Understanding Human Performance Technology
Definition and Actions of Human Performance Technology
Human performance improvement (HPI) has become a field of practice aiming to improve human performance in the workplace. HPI and HPT are usually viewed as being synonymous, only for improvement is the goal we wish to achieve, and the technology is the means we use to achieve it. The vision of HPI is to increasingly and successfully achieve the accomplishments through people, which are valued by all organizational stakeholders (Reiser & Dempsey, 2011). International Society of Performance Improvement (ISPI) defines HPT as “Human Performance Technology (HPT), a systematic approach to improving productivity and competence, uses a set of methods and procedures -- and a strategy for solving problems -- for realizing opportunities related to the performance of people” (ISPI-HPT). Association for Talent Development (ATD) defines HPI as “HPI is the systematic process of identifying and analyzing the root causes of performance issues, and implementing big picture solutions across an organization” (ATD-HPI). Although the utmost goal of HPI is to improve the overall organizational performance, organizational performances are classified in different levels: individual level, process level and organizational level (Rummler & Brache, 1995). An organization as a whole has its overall goals and measures, and is usually divided into sub-components, these components are connected and interacted with each other through processes, and individuals work in those components through interaction and connection. HPI specifically deal with the performance of people because individual’s performance is the basic unit in the overall organizational performance, and evidence has shown that human capital is an important factor in affecting returns in workplace (Corrado, Hulten, & Sichel, 2006). HPI focuses on systematic approach to address and solve problems in an organization due to the growing complexity of organization and also because the desired performance are usually affected by interacting elements such as clear stated expectations, efficient procedures, timely feedbacks, adequate resources, appropriate communication and knowledge sharing. The systematic approaches in HPI often involve data collection and analysis, and HPI is result-based and driven by business needs (Reiser & Dempsey, 2011).
HPI aims to achieve optimal employee performance required to meet organizational goals. The focus on performance improvement within an organization often relates HPI to other fields, such as organizational development (OD), human resource development (HRD), and instructional design and technology (IDT). These fields each have their unique approach and expertise in achieving performance improvement. OD usually operates at macro level of organizations through planned interventions in the organization’s processes or operations to increase organizational effectiveness and health (Aziz, 2013). Comparing with HPI, OD has the strength in implementing organizational strategy, nurture cultural intervention and facilitate changes in an organization. HRD aims to help employees to develop their personal and organizational skills, knowledge, and abilities for better performance and work-and-life balances. In contrast to HPI’s systematic approaches, HRD is often employee-want-based, and is often through coaching, mentoring and succession planning. IDT is to creating "instructional experiences which make the acquisition of knowledge and skill more efficient, effective, and appealing” (Wikipedia-ID). IDT has the strength in determining the learner’s needs and hosting methodology and techniques to deliver needed instruction. Regarding performance improvement, IDT is through instructional approaches, while besides pursuing instructional approaches HPI also use non-instructional approaches. These fields are close connected to HPI. Often, HPI provides the performance analysis, intervention selection, evaluation and social-need focus through systematic approaches; and the interventions are typically selected through the expertise in IDT or OD (Aziz, 2013).
