43

Douglas R. Hotek

As products in industry continue to in-crease in sophistication, performance require-ments for people who design, manufacture,and market those products become more com-plex. To support today’s complex performancerequirements, many authors in the field oftraining and development have stated thatthere is a need to reinvent the training profes-sion. They believe that industrial training pro-grams must give way to a more completeperformance technology that not only sup-ports training, but other variables as well thataffect the improvement of workers, their work,and their workplace (Bassi, Benson, & Cheney,1996; Clark & Sugrue, 1990; Lee & Zemke,1995; Robinson & Robinson, 1995;Rosenberg, 1995). This article provides anoverview of performance technology as a com-plete approach to improving human perfor-mance and an example in which the technol-ogy is used.

THE COMPLETE APPROACHPerformance technology (sometimes called

human performance technology) is a rela-tively new field of study that has evolved overthe past 30 years from research and practice inthe behavioral sciences. Today, it is applied bymany professionals in industry, known as per-formance technologists. They are concernedwith improving the value of human perfor-mance in the workplace (International Societyfor Performance Improvement [ISPI], 1997;

An Overview of Performance Technology

Mr. Hotek is a doctoral candidatein the Department of IndustrialTechnology at the University ofNorthern Iowa. He has been apractitioner of performance tech-nology for the past 20 years inindustry and is a member of the PiChapter of Epsilon Pi Tau. Dr. Whiteis a Professor in the Department ofIndustrial Technology at theUniversity of Northern Iowa. He isa member of Pi Chapter of EpsilonPi Tau.

Mager, 1995; Rosenberg, Coscarelli, &Hutchison, 1992; Stolovitch & Keeps, 1992).Performance technologists focus on improv-ing the value of human performance throughtheoretical frameworks drawn from researchin the disciplines of industry, education, andpsychology to the human aspects of organiza-tions, processes, and jobs (Carr & Totzke,1995; Rummler & Brache, 1995). To helpexplain a theoretical framework for perfor-mance technology, Deterline and Rosenberg(1992) and Rothwell (1996) used a modelsimilar to the performance improvement cycleillustrated in Figure 1 consisting of three phases:performance analysis, needs assessment, andsupport intervention. The three phases serveas an organizing theme for this paper.

Phase 1: Performance AnalysisA performance analysis consists of three

steps: (a) an assessment of what the desiredperformance of a population ought to be, (b)an appraisal of actual performance, and (b) ananalysis of the gap between the desired andactual performance. A metric chart, such asthat illustrated in Phase 1 of Figure 1, is usedto measure the desired performance, the ac-tual performance, and the gap between thetwo. If management considers the gap signifi-cant enough to merit an intervention, theneeds of the population and the system inwhich they work must be assessed (Rosenberg,1995; Rossett, 1992).

Figure 1. The performance improvement cycle.

Michael R. White

44

Phase 2: Needs AssessmentThe needs of a population are related to and

dependent upon their competence and com-mitment to perform within their current sys-tem of work (Hersey, Blanchard, & Hambleton,1988; Rossett, 1992). The grid in Phase 2 ofFigure 1 shows how four areas of need arerelated to a scale of low, medium, or highcompetence and commitment. For example,low competence and low commitment showthat the work system needs better operationaldefinition. The four areas of need (operationaldefinition, incentive, materials and processes,and instruction) are but preliminary consider-ations to be further analyzed. Once an area ofneed has been determined, specific data withinthat area can be obtained through more de-tailed questioning of the population. The fol-lowing are descriptions of what those specificneeds might be.

Operational definition. Those who strugglewith how they are to do their work, why theyneed to do it, or who they are doing it for aresuffering from specific needs in the area ofoperational definition. Deming (1994) definedoperational definition as “a procedure agreedupon for translation of concept into measure-ment of some kind” (p. 105). Specific needs inthe area of operational definition can be dis-covered by looking for such items as lack (ormisunderstanding) of goals and objectives,policy and procedures, and job descriptionsand standards (Kirkham, 1992; Mager, 1984a,1984b).

Incentive. Generally, people need incen-tive to improve their performance (Hersey etal., 1988). Specific incentive needs can bedetermined by asking questions designed touncover a lack of feedback, positive or nega-tive consequences, and good working rela-tionships among the population (Deming,1990; Mager & Pipe, 1984; Stolovitch &Keeps, 1992; Yaney, 1997).

