1. Running head: WIZZYWATS INTERVENTION 1
WizzyWats Intervention
Rachel Pieters
University of Phoenix

2. WIZZYWATS INTERVENTION 2
Introduction
The WizzyWats company has identified a problem in their assembly line. The workers
were not correctly identifying defective components as the components passed their station. The
consultant that the company hired was unable to detect any problems with the machinery or the
speed of the line and concluded that the problem stemmed from the workers’ level of alertness
and fatigue. The consultant’s recommendations of comfortable chairs and timely breaks for the
workers were implemented but these interventions did not produce any significant change in the
problem. The consultant that was hired by the WizzyWats company did not conduct thorough
research when conducting a performance analysis of the assembly line employees.
Overlooked factors
The consultant hired by the WizzyWats company did not did not appear to provide a
complete performance analysis. “Performance analysis involves gathering data that
enables the analyst to identify gaps in performance which, if narrowed or closed, would
contribute to accomplishing the strategic goals of the organization” (Molenda, 2004, p.
28).The consultant did consider the machinery and the speed of the line in regards to the
problem and the consultant did touch upon the employees’ attitudes and motivation when
suggesting the implementation of comfortable chairs and timely breaks. The consultant
appears to have come to the conclusion that the problem of not identifying defective
components was related to the workers’ level of alertness and fatigue without gathering
any additional data. There is no mention of data gathered concerning the employees’
motivation to identify defective components or what employees thought of the comfort
level of their chairs or if they were satisfied with the current schedule of breaks. Another

3. WIZZYWATS INTERVENTION 3
factor that the consultant seemed to have overlooked was if employees lacked the tools to
correctly determine whether a component is defective. The employees’ training is also
another factor that needed to be analyzed. Data should have been collected on whether
the employees know precisely what they need to determine whether a component is
defective or not.
Solution
Since the problem of incorrectly identifying defective components does not stem from
machinery or the speed of the line and the previous interventions to adjust the employees’
attitudes did not produce any significant change in production, the next step would be the
re-training of the employees on the assembly line. The problem may have to do with
employee motivation and attitude, but problems can have multiple roots, “even when
other interventions are at the center of a change, there is almost always some need for
training or education to support those other interventions” (Pershing 2006). Instructional
intervention seems to be the most appropriate way to address the problem of not
identifying defective components.
Instructional intervention or level 2 of “Kirkpatrick's well known evaluation-of-training
model, which suggests four levels of evaluation: reaction (satisfaction), learning results,
changes in behavior (transfer), and organizational performance (benefits)” (Stokking,
1996, p 179) would be the most appropriate starting point for addressing the identified
problem of employees not identifying defective components. “Instructional interventions
may be targeted if the workers lack the skills, knowledge, attitude or information needed
to do the job well” (Molenda, 2004, p. 29). Kirkpatrick’s levels 3 transfer and level 4
results can be monitored after the implementation of level 2, being learning. Once

4. WIZZYWATS INTERVENTION 4
employees are re-trained, it can be observed if they are transferring what they have
learned to their job. A comparison between the percentage or number of undetected
defective components before re-training and after re-training will determine if the
instructional intervention was successful.
Intervention
The following is a description of how the instructional intervention will be carried out.
The Instructor will have access to a non-defective component and to defective
components and any tools needed to make a determination as to whether a component is
defective. Training will take place in a room with chairs arranged in a circle to promote
dialog. The instructor will pass around non-defective component and point out parts of
the component to be examined for defects. The instructor will ask for questions or
comments and will encourage discussion. The instructor will pass around defective
components one at a time and demonstrate how to tell what is defective about the
component. Again, the instructor will ask for questions or comments and will encourage
discussion.
Evaluation
Several steps will be taken in evaluating the instructional intervention to know
whether it has been successful. Before the end of the training session, employees will be
divided into small groups of three or four and will be given a random mix of components
that are not defective and that are defective. Groups will be asked to identify if the
component is defective and why the component is defective if it is classified as being
defective. After a reasonable time for the groups to sort out the components, the

5. WIZZYWATS INTERVENTION 5
instructor will go to each group and ask the group to identify each component and if the
component is defective, why. Groups that correctly identify all of the components will
receive a coupon for free coffee or other small prize to promote morale. After the training
session, employees will be asked to provide written feedback on their training which can
be turned in within a week of the class. After employees return to work, there will be
monitoring and recording of the production. The new records and old records will be
compared to determine if a significant change in production has occurred because of the
training intervention.
Conclusion
When conducting a performance evaluation, determining a problem, determining where
the problem stems from, how to solve the problem and evaluating whether the solution was
effective, all data must be looked at before arriving at any conclusions. The consultant that was
hired by the WizzyWats company did not gather all the possible data concerning the problem of
assembly line employees not identifying defective components. The consultant did analyze data
concerning the machinery and speed of the line, but failed to gather any other data and made a
conclusion despite the lack of gathered data which turned out costing the WizzyWats company
time and money. “Almost all performance problems are rooted in more than one cause”
(Molenda, 2004, p. 27) and although the consultant may have pinpointed the problems of having
comfortable chairs and timely breaks scheduled for the employees of the assembly line, those
interventions alone were not enough to produce a significant change in solving the problem of
the employees not identifying defective components. “Instructional interventions and other sorts
of performance interventions all evolve through a similar process of analysis, design,
development and production” (Molenda, 2004, p. 27). Prior to implementing any intervention,

6. WIZZYWATS INTERVENTION 6
the legwork of complete analysis, design and development must be done to even have a chance
of being successful.

7. WIZZYWATS INTERVENTION 7
References
Molenda, M. and Pershing, J. (2004). An Integrative Approach to Performance Improvement and
Instructional Systems Design. TechTrends, (48)2, 26-32.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=13245789&site=ehost-
live.
Pershing, J. A. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of Human Performance Technology (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Stokking, K. (1996). Levels of Evaluation: Kirkpatrick, Kaufman and Keller, and Beyond.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, (7)2, 179-181.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=14891017&site=ehost-
live.