Intervention Selection
HPI interventions are selected and designed to address the root cause of the performance deficit. For this reason, effective root cause analysis is the critical step enabling the intervention specialist to choose the appropriate intervention. Interventions - especially training - should not be chosen based on a hunch, but rather based on data-driven evidence of the root cause. To this end, a systematic, 4-step process should be used in intervention selection:
1. Establish selection criteria
Establishing criteria in advance allows the HPT team to minimize bias and openly examine the alternative interventions. Some criteria, such as money or time, might be restraints. For example, the intervention must address the root cause of the performance deficit, it is feasible, affordable, acceptable to stakeholders, efficient, timely, and free from negative effects on other areas (Rothwell, 2007).
2. Consider alternatives interventions
The place to begin intervention selection is with the root cause analysis results. Root causes generally fall into one of four categories: lack of skill, flawed incentives, flawed environment and lack of motivation. See the table below (Rossett, 1999):
Interventions Causes
Lack of skills and/or knowledge Training, job aids, coaching
Flawed incentives Revised policies and / or contracts
Training for supervisors
Incentive and bonus plan
Flawed environment Work redesign
New and / or better tools
Better selection / development for jobs
Lack of motivation Inform workers so they can see benefits, impact, value
Link work to challenges
Use role models
Early successes to instill confidence
The next step is to brainstorm additional alternatives. Brainstorming has the double benefit of generating a large number of ideas, and, when done in a group with stakeholders, increases buy-in to the PI process.
It is recommended to begin by scanning a list of possible interventions, such as found in The Intervention Resource Guide: 50 Performance Improvement Tools, Langdon, D., Whiteside, K., and McKenna, M. (1999). This guide presents interventions by category of desired behavior: establish, maintain, improve or extinguish. Though not a way to determine the uniquely appropriate intervention, this cross-referencing method can allow the IS to quickly narrow down options to only those matching the desired behavior outcome.
Lastly, an important factor that comes into play when considering interventions is for the IS to consider his or her level of competence to lead any given type of intervention. Even the IS who has developed expertise in several strategic areas, as is recommended, will not have mastered all possible interventions. Therefore, it is critical that an IS know what he or she does not know, and have a network of IS professionals upon whom to call for support and direction if needed.
3. Evaluate alternative interventions against criteria
Once brainstorming is complete, alternative interventions must be objectively measured against the intervention criteria. A criteria evaluation matrix can be created to facilitate the process of evaluating interventions against the criteria and then comparing them one against the others.
A rating scale or weighted points method can be used to allocate points to interventions for each criteria.
Potential Interventions Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4
Intervention 1
Intervention 2
Intervention 3
Intervention 4
(Rothwell, 2007)
4. Select the appropriate intervention(s) and determine viability
With the intervention criteria analysis data in hand, it still may not be possible to isolate the ideal intervention with confidence. In this case, there are options for the IS and client / stakeholders to further analyze the intervention short-list. The two most obvious benefits of an extra layer of analysis are 1/ involve the client, strengthen commitment and buy-in and 2/ increase certainty of choosing the most appropriate intervention. One or more of the following types of analysis should be helpful:
1. Listing and considering advantages and disadvantages: attempts to clarify
2. Feasibility analysis: attempts to forecast chances of success
3. Force-field analysis: identifies forces that help and forces that impede
4. Ease-impact analysis: identifies ease of implementation and potential impact
The IS uses the information gleaned from this data to determine which intervention will have the greatest impact, in consideration of the selection criteria.
References
Rossett, A. (1999). First Things Fast: A Handbook for Performance Analysis. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Rothwell, W. H. (2007). Human Performance Improvement (2nd ed.). Routledge.
HPI interventions are selected and designed to address the root cause of the performance deficit. For this reason, effective root cause analysis is the critical step enabling the intervention specialist to choose the appropriate intervention. Interventions - especially training - should not be chosen based on a hunch, but rather based on data-driven evidence of the root cause. To this end, a systematic, 4-step process should be used in intervention selection:
1. Establish selection criteria
Establishing criteria in advance allows the HPT team to minimize bias and openly examine the alternative interventions. Some criteria, such as money or time, might be restraints. For example, the intervention must address the root cause of the performance deficit, it is feasible, affordable, acceptable to stakeholders, efficient, timely, and free from negative effects on other areas (Rothwell, 2007).
2. Consider alternatives interventions
The place to begin intervention selection is with the root cause analysis results. Root causes generally fall into one of four categories: lack of skill, flawed incentives, flawed environment and lack of motivation. See the table below (Rossett, 1999):
Interventions Causes
Lack of skills and/or knowledge Training, job aids, coaching
Flawed incentives Revised policies and / or contracts
Training for supervisors
Incentive and bonus plan
Flawed environment Work redesign
New and / or better tools
Better selection / development for jobs
Lack of motivation Inform workers so they can see benefits, impact, value
Link work to challenges
Use role models
Early successes to instill confidence
The next step is to brainstorm additional alternatives. Brainstorming has the double benefit of generating a large number of ideas, and, when done in a group with stakeholders, increases buy-in to the PI process.
It is recommended to begin by scanning a list of possible interventions, such as found in The Intervention Resource Guide: 50 Performance Improvement Tools, Langdon, D., Whiteside, K., and McKenna, M. (1999). This guide presents interventions by category of desired behavior: establish, maintain, improve or extinguish. Though not a way to determine the uniquely appropriate intervention, this cross-referencing method can allow the IS to quickly narrow down options to only those matching the desired behavior outcome.
Lastly, an important factor that comes into play when considering interventions is for the IS to consider his or her level of competence to lead any given type of intervention. Even the IS who has developed expertise in several strategic areas, as is recommended, will not have mastered all possible interventions. Therefore, it is critical that an IS know what he or she does not know, and have a network of IS professionals upon whom to call for support and direction if needed.
3. Evaluate alternative interventions against criteria
Once brainstorming is complete, alternative interventions must be objectively measured against the intervention criteria. A criteria evaluation matrix can be created to facilitate the process of evaluating interventions against the criteria and then comparing them one against the others.
A rating scale or weighted points method can be used to allocate points to interventions for each criteria.
Potential Interventions Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4
Intervention 1
Intervention 2
Intervention 3
Intervention 4
(Rothwell, 2007)
4. Select the appropriate intervention(s) and determine viability
With the intervention criteria analysis data in hand, it still may not be possible to isolate the ideal intervention with confidence. In this case, there are options for the IS and client / stakeholders to further analyze the intervention short-list. The two most obvious benefits of an extra layer of analysis are 1/ involve the client, strengthen commitment and buy-in and 2/ increase certainty of choosing the most appropriate intervention. One or more of the following types of analysis should be helpful:
1. Listing and considering advantages and disadvantages: attempts to clarify
2. Feasibility analysis: attempts to forecast chances of success
3. Force-field analysis: identifies forces that help and forces that impede
4. Ease-impact analysis: identifies ease of implementation and potential impact
The IS uses the information gleaned from this data to determine which intervention will have the greatest impact, in consideration of the selection criteria.
References
Rossett, A. (1999). First Things Fast: A Handbook for Performance Analysis. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Rothwell, W. H. (2007). Human Performance Improvement (2nd ed.). Routledge.