Feedback is something that tells peoplethey either need to improve or they don’t needto improve. Everyone needs feedback to keepgood performance from deteriorating and badperformance from perpetuating. Feedbackshould be relevant, accurate, easy to under-stand, and provided on a regular basis (Mager,1992; Rummler & Brache, 1995).

Positive or negative consequences, or both,can be very powerful tools for changingpeople’s performance. People who are posi-tively reinforced (rewarded) for good perfor-mance will likely continue to perform well.On the other hand, people will most likelydiscontinue doing something if they are nega-tively reinforced (punished) for doing it. Nega-tive reinforcement can, however, have an

unfavorable impact on performance if peopleare punished for doing the right thing—such aswhen a person is branded as a “whistleblower”for reporting hazardous conditions or warnedby colleagues to “slow down” or face in-creased quotas (Deming, 1990; Mager, 1992).

High performers usually have good work-ing relationships with their fellow workers.That is, they are not afraid to express theirdifferences of opinions among their peers andmanagement. They also tend to be willing toreceive feedback about their strengths andweaknesses from those same people. Peoplewith good working relationships usually sharea sense of mutual trust and respect (Blanchard,Carew, & Parisi-Carew, 1996).

Materials and processes. Specific needs inthe area of materials and processes can bedetermined through measurements and test-ing of quality, quantity, capability, and ergo-nomics. Materials can be deficient either inquality or quantity, or both. Processes mayneed better capability, capacity, or ergonomicsoundness (Deming, 1990).

To do any job right, a person’s performanceobviously depends on having the correct qual-ity and quantity of materials on hand. It is notuncommon, however, for a person to be underthe stress of a job deadline and wondering ifthe materials are going to show up from avendor or previous stage of operation (Bhote,1989; Deming, 1982; Gitlow, Gitlow,Oppenheim, & Oppenheim, 1989).

People also need processes within theirworkplace (tools, machines, workstations) tobe capable of performing as expected. Withregard to process capability, Deming (1990)stated that “once a process has been broughtinto a state of statistical control, it has a defin-able capability. It will show sustained satisfac-tory performance” (p. 339). With regard toergonomics, the manufacturing process shouldbe designed to fit the person, as opposed tofitting the person to the process. Statisticsshow that industry can improve worker perfor-mance and avoid high costs of cumulativetrauma disorders (muscle and skeletal injuriesand illnesses) by providing sound ergonomicpractices in the workplace (Grandjean, 1990;Ostrom, 1993; Smith, 1996).

Instruction. Information, knowledge, andskill acquisition are specific needs in the areaof instruction. Training can improve knowl-edge and skills. Job aids can provide for infor-mational needs (Mager & Pipe, 1984;Stolovitch & Keeps, 1992).

People with modern training design anddelivery skills usually reside in anorganization’s human resource developmentdepartment. People with the latest expertise in

45

the subject matter, however, usually residewithin the line functioning departments. Whenthe two departments work together to coupleeffective training design and development withsubject matter expertise, resulting programscan be very effective (Rummler & Brache,1995).

If well designed, job aids can be a costeffective alternative to training. Job aids suchas checklists, setup sheets, work instructions,and illustrations provide assistance for peopleduring their work by reminding them of whatthey already know but have not memorized(Mager, 1992; Sugar & Schwen, 1995).However, Deming (1982) stated that manage-ment should stop its “dependence on unintel-ligible printed instructions...[and] institutemodern methods of training on the job” (p.31). Schonberger (1986) noted that training“must somehow be streamlined so that itdoesn’t keep progress on hold” (p. 208).

An instructional technology advancementthat could be classified as a modern method ofinstruction is the electronic performance sup-port system (EPSS). An EPSS is a combinationof interactive computer software and hard-ware technologies linked as a system to di-rectly support a person’s instructional needswhen, how, and where the support is needed(Gery, 1991; Raybould, 1995; Reynolds, 1993).With integrated expert systems software, anEPSS can be designed to help users solveproblems by providing “expert” instruction inspecific areas quickly and accurately when-ever and wherever the instruction is needed.By interacting with an expert system, a usercan be provided with the experience of humanexperts, who have had their knowledge inputinto the system, without incurring the time andcost of actually meeting them (Milheim, 1990;Rasmus, 1989; Wilson & Welsh, 1986).

