1-2 Introduction

1-2 Introduction

"You come in here with a head full of mush and you leave thinking like a lawyer."

- Professor Kingsfield (John Houseman), "The Paper Chase" (1973)

I wish that I had said something like that first. Nevertheless, if I were to say something as the course instructor that captures Kingsfield's sentiment, it would be this:

You come in here with a head full of mushy notions about learning and instruction and you leave thinking performance.

...now if only they'd make a movie about EDIT797

Why would I say such a thing, I hear you cry? It is because of the extent to which old, tired, and incorrect notions about learning and instruction that are so much a part of our thinking and the tremendous cost associated with the resulting inappropriate applications of instruction The hammer that is the training program is well-understood; the associated nails are not. Unfortunately, the hammer is applied almost indiscriminately. To be sure, these comments are not to undermine the discipline and engineering methodologies of learning but to underscore the gulf that exists between the need for competency and the means to achieve it. In the vast majority of cases in the world of work, raising skills and knowledge through learning/training is not a valid means to achieve competency. In a 1999 IBM study it was concluded that the most appropriate means to achieve competency on 70% of the major tasks associated with an enterprise resource planning system (ERP) is through embedded performance-based task support (see http://www.epsscentral.com/piaug99/IBM.pdf) - not conventional training programs. Since then more and more organizational job tasks are computer mediated via such enterprise systems. So why is there still such a focus on training?

In the last analysis, no organization wants to train anyone to do anything. What is required is achieving competency as quickly and efficiently as possible. If the problem is the complexity of the environment in which people work, then we have a choice: Raise skill, knowledge, and abilities to meet the complexity of the environment, or reduce the complexity of the environment. The former - and most often selected route - requires learning and instruction; the latter requires performance centered design. When applied appropriately, performance centered design gets to the root cause of the performance and competency problem. You can, for example, create help/reference systems, documentation, and e-learning programs that address complex processes like creating purchase orders in enterprise systems such as SAP. In the end, the majority of the effort focuses on assisting the human being with complex navigation and other shortcomings of the technology. The alternative is to create an intervention that accomplishes the task simply and efficiently, one that achieves the business goal through human performance that exists here-and-now. The training intervention does not address the fundamental problem, is expensive to develop, requires repeated delivery and substantial maintenance, and only about 17% of any learning is ever transferred directly to the job task. The performance centered intervention is implemented once, immediately achieves competency for all performers, and requires minimal maintenance. Plus there is no explicit learning required in many cases.

The term 'performance' in performance centered design means business performance through human performance. If you are not a part of the business world, then substitute the term 'business' with 'organization' and amend the phrase to organizational performance through human performance. Organizations - businesses - are successful when they meet their goals; business- or organizational performance means that goals are being met. For businesses, it usually means that the bottom line is being achieved and that all parts of the organization can draw a straight line from their activities to their contributions to the bottom line. Business performance is therefore paramount. Human capital is the means by which business performance is achieved.

Hence the word performance in performance centered design or performance support means business performance through human performance.

The key elements of enabling performance (as defined above) cannot focus only on the human being. Nor can the focus be on information or reference only. The key elements are grounded in proper representations of tasks and processes that enable business performance through human performance. They are:

the flow of tasks and processes;

the diversity (preferences, interests, values, skills) of the human being who must do the work; and

just enough information (knowledge, data, content) to complete the work.

A graphical representation of this principle is as follows:

The representation of work ...

or. equivalently:

The Performance Zone is where the representation of work simultaneously reflects or matches the flow of work, is appropriate for the person who has to do the work, and contains just enough information to complete the work.

The above diagram embodies this course. The rest are just details. If you can draw this picture, explain what it means, and apply it, then you get an A. That means using the priniples to create anything from an effective job aid to a comprehensive performance-centered system.

The diagram drives all activities of the course by:

defining what is meant by the performance zone;

delineating the elements of performance analysis;

informing the performance centered systems development lifecycle; and

informing performance centered systems evaluation.

And it underscores the following:

User-centered design is necessary but not sufficient for performance centered design; and

Systems can be usable without being performance centered.

The diagram is the course. The rest, as you will see, are simply details.

Summary:

(1) The primary objective of PCD is to achieve business performance through human performance;

(2) Technology focus (e.g., data centricity) in the absence of human factors will not meet the business imperative;

(3) On the other hand, human factors in the absence of business focus will not meet the business imperative;

(4) Yes, PCD strives to create systems that are "user-friendly," but unless they satisfy specific business design criteria and meet measurable performance-centered business goals, they are not worth the bits and bytes that comprise them;

(5) Generally speaking, performance-centered systems exhibit a number of attributes (20-something, depending on who you talk to), including:

establishes & maintains the work context;

aids in establishing the business goal;

structures the work process;

embeds knowledge, reference, etc.,

capitalizes on prior learning through artifacts, metaphors, etc.

provides alternate views of information;

shows evidence of work progress;

is process (workflow) focused;

is consistent in language, visual cues, and the like;

accommodates diversity; and more....

BUT designing a performance-centered system does not mean making the system reflect as many such attributes as possible. It means achieving business performance through human performance, PERIOD - which is a measurable outcome.

Finally, when someone asks you to develop a training solution for a performance problem, just say NO!