HPT Standards & Systemic Issues

HPT has developed ten standards when dealing with systemic issues.  The first four standards are the core HPT standards, while the remaining six standards deal more specifically to systemic issues.  The first four standards must be met before any of the other six standards can be accomplished.  Without completing the first four standards first, you will be unable to accomplish a fully systemic resolution (Brethower, 2006). 


HPT's ten standards for dealing with systemic issues:
1) Focus on results and help clients focus on results.
2) Look at situations systemically, taking into consideration the larger context, including competing pressures, resource constraints, and anticipated change.
3) Add value in how you do the work and through the work itself.
4) Utilize partnerships or collaborate with clients and other experts as required (Brethower, 2006, p. 112).


Be systematic in all aspects of the process, including the:
5) assessment of the need or opportunity.
6) analysis of the work and workplace to identify the cause or factors that limit performance.
7) design of the solution or specification of the requirements of the solution.
8) development of all or some of the solution and its elements.
9) implementation of the solution.
10) evaluation of the process and the results (Brethower, 2006, p. 113).


Look closely at the standards for steps 5 through 10.  Do they look familiar? These steps include what is typically known as a needs assessment followed by the ADDIE process.  The ADDIE process is an acronym for Analysis, Design, Develop, Implementation, and Evaluation.  One additional item that could be added would be feedback.  Standard #11 could include a feedback loop to each process, thus making the process a continuous improvement process.


Reference:
Brethower, D. M. (2006). Systemic issues.  In Pershing, J. A. (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology: Principles, practices, potential (pp. 111-137). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Training as an Intervention

Training is a critical component in the field of Human Performance Technology (HPT). Pershing (2006) defined HPT as “the study and ethical practice of improving productivity in organizations by designing and developing effective interventions that are results-oriented, comprehensive, and systemic” (p. 6). Unfortunately, training is often looked at as the end-all solution to correcting/fixing performance problems. This fallacy of ‘training can fix it’ has lead to a large number of training interventions, along with their expenditures, that have fallen short of promised expectations.

Training programs are often selected as a matter of convenience rather than as a planned systematic intervention with a specified goal or outcome.  At times it feels as though training programs are selected primarily, as Landis and Bhagat (1996) stated, "because they are well advertised, not because they are well designed" (as cited in Weber, S., 2008, p. 51).  Often times, trainers and those in charge of training, resort to already established training programs.  Rossett (2009) highlighted this problem by sounding the following alarm: “It is time for human resources and training professionals to turn from their habitually favored interventions, like training, to solutions that match the customer and situation” (p. 19).  Additionally, training is often considered to be a quick-fix to a misunderstood performance problem. Rothwell, Stavros, and Sullivan (2010) identified the problem where quick-fix solutions are inappropriate in resolving the source of the problem as “employee training is often inappropriately perceived to be” (OD defined).

HPT takes a counter-intuitive approach when dealing with training. Training is often considered the last step in the problem resolution intervention. Thus, training should only be applied in those instances where no other cheaper and less timely intervention will work. Robinson and Robison (1995) highlight: “solutions to performance problems should be based upon a thorough analysis of causes of the problem” (p. 4). The point here is not that training is ineffective, but that training needs to address the right performance objective for it to be effective.

Training needs analyses, or performance analyses, should be conducted before any training intervention is designed.  These analyses are conducted to determine what is termed the performance gap.  This gap is the difference between what should be to what is.  Rummler and Brache (1995) view process maps that compare processes in their current state (the ‘as-is’ state) compared to how these should be (the ‘should-be’ state). The differences between the should-be and the as-is represents the performance or process gap - this is where the resolution needs to be directed.    Robinson and Robinson (1995) use a performance relationship map to determine the needs for four key performance drivers: business needs, performance needs, training needs, and work environment needs. Their performance relationship map distinguishes between the type of performance that should be demonstrated with those that is being demonstrated. The difference is the performance gap that needs to be attended to. 