History of Human Performance Technology
The field of HPT evolved from the fields of educational technology and instructional technology (Reiser & Dempsey, 2011). In 1950s-1960s behavior psychology was dominant in education and training fields. In the mid-1950s, B. F. Skinner introduced programmed instruction, which was a system for learners to learn with specially prepared books and equipment without a teacher. The programmed instruction was based on Skinner’s principal of operant condition, which theorized that learning takes place when a reinforcing stimulus is represented to reward a correct response(Skinner, 1969). The National Society for Programmed Instruction (NSPI) was founded in 1962 (Wikipedia-ISPI). At the time, it was believed that programmed instruction would revolutionize learning. However, very soon people recognized that something was missing. The application of programmed instruction appeared to be essential tactical. The teaching machines or specialized textbooks in programmed instruction only acted as training tools or aids. In 1960s, systems theory was discovered in the training field and applied to organization. The field of performance technology began to develop branching from the behavioral programmed instruction movement. In 1973, NSPI change its name to National Society for Performance and Instruction, which showed its emphasis on performance was expanded, while its attention to instruction declined (Wikipedia-ISPI). Thomas Gilbert, generally considered to be the father of HPT, published Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (1978) introducing the Behavior Engineering Model (BEM). BEM describes the necessary influences for behavior from both environmental and personal repertory perspectives, and listed six major categories of variables affecting workplace performance (Gilbert, 1996). Gilbert’s contribution was a milestone for the field of HPT, and the BEM model is still used today as one of the basic HPT analytical tools. At approximately the same time (1970s), Joe Harless published An Ounce of Analysis (Is Worth a Pound of Objectives) introducing front-end analysis, and Robert F. Mager and Peter Pipe published Analyzing Performance Problem or “You really Oughta Wanna” introducing the methodology of analyzing performance problem. These performance improvement models and methodology laid foundation for the field of HPT. In 1995, NSPI became International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) (Wikipedia-ISPI). The further name change transformed its mission from learning to performance with the focus on organizational thinking about the roles of training and human performance improvement.
Trends of Human Performance Technology
HPT is an applied field, which provides valuable perspectives on solution to a wide range of performance problems at work place. The development and future of HPT are influenced by many applied fields and academic disciplines for the economy, the society, technology and business processes(Pershing, Lee, & Cheng, 2008; Rothwell, Hohne, & King, 2011). Workforce becomes more diverse, and has increased skill requirements and technology advancements. Business processes demand measurable added value and evidence-based interventions. Leadership development becomes most urgent and ongoing due to these changing expectations of the workplace, the evolving result-demanding business processes, and the speed and extend of technology change and innovation (Deloitte, 2015).
With the shifting demands, how does HPT respond to these changes in improving performance in workplace? Although HPT is an applied field, integrated theoretical frameworks are important in guiding the practice. System theory, information technology and cognitive science are recognized as the most influential theories to HPT (Pershing et al., 2008). Systems’ thinking helps to see interdependences and to explore greater range of application opportunities. Understanding how we as human being react and function is important to apply effective intervention in performance improvement. Information technology is often the “media” to carry out performance improvement actions. Bridging the gaps between theories, practice and research will enhance the development of the HPT field. The practice of HPT relies heavily on HPT models. Most commonly used HPT models are Gilbert’s behavior engineering model (BEM), Mager-Pipe’s analyzing performance problem model, Rummler’s nine-box model, and Tosti’s performance system model. These classic models were developed about fifty years ago. They are still workable, showing how genuine they are. However, the development and application of a field should move with the times. Those classic HPT models are more on analytical structure and processes, which sets a good foundation for HPT practice. Current workplace and business processes request measurable added value and evidence-based interventions. The field of HPT will likely be strengthened by the development of these areas. The traditional performance evaluation based on rating/ranking has been replaced by ongoing feedback and coaching designed to promote continuous employee development (Barry, Garr, & Liakopoulos, 2014). The leadership development will become HPT focus to inspire organizational and individual growth through creation and communication of compelling visions and strategies (Morris, 2013). More research and development on evaluation models and leadership models were called for HPT future research agenda(Pershing et al., 2008).
Reference
Human performance improvement (HPI) has become a field of practice aiming to improve human performance in the workplace. HPI and HPT are usually viewed as being synonymous, only for improvement is the goal we wish to achieve, and the technology is the means we use to achieve it. The vision of HPI is to increasingly and successfully achieve the accomplishments through people, which are valued by all organizational stakeholders (Reiser & Dempsey, 2011). International Society of Performance Improvement (ISPI) defines HPT as “Human Performance Technology (HPT), a systematic approach to improving productivity and competence, uses a set of methods and procedures -- and a strategy for solving problems -- for realizing opportunities related to the performance of people” (ISPI-HPT). Association for Talent Development (ATD) defines HPI as “HPI is the systematic process of identifying and analyzing the root causes of performance issues, and implementing big picture solutions across an organization” (ATD-HPI). Although the utmost goal of HPI is to improve the overall organizational performance, organizational performances are classified in different levels: individual level, process level and organizational level (Rummler & Brache, 1995). An organization as a whole has its overall goals and measures, and is usually divided into sub-components, these components are connected and interacted with each other through processes, and individuals work in those components through interaction and connection. HPI specifically deal with the performance of people because individual’s performance is the basic unit in the overall organizational performance, and evidence has shown that human capital is an important factor in affecting returns in workplace (Corrado, Hulten, & Sichel, 2006). HPI focuses on systematic approach to address and solve problems in an organization due to the growing complexity of organization and also because the desired performance are usually affected by interacting elements such as clear stated expectations, efficient procedures, timely feedbacks, adequate resources, appropriate communication and knowledge sharing. The systematic approaches in HPI often involve data collection and analysis, and HPI is result-based and driven by business needs (Reiser & Dempsey, 2011).