When specific needs within the four gen-eral areas of operational definition, incentive,materials and processes, and instruction havebeen assessed, Phase 2 of the performanceimprovement cycle is complete. The nextphase, support intervention, fulfills those spe-cific needs.

Phase 3: Support InterventionSupport interventions should be managed

like the integration of a new system. Deming(1994) defined a system as “a network ofinterdependent components that work togetherto try to accomplish the aim of the system” (p.50). He stated that the system must be de-signed so that its components can establishinterrelationships and work together, as op-posed to competing with each other. Theillustration in Phase 3 of Figure 1 shows that by

obtaining the necessary resources, compo-nents of a support intervention can be de-signed, developed, and integrated to cover thefour general areas of need so that they worktogether to provide for the specific, and some-times unique, needs of the population (Mager& Pipe, 1984; Stolovitch & Keeps, 1992).Depending on the identified areas of need andsufficient financial resources, a single supportintervention may be provided to cover one ormore of the areas of need. Once a supportintervention has been provided, it is importantto evaluate its effectiveness by returning toPhase 1 (performance analysis) to see if theoriginal gap between the desired performanceand actual performance has been closed.

AN APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCETECHNOLOGY

As part of its corporate strategy, a companythat designs, manufactures, and markets com-plex commercial electronic products has de-veloped a sophisticated expert system to helpits sales representatives (product sellers) im-prove the sales forecasting process. By loadingthe expert system software into personal laptopcomputers operated by sales representatives,the expert system enables the sales represen-tatives to forecast, in much detail and withgreat accuracy, the complex features and op-tions desired by the company’s customers.One purpose of the expert system is to reducethe cycle time of the company’s sales forecast-ing process—a measure of time from when asales representative becomes aware of a pro-spective sale to when the manufacturing orga-nization is informed of that prospective sale.The advantage of a quick forecast cycle time isthat it allows manufacturing to respond muchquicker with a requirements plan for materials.

The company’s performance problem. Sincethe development of the expert system, how-ever, the company’s manufacturing organiza-tion is still receiving too few sales forecasts.The company suspects that the sales represen-tatives are not using the expert system. Tosimply train them on how to use it may not bethe only, or best, solution to this problem.There may be other issues involved. By apply-ing a performance technology approach, un-derlying issues can be discovered that lead toa more complete solution.

Phase 1: Performance AnalysisThe first step in the company’s performance

analysis is to identify a sales forecasting goal,that is, the amount sales representatives shouldbe forecasting. The second step is to identifythe amount that sales representatives are actu-ally forecasting. The third step is to analyze the

46

gap between the forecasting goal and theactual forecasts (see Figure 2). Since the gap isconsidered by management to be significantenough to merit an intervention, the companybegins Phase 2 of the improvement cycle.

Phase 2: Needs AssessmentBy applying the sales representatives’ per-

ceptions of their level of competence andcommitment of using the expert system to agrid such as illustrated in Figure 3, their needsare generalized into four areas: operationaldefinition, incentive, materials and processes,and instruction. Findings in one or more ofthese areas need to be addressed. By focusing

on one area at a time, a more in-depth analysisof specific needs within that area is conducted.

Specifics of operational definition. Salesrepresentatives lack a clear vision of thecompany’s strategic business plan and howtheir use of the expert system plays into thatstrategic plan. They don’t understand the con-cept of a “reduction in forecast cycle time”and how it can significantly affectmanufacturing’s ability to deliver orders ontime. There is no official policy describingwho is responsible for forecasting sales ordersto manufacturing.

Specifics of incentives. There are no conse-quences (positive or negative) for sales repre-

Figure 2. The company's performance analysis.

Phase 2: Needs Assessment

No positiveconsequences forforecasting

Inadequate laptop PCsNo negativeconsequencesfor not Flawed softwareforecasting

Feeling ofextra burden

Strategic planDistance training

Forecast cycle

Commitment

Com

pete

nce

Figure 3. The sales representatives' needs are assessed.

47

sentatives concerning their use of the expertsystem for sales forecasting. Managementneeds a better way to measure and evaluatethe sales forecasting process. Sales representa-tives are measured and evaluated on howmany products they sell, not on how muchthey forecast. They feel that time spent fore-casting sales would be better spent sellingtheir product. Before the expert system was inplace, sales representatives had come to relyon the working relationships with field admin-istrators to do sales forecasting tasks. By ac-cepting the expert system, they feel as if theyare accepting, in addition to their usual jobs,the extra burden of performing tasks belong-ing to the field administrator.

Specifics of materials and processes. Salesrepresentatives work from “virtual” officesscattered throughout the United States. Theexpert system software is routinely updated toreflect new products and prices. To receivethese updates, sales representatives need to“dial in” over telephone modem lines anddownload the software from the corporateoffice to their laptop PCs. Some laptops cannotefficiently and effectively perform these down-loads because they are deficient in terms ofmicroprocessor power and clock speed, ran-dom access memory, and modem speed. Thereare also flaws in the expert system softwareitself.

Specifics of instruction. Some sales repre-

sentatives know how to use the expert system.Some of them do not. For those who do not,training is essential and provided as quickly aspossible. Since sales representatives are physi-cally stationed throughout the United States, adistance training method is most appropriate.

Specific needs in all four general areas ofoperational definition, incentive, materials andprocesses, and instruction are assessed for thesales representatives, completing Phase 2 ofthe improvement cycle. Phase 3 is to providean intervention to support those specific needs.

Phase 3: Support InterventionAs illustrated in Figure 4, an intervention to

support the performance of the sales represen-tatives is designed, developed, and integratedto cover their four general areas of need. Thefollowing are four components of the supportintervention that work together like compo-nents of a system to fulfill the specific needs ofthe sales representative in each general area ofneed.

Component 1: Operational definition. Thesales director documents a policy statementthat describes the sales department's strategicplan and how sales forecasting is vital to thecompany's manufacturing plan. Sales manag-ers hold regular meetings to communicatehow and why sales representatives are to usethe expert system to forecast sales orders. Allmembers of the sales department collaborate

Figure 4. An intervention to support the performance.

48

to establish goals and objectives for measuring andevaluating their sales forecasting performance.

Component 2: Incentive. Sales managersconsider the achievement of sales forecastinggoals during routine performance appraisals.During the appraisals, sales representativesreceive regular feedback on how well they areachieving their sales forecasting goals and arerewarded accordingly.

Component 3: Materials and processes. Allsales representatives are issued new upgradedlaptop PCs with enough power and clockspeed, memory, and modem speed to solveproblems associated with inefficient and inef-fective downloading of the product and pric-ing software updates. A new flawless versionof the expert system software is developed andtested. The information systems departmentincludes the laptop PCs and software in itsregular upgrade and maintenance program.

Component 4: Instruction. Since the expertsystem contains proprietary information, adistance training method is developed inter-nally. A sales representative who is proficientin the use of the expert system and a companyspecialist in computer-aided instruction worktogether to produce an interactive CD-ROM

that is distributed to all sales representatives.Sales representatives receive training inde-pendently by installing the CD-ROM in theirlaptop PCs.

Return to Phase 1: Performance AnalysisUpon completion of the four components

of the support intervention, the company re-turns to Phase1 (performance analysis). A re-view of its established performance metric(Figure 5) shows that the original gap betweenthe goal and the actual sales forecasts has nowbeen closed.

In today’s sophisticated world of industry,human performance issues are becoming in-creasingly complex. Rather than solely pro-viding training programs, managers who areconcerned with improving the value of humanperformance should apply a performance tech-nology approach such as described in thispaper. Through a theoretical framework suchas the performance improvement cycle, man-agers can take a more complete approach toanalyzing workers, their work, and their work-place, discover what underlying issues mayexist, and ultimately provide solutions thatencourage peak performance.

Figure 5. Upon completion of the four components.

49

ReferencesBassi, L. J., Benson, G., & Cheney, S. (1996). The top ten trends. Training and Development,

50(11), 28–42.Bhote, K. R. (1989). Strategic supply management: A blueprint for revitalizing the manufacturer-

supplier partnership. New York: AMACOM, American Management Association.Blanchard, K., Carew, D., & Parisi-Carew, E. (1996). How to get your group to perform like a

team. Training and Development, 50(9), 34–37.Carr, C., & Totzke, L. (1995). The long and winding path (from instructional design to

performance technology). Performance and Instruction, 34(2), 4–8.Clark, R. E., & Sugrue, B. M. (1990). New techniques for effective training management. Los

Angeles: University of Southern California Press.Deming, W. E. (1982). Quality, productivity, and competitive position. Cambridge: Massachusetts

Institute of Technology.Deming, W. E. (1990). Out of the crisis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Deming, W. E. (1994). The new economics for industry, government, education (2nd ed.).

Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Deterline, W. A., & Rosenberg, M. J. (1992). Workplace productivity: Performance technology

success stories. Washington, DC: International Society for Performance Improvement.Gery, G. J. (1991). Electronic performance support systems: How and why to remake the workplace

through the strategic application of technology. Tolland, MA: Gery Performance Press.Gitlow, H., Gitlow, S., Oppenheim, A., & Oppenheim, R. (1989). Tools and methods for the

improvement of quality. Homewood, IL: Irwin.Grandjean, E. (1990). Fitting the task to the man (4th ed.). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Hambleton, R. K. (1988). Contracting for leadership style: A

process and instrumentation for building effective work relationships (2nd ed.). San Diego,CA: University Associates.

International Society for Performance Improvement. (1997). 1997-1998 Performanceimprovement resources and membership directory. Washington, DC: Author.

Kirkham, R. L. (1992). A better way: Achieving total quality. Salt Lake City, UT: AmericanTraining Alliance.

Lee, C., & Zemke, R. (1995). No time to train. Training, 32(11), 29–37.Mager, R. F. (1984a). Goal analysis (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing.Mager, R. F. (1984a). Preparing instructional objectives (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing.Mager, R. F. (1992). What every manager should know about training: or “I’ve got a training

problem”...and other odd ideas. Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing.Mager, R. F. (1995). Foreword. In W. Coscarelli, G. Geis, J. H. Harless, S. Shrock,& M. E. Smith

(Eds.), Introduction to performance technology (Rev. ed., pp. ix-xi). Washington, DC: TheInternational Society for Performance Improvement.

Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1984). Analyzing performance problems (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:Pitman.

Milheim, W. D. (1990). Expert systems in education and training: What instructional designersneed to know. Washington, DC: National Society for Performance and Instruction.

Ostrom, L. T. (1993). Creating the ergonomically sound workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Rasmus, D. (1989). The expert is in. MacUser, 5(9), 136–160.Raybould, B. (1995, January). Making EPSS work for your organization. INFO-LINE, 501.

(Available from American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA.)Reynolds, A. (1993, January). The top five questions about performance support systems.

Technical and Skills Training, pp. 8–11.Robinson, J. C., & Robinson, D. G. (1995). Performance takes training to new heights. Training

and Development, 49(9), 21–24.Rosenberg, M. J. (1995). Performance technology, performance support, and the future of

training: A commentary. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(1), 94–99.Rosenberg, M. J., Coscarelli, W. C., & Hutchison, C. S. (1992). The origins and evolution of the

field. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology(pp. 14–31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rossett, A. (1992). Analysis of human performance problems. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps(Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology (pp. 97–113). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Rothwell, W. J. (1996). ASTD models for human performance improvement: Roles, competencies,

50

and outputs. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white

space on the organization chart (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Schonberger, R. J. (1986). World class manufacturing: The lessons of simplicity applied. New

York: Free Press.Smith, R. K. (1996). CTDs: Lower the risk; raise productivity. Assembly, 39(4), 22–28.Stolovitch, H. D., & Keeps, E. J. (1992). What is human performance technology? In H. D.

Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology (pp. 3-13). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sugar, W. A., & Schwen, T. M. (1995). Glossary of technical terms. In L. Kelly (Ed.), The ASTDtechnical and skills training handbook (pp. 581–591). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wilson, B. G., & Welsh, J. R. (1986). Small knowledge-based systems in education and training:Something new under the sun. Educational Technology, 26(11), 7–13.

Yaney, J. P. (1997). Questionnaires help in problem-analysis. Performance Improvement, 36(8),28–33.

The company described in this paper is unnamed because particular information in the scenario, when associated withthe company’s name, may be useful to its competitors.