the content well and demonstrated poor presentation skills and inappropriate use of media. Specifically, the specialist recorded the following observations:

The faculty consultant sent the instructor a written report consisting of a general summary and some recommendations. The report suggested that the two major performance gaps were lack of communication (English) skills and lack of instructional skills. The instructor agreed to a series of sessions to improve his English skills as well as consultation sessions to polish his teaching skills.

Lessons Learned

  1. Performance gap analysis identifies the gaps between optimal and actual performance. However, it is not possible to jump to a performance improvement solution without carefully considering the cause of the identified gaps, including possible environmental, experiential , or organizational causes.

  2. In this case, the assumption was made that the performance problems were grounded in a lack of teaching experience and English language communication skills, both verbal and nonverbal. However, the collision between student and instructor expectations regarding course delivery and feedback may also be the effect of environmental, experiential, or organizational factors. Is the instructor basing his teaching style and expectations on his experience as a student? Are there cultural differences regarding education between the universities in his country and the university where he teaches?

  3. Further analysis is required before a complete performance improvement package can be designed to meet the needs of the instructor, the students, the department, and the university's needs. Interviews with the department head and the students could be helpful. At the very least, the specialist needs to discuss the report and review the recommendations with the instructor.

This case study was written by Deborah Armstrong, MA. Used with permission.

 

[34] Geiss, 1986, p. 6

[35] Kaufman 1993, p . 4

[36] Rothwell, 1996b, p. 132

[37] Rothwell, 1996b, pp. 129 “132

[38] Rothwell, 1996b, pp. 131 “32

[39] Rothwell, 1996b

[40] Zemke, 1987

[41] Rothwell, 1996b, p. 136

[42] Bunning, 1979

[43] Mager and Pipe, 1984, p. 13

[44] Hurt, 1994, pp. 57 “59

[45] Ford, 1975, pp. 35 “39

[46] Zemke, 1987, pp. 141 “151

Категории