HPI aims to achieve optimal employee performance required to meet organizational goals. The focus on performance improvement within an organization often relates HPI to other fields, such as organizational development (OD), human resource development (HRD), and instructional design and technology (IDT). These fields each have their unique approach and expertise in achieving performance improvement. OD usually operates at macro level of organizations through planned interventions in the organization’s processes or operations to increase organizational effectiveness and health (Aziz, 2013). Comparing with HPI, OD has the strength in implementing organizational strategy, nurture cultural intervention and facilitate changes in an organization. HRD aims to help employees to develop their personal and organizational skills, knowledge, and abilities for better performance and work-and-life balances. In contrast to HPI’s systematic approaches, HRD is often employee-want-based, and is often through coaching, mentoring and succession planning. IDT is to creating "instructional experiences which make the acquisition of knowledge and skill more efficient, effective, and appealing” (Wikipedia-ID). IDT has the strength in determining the learner’s needs and hosting methodology and techniques to deliver needed instruction. Regarding performance improvement, IDT is through instructional approaches, while besides pursuing instructional approaches HPI also use non-instructional approaches. These fields are close connected to HPI. Often, HPI provides the performance analysis, intervention selection, evaluation and social-need focus through systematic approaches; and the interventions are typically selected through the expertise in IDT or OD (Aziz, 2013).
History of Human Performance Technology
The field of HPT evolved from the fields of educational technology and instructional technology (Reiser & Dempsey, 2011). In 1950s-1960s behavior psychology was dominant in education and training fields. In the mid-1950s, B. F. Skinner introduced programmed instruction, which was a system for learners to learn with specially prepared books and equipment without a teacher. The programmed instruction was based on Skinner’s principal of operant condition, which theorized that learning takes place when a reinforcing stimulus is represented to reward a correct response(Skinner, 1969). The National Society for Programmed Instruction (NSPI) was founded in 1962 (Wikipedia-ISPI). At the time, it was believed that programmed instruction would revolutionize learning. However, very soon people recognized that something was missing. The application of programmed instruction appeared to be essential tactical. The teaching machines or specialized textbooks in programmed instruction only acted as training tools or aids. In 1960s, systems theory was discovered in the training field and applied to organization. The field of performance technology began to develop branching from the behavioral programmed instruction movement. In 1973, NSPI change its name to National Society for Performance and Instruction, which showed its emphasis on performance was expanded, while its attention to instruction declined (Wikipedia-ISPI). Thomas Gilbert, generally considered to be the father of HPT, published Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (1978) introducing the Behavior Engineering Model (BEM). BEM describes the necessary influences for behavior from both environmental and personal repertory perspectives, and listed six major categories of variables affecting workplace performance (Gilbert, 1996). Gilbert’s contribution was a milestone for the field of HPT, and the BEM model is still used today as one of the basic HPT analytical tools. At approximately the same time (1970s), Joe Harless published An Ounce of Analysis (Is Worth a Pound of Objectives) introducing front-end analysis, and Robert F. Mager and Peter Pipe published Analyzing Performance Problem or “You really Oughta Wanna” introducing the methodology of analyzing performance problem. These performance improvement models and methodology laid foundation for the field of HPT. In 1995, NSPI became International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) (Wikipedia-ISPI). The further name change transformed its mission from learning to performance with the focus on organizational thinking about the roles of training and human performance improvement.
