* Research: Lisa L. Gabel, CPT US-Navy


Published on

Published in: Education, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • “The Revolution is inevitable; it is underway outside of the Navy; we must harness it, focus it, bend it to the Navy’s needs” ERNT, August 8, 2001
  • Go over the “linearness” of the model in the real world. Why do we love models: Navigation- i.e. they show us a process to follow Organization- i.e. they help us put things into categories Communication- i.e. helps us convey our methods to stakeholders
  • While the figure varies somewhat in different jobs, industries, and countries, Rummler & Brache found that about 80 percent of performance improvement opportunities reside in the environment. Usually 15 to 20 percent of the opportunities are in the Skills and Knowledge area and also found that fewer than 1 percent of performance problems result from individual capacity deficiencies Rummler & Brache, (1995) Rummler & Brache note that their finding is consistent with that of Deming (1982), who maintains that only 15 percent of performance problems are worker problems and 85 percent are management problems. The bad news is that diagnosing a situation does not in itself bring about performance improvement.
  • * Research: Lisa L. Gabel, CPT US-Navy

    1. 1. Human Performance Improvement: The Road to Successful Implementation Lisa L Gabel, CPT March 5, 2006
    2. 2. Overview <ul><li>Human Performance Technology in the US Navy </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges of Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Internal Consulting </li></ul>
    3. 3. HPC Mission “ The mission of the Human Performance Center is to optimize Naval warfighting performance by applying the Human Performance Systems Model and the Science of Learning to all facets of Naval operations.” Performance Consultants Make recommend- ations Translate job requirements into competencies Apply Science of Learning & Human Performance Generate solution options and metrics Conduct effectiveness & cost analysis (K, S, A, O, T) III. Develop Components I. Define Requirements Establish Performance Standards & Requirements Develop, Build, & Integrate Tools Design Human Performance Solutions Implement & Test Intervention; Evaluate “ Product of Plan” IV. Execute & Measure II. Define Solutions Human Performance Systems Model
    4. 4. The HPC Evolution The HPC … A corporate Navy organization supporting the Sailor (NETC/CNP), the Fleet and the Acquisition community <ul><li>FY02 (TFE HP Cell) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 site </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>10-20 contractors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FY03 (Provisional HPC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Year of the Sailor” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>16 Det sites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>75-85 temporary personnel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NPDC & NSTC </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FY04 (HPC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Year of the Fleet ” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>23 Det sites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>125 permanent personnel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HPC N7 Support Function </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ASTD training </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FY05 (HPC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Year of Implementation” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continued expansion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>171+ personnel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CNO: HPI alignment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>FY06 (Corporate HPC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Year of Sustainment” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Corporate Navy Presence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>8:1 ROI </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Norfolk </li></ul><ul><li>HPC HQ </li></ul><ul><li>FFC </li></ul><ul><li>OPTEVFOR </li></ul><ul><li>NNWC </li></ul><ul><li>CNE </li></ul><ul><li>CENNAVINTEL </li></ul><ul><li>CPD </li></ul><ul><li>CENATNSF </li></ul><ul><li>CNL </li></ul><ul><li>ATGLANT </li></ul><ul><li>MARFPCOM </li></ul><ul><li>NAVSAFCEN </li></ul><ul><li>Pax River </li></ul><ul><li>NAVAIR </li></ul><ul><li>Bethesda </li></ul><ul><li>NMETC </li></ul><ul><li>Washington </li></ul><ul><li>NAVSEA </li></ul><ul><li>CNI </li></ul><ul><li>Dahlgren </li></ul><ul><li>CSCS </li></ul><ul><li>Groton </li></ul><ul><li>SLC/CSL </li></ul><ul><li>Newport </li></ul><ul><li>NWC </li></ul><ul><li>SWOS </li></ul><ul><li>Panama City </li></ul><ul><li>CEOD/DIVE </li></ul><ul><li>Pensacola </li></ul><ul><li>CNATT </li></ul><ul><li>CID </li></ul><ul><li>Orlando </li></ul><ul><li>HPC N7 </li></ul><ul><li>San Diego </li></ul><ul><li>ATGPAC </li></ul><ul><li>CNAF </li></ul><ul><li>CNSF </li></ul><ul><li>SPAWAR </li></ul><ul><li>FASWC </li></ul><ul><li>CSEAL/SWCC </li></ul><ul><li>Corpus Christi </li></ul><ul><li>CNATRA </li></ul><ul><li>Monterey </li></ul><ul><li>NPS </li></ul><ul><li>Great Lakes </li></ul><ul><li>NSTC </li></ul><ul><li>Millington </li></ul><ul><li>NPC </li></ul><ul><li>Athens </li></ul><ul><li>CSS </li></ul><ul><li>Honolulu </li></ul><ul><li>CPF </li></ul><ul><li>Port Hueneme </li></ul><ul><li>CSFE </li></ul>
    5. 5. ASTD HPI Model <ul><li>Knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Motives </li></ul><ul><li>Physical resources </li></ul><ul><li>Structure/Process </li></ul><ul><li>Information </li></ul><ul><li>Wellness </li></ul>Desired performance state Evaluation of Results <ul><li>Formative evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Summative evaluation </li></ul>Actual performance state Intervention Implementation <ul><li>Manage the project </li></ul><ul><li>Help the organization adapt to the changes </li></ul><ul><li>Gather formative evaluation data </li></ul>Performance Analysis Intervention Selection Cause Analysis Business Analysis <ul><li>Type of root cause </li></ul><ul><li>Match interventions </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul>GAP <ul><li>Determine business goals </li></ul><ul><li>Articulate relationship to human performance </li></ul>C h a n g e M a n a g e m e n t