When the identified performance gap identifies a deficiency in employees knowledge and skills in which new knowledge could resolve the gap then training could be a final resolving intervention.  Robinson and Robinson (1995) identified training needs as those “areas where performers lack skill or knowledge to perform satisfactorily” (p. 26). If the performance gap identifies a deficiency in either of the other three drivers (business needs, performance needs, work environment needs) then training is probably not the best intervention to resolve the performance gap.  

Selecting training as an intervention when the performance deficiency relates to employees knowledge and skills will most certainly guide you on the path to resolving the performance gap.  Selecting training as an intervention when the source of the problem is not related to knowledge or skills, or when the problem has not been identified through need analysis, will most likely lead to waisted expenditures and waisted effort from those involved.  Additionally, improperly selecting training could potentially decrease performance while lowering the motivation of the employees in the long-term. 

References:

Pershing, J. A. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In Pershing, J. A. (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology: Principles, practices, potential. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Robinson, D. G., & Robinson, J. C. (1995). Performance consulting: Moving beyond training. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Rothwell, W. J., Stavros, J. M., & Sullivan, A. (2009). Organization development and change. In Rothwell, W. J., Stavros, J.M., & Sullivan, A. (Eds.). Practicing organization development: A guide for leading change (3^rd ed.) (Chapter 1). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Rossett, A. (2009). First things fast: A handbook of performance analysis (2^nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Rummler, G. A., Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart (2^nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Weber, S. (2008).  Intercultural learning in business and human resource education. In Nijhof, W. J., & Nieuwenhuis, L. F.M. (Eds.), The learning potential of the workplace (pp. 47 - 69). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Knowledge Markets

In Working Knowledge, by Thomas Davenport and Laurence Prusak (1998), knowledge transfer is viewed from the lens of market forces.  Knowledge moves upward as well as downward in organizations.  Following how knowledge is transferred from the bottom-up: knowledge is created by an individual, then externalized and shared with team members, then move upward to upper management.  If this new knowledge effects changes within the organization then this new knowledge could also be seen in the environment in which the organization operates.  The same can also be said about transferring knowledge from the top-down: changes in the environment (changes in government policy, new competitors, loss of suppliers, etc…) can change how management address business as usual forcing changes downward, making changes to teams and groups, thus effecting work at the individual level.  These market forces, according to Davenport and Prusak (1998), are the drivers of knowledge.

Understanding that these knowledge markets exist can help with the efficiency of transferring knowledge to those who need the knowledge to perform their work tasks, to solve complex problems, and to spark innovation.  Many organizations assume that by placing internet technologies in the hands of the employees knowledge will be transferred freely.  Davenport and Prusak (1998) identified this problem: "Companies install e-mail or collaborative software and expect knowledge to flow freely through the electronic pipeline. When it doesn't happen, they are more likely to blame the software or inadequate training than to face a fact of life: people rarely give away valuable possession (including knowledge) without expecting something in return" (p. 26).

Knowledge drivers determine whether newly created knowledge will be transferred as well as what knowledge is being requested.  Time, money, and knowledge are "finite resource" as Davenport and Prusak (1998) have identified.  With these resources being scarce, people have to juggle these three resources.  With time being a critical factor in one's business day, knowledge transfer is a rarity and reciprocity is usually one driver that can launch knowledge transfer.  Additional drivers, according to Davenport and Prusak (1998), although they didn't call them drivers they referred to them as the price system. are repute, altruism, and trust.

Trust is the most critical driver to knowledge transfer.  If you don't trust a knowledge source you are skeptical to sharing that knowledge until you are able to verify the source.  Davenport and Prusak (1998) indicated three ways in which trust must be established within organizations:

1. Trust must be visible.
2. Trust must be ubiquitous.
3. Trustworthiness must start at the top (pp. 34-35).

For successful knowledge transfer to take place in your organization identify your knowledge markets.  Identify the drivers to knowledge transfer and remove any barriers to the knowledge transfer process.  If there is no knowledge market present, or at least identified, then create a knowledge market that incentivizes your employees to create and transfer knowledge.  Provