Dr. Roger Kaufman developed the Organizational Elements Model based on the idea that Performance gaps are the difference between “What Should Be?”, and “What Is?”. His approach differentiates a company’s means and ends. According to Kauffman, means are what a company uses and does,  and ends are what a company produces.

There are five levels in OEM:

1. Inputs. Human labor, equipment, budgets, etc…
2. Processes. What you do to produce the product.
3. Products. What workgroups complete.
4. Outputs. What the company completes as a whole).  
5. Outcomes. The product’s effects on the customer and society

The model, like any other effective HPT model, is simple and systematic in its approach and outlines the procedure in a format that is both easy to follow and implement.

Resources: Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace. Pfeiffer, 2010.

Just as effective learning is created around the experiences of the learner, performance improvement should be centered around the performer. This was William Deterline’s focus when he created the Performance Centered Model of HPT.  His model centers around the individual human element of performance, identified as the “performer.” 

The model is broken into four categories that overlap; policies, culture, mission, goals, and objectives. The main objective of the Performance Centered Model is to identify all of the unconnected influences to create a more connected organization. When all categories feed into the performer the outcome will be a connected accomplished workplace.  

Resources: 

John Weldman’s Performance Pyramid is a conceptual framework for analyzing performance problems. It is both comprehensive and results driven. It is designed to be used through all stages of PI. The Pyramid begins with an initial analysis of the performance situation, then continues through planning and implementing performance improvement interventions, and concludes with the summative evaluation.

In 1993, Danny Langdon, founder of Performance International, developed the Language of Work Model. The model was developed out of frustrations with the way problems were discussed and attacked within organizations. Danny observed that quality groups lacked a universal language and as a result, improvements were developed based on the individual with the “highest voice, not the best analysis.”

The Language of Work was developed to give individuals common language to talk about work, understand and make improvements. The model identifies and models the 6 elements of performance: conditions, inputs, process steps, outputs, consequences, and feedback. Additionally, the model demonstrates how the elements work together, providing teams with a foundation for the conversations that will ultimately shape the way users engage with one another and work-place problems are solved.

Resources: https://www.performanceinternational.com/process-steps/low-model/

The ISPI HPT Model was created in 1992, following the work of Gilbert, the ISPI Model is systematic and outcome focused. The model is practical, systematic, and embodies the principles and standards of the ISPI. The model begins with analysis but breaks the analysis into two parts, the performance analysis, and the cause analysis. This is important because it not only outlines the difference between the current and desired levels of performance the model also seeks to determine what impact the environment (people, workplace, etc…) may have on performance as well.

The next steps of the model are design and development. Based on the analysis data, intervention(s) are designed and developed. The method of intervention will vary depending on the situation and it is not uncommon for various intervention tools to be used.  Upon completion of design and development, interventions are implemented. Both formative and summative evaluations are conducted. The formative evaluations focus on the steps of the PI model. While the summative evaluations are centered around impact both within the organization (response of staff, rate of adoption, etc…) and the outcomes (performance results, quality, market share, etc…).

 

Resources: https://www.ispi.org/ISPI/ISPI/About_ISPI/PI__HPT__Model.aspx

In the book Analyzing Performance Problems, Mager and Pipe introduced a model for analyzing performance problems.

Designed as a flow chart with questions, and directions that vary based on the answers one could take, this easy to use guide is best suited for managers that are analyzing the performance issues of their teams and need help coming to a decision point. It is practical and systematic and validates the importance of examining and attacking the “non-training” solutions that arise first instead of creating costly and in many cases un-needed learning solutions.

 

From their best seller Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organization Chart, The Rummler-Brache methodology draws inspiration from Gilbert’s Behavioral Engineering Model and its understanding of the interdependency of performance and the environment.

According to Rummler-Brach their approach:

• Addresses performance in a comprehensive, rather than “piecemeal” fashion.
• Focuses on the 9-variables that represent management’s performance improvement levers.
• Presents tools rather than mere theory or model of performance.
• Demystifies the connection between human performance and organizational performance.
• Provides a basis for optimism: the challenge can be met.

Resources: https://www.rummlerbrache.com

In 1978 Gilbert published Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance, a book that many recognize as groundbreaking and significant for its contributions to the foundations of HPT. In the book, Gilbert introduced his Behavioral Engineering Model. These concepts are organized as “Leisurely Theorems”. There are four in total, however, the first three are the most notable in their contributions to the field of HPT.

 First Leisurely Theorem: Human competence is a function of worthy performance (W), which is measured by the ratio of valuable accomplishments (A) to costly behavior (B)

W = A/B

Leisurely Theorem I introduces the notion of assigning value to workplace performance by measuring its accomplishments, or its worth to the person who requested the work be performed and distinguishes the outcomes from an individual’s behaviors. This is notable when evaluating intervention measures and their ability to impact behaviors and worthy performance. For an intervention to be seen as successful, it is not enough to change behavior, accomplishment (worthy performance) must also be achieved.

Second Leisurely Theorem: Typical competence is inversely proportional to the performance improvement potential (PIP). The PIP is the ratio of exemplary performance to typical performance. The ratio must be stated for an identifiable accomplishment — there is no general quality of “competence.”

 PIP = W(e)/W(t)

Leisurely Theorem II analyzes the performance improvement potential by comparing the best performance or desired state to the typical performance. The identification of this gap, for Gilbert, should not be considered a bad thing, but merely a positive, in that it shows the potential for improvement.

Third Leisurely Theorem: For any accomplishment, a deficiency in performance always has an immediate cause in a deficiency in the performer’s behavior repertory (P), or a deficiency in the environment supporting the repertory (E), or both. The ultimate cause is always a deficiency in the management system (M).

W = A/B = A/(P + E + M)

Leisurely Theorem III. outlines conditions of behavior that can be examined and manipulated to improve performance. The conditions are numbered, and when followed practitioners are more likely to uncover the variables that when improved, deliver the greatest gain for the least amount of effort.

References: 

Gilbert, T. F. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance, tribute edition. Unspecified.

Chart: http://hpt2014.weebly.com/gilberts-bem.html