Trends of Human Performance Technology
HPT is an applied field, which provides valuable perspectives on solution to a wide range of performance problems at work place. The development and future of HPT are influenced by many applied fields and academic disciplines for the economy, the society, technology and business processes(Pershing, Lee, & Cheng, 2008; Rothwell, Hohne, & King, 2011). Workforce becomes more diverse, and has increased skill requirements and technology advancements. Business processes demand measurable added value and evidence-based interventions. Leadership development becomes most urgent and ongoing due to these changing expectations of the workplace, the evolving result-demanding business processes, and the speed and extend of technology change and innovation (Deloitte, 2015).
With the shifting demands, how does HPT respond to these changes in improving performance in workplace? Although HPT is an applied field, integrated theoretical frameworks are important in guiding the practice. System theory, information technology and cognitive science are recognized as the most influential theories to HPT (Pershing et al., 2008). Systems’ thinking helps to see interdependences and to explore greater range of application opportunities. Understanding how we as human being react and function is important to apply effective intervention in performance improvement. Information technology is often the “media” to carry out performance improvement actions. Bridging the gaps between theories, practice and research will enhance the development of the HPT field. The practice of HPT relies heavily on HPT models. Most commonly used HPT models are Gilbert’s behavior engineering model (BEM), Mager-Pipe’s analyzing performance problem model, Rummler’s nine-box model, and Tosti’s performance system model. These classic models were developed about fifty years ago. They are still workable, showing how genuine they are. However, the development and application of a field should move with the times. Those classic HPT models are more on analytical structure and processes, which sets a good foundation for HPT practice. Current workplace and business processes request measurable added value and evidence-based interventions. The field of HPT will likely be strengthened by the development of these areas. The traditional performance evaluation based on rating/ranking has been replaced by ongoing feedback and coaching designed to promote continuous employee development (Barry, Garr, & Liakopoulos, 2014). The leadership development will become HPT focus to inspire organizational and individual growth through creation and communication of compelling visions and strategies (Morris, 2013). More research and development on evaluation models and leadership models were called for HPT future research agenda(Pershing et al., 2008).
Reference
- ATD-HPI. HPI. from http://www.astd.org/Education/Programs/Human-Performance-Improvement-Programs
- Aziz, D. M. (2013). What's in a Name? A Comparison of Instructional System Design Organizational Development, and Human Performance Technology / Improvement and their Contributions to Performance Improvement. Performance Improvement, vol. 52, no. 6, July 2013, 52, 28-35.
- Barry, L., Garr, S., & Liakopoulos, A. (2014). Performance management is broken: Replace “rank and yank” with coaching and development. Deloitte University Press.
- Corrado, C., Hulten, C., & Sichel, D. (2006). Intangible Capital and Economic Growth Finance and Economics Discussion Series.
- Deloitte. (2015). Global Human Capital Trends 2015 Interactive Dashboard. from http://public.deloitte.com/media/human-capital/main-dashboard.html
- Gilbert, T. F. (1996). Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (1 ed.): Pfeiffer.
- ISPI-HPT. HPT. from http://www.ispi.org/content.aspx?id=54
- Morris, S. (2013). Human Performance Improvement: Industry Trends. from http://missionfacilitators.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Human-Performance-Improvement-Industry-Trends.pdf
- Pershing, J. A., Lee, J.-E., & Cheng, J. (2008). Current status, future trends, and issues in human performance technology, part 2: Models, influential disciplines, and research and development. Performance Improvement, 47(2), 7-5.
- Reiser, R. V., & Dempsey, J. V. (2011). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3 ed.): Pearson.
- Rothwell, W. J., Hohne, C. K., & King, S. B. (2011). Human Performance Improvement (2 ed.): Routledge.
- Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space in the Organization Chart (2 ed.).
- Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Applenton-Century-Crofts.
- Wikipedia-ID. Instructional design. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_design
- Wikipedia-ISPI. International Society for Performance Improvement. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Performance_Improvement