    6. 6. Overview of Performance Process ASTD©
    7. 7. Analysis ASTD©
    8. 8. Principle 1: HPI Uses a Results-Based Approach Mission Analysis Determine Customer Goals Identify Performer Groups Assess the Cost of the Problem
    9. 9. Principle 2: Begin by Focusing on Accomplishments Instead of Behavior Performance Analysis Determine Desired Performance Determine Actual Performance Calculate Performance Gap
    10. 10. Principle 3: Organizations are Systems Root Cause Analysis Select Analytical Model Gather Data to Test Cause Hypothesis Analyze Data to Determine Cause Hypothesis
    11. 11. HPI Solutions <ul><li>Which misses the primary </li></ul><ul><li>root causes: </li></ul><ul><li>Clear job definition (35%) </li></ul><ul><li>Tools and Resources (30%) </li></ul>Every year, large companies spend $300-900M each hoping to “fix” just 12% of their problems! Industry HPC <ul><li>Non-training interventions </li></ul><ul><li>address: </li></ul><ul><li>Manpower </li></ul><ul><li>Systems </li></ul><ul><li>Processes </li></ul>Initial results indicate that of 165 potential interventions, only 21 were actual training solutions
    12. 12. Problem Characteristics <ul><li>A client: </li></ul><ul><li>Must own a measurable business goal that is not being achieved (there is “pain” or an opportunity). </li></ul><ul><li>Identifies an accomplishment not being achieved by a performer linked to the business goal. </li></ul><ul><li>Must describe the impact of the problem on the organization. </li></ul>
    13. 13. Describing the Real Problem <ul><li>The client’s request becomes a performance discussion that clarifies the problem: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Who – What – When – Where - Worth </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>From : “I need training on sales.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To: “Sales reps in the central region are $410,000 below Product Y 1 st Quarter goals impacting fiscal year sales revenue.” </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Intervention Defined: <ul><li>An intervention is: </li></ul><ul><li>“ A set of structured activities in which selected organizational units (target groups or individuals) engage in a task or sequence of tasks where the task goals are related directly or indirectly to organizational improvement.” </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational Development , French & Bell, 1990. </li></ul>
    15. 15. Why Projects Fail? <ul><li>Failure to plan adequately for the development effort (Villchica, Stone, & Endicott, 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Considering implementation as an afterthought (Villchica et al., 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Internal conflict between project management and line organization (Stuckenbruck, 1981) </li></ul><ul><li>Inadequate authority granted project manager (Stuckenbruck, 1981) </li></ul>
    16. 16. “ Begin with the end in mind…” <ul><li>Project alignment: Making sure a project begins with a shared vision of success </li></ul><ul><li>Ensuring buy-in </li></ul><ul><li>Specifying factors that will ensure success and corresponding measures </li></ul><ul><li>Project delivery aligned with goals, expectations and strategic objectives </li></ul>
    17. 17. Connecting with Clients <ul><li>Project Alignment </li></ul><ul><li>How does the client see the gap being closed? </li></ul><ul><li>What kind of interventions have been implemented in the past? </li></ul><ul><li>What was successful? What wasn’t? </li></ul><ul><li>Does the project manager have adequate authority? </li></ul><ul><li>Alignment </li></ul><ul><li>Project charter </li></ul><ul><li>Project procedures guide </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Roles & responsibilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Method to determine priorities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Method to resolve conflict </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Type & frequency f project management feedback </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Formal & informal reporting & review procedures </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Implementation Barriers for the Navy <ul><li>The Sponsor typically… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifies a symptom of the problem vs. the underlying issue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides a desired solution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Believes that training is the solution </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Successful projects require stakeholder ownership, involvement & collaboration. </li></ul><ul><li>Field observation is key </li></ul><ul><li>Performance requirements are poorly articulated or do not exist </li></ul><ul><li>Cost of current performance deficiencies not readily available or not known </li></ul><ul><li>Critical data are lacking to support analysis. Must engage in time consuming data mining </li></ul><ul><li>Potential solutions cross many organization boundaries </li></ul>
    19. 19. <ul><li>Get the Inside Track </li></ul><ul><li>Do Your Homework </li></ul><ul><li>Will the Real Sponsor Please Stand Up? </li></ul><ul><li>Stand Your Ground </li></ul><ul><li>Provide Examples </li></ul><ul><li>Get Around </li></ul><ul><li>Be Proactive </li></ul><ul><li>Avoid Too Much Too Soon </li></ul><ul><li>Test the Water </li></ul><ul><li>Practice What You Preach </li></ul>Top 10 Survival Guidelines
    20. 20. Level of Proficiency Performers Shifting the Performance Curve Improving Performance ! The outcome is… to here Performance goes… from here
    21. 21. Questions? [email_address] 407.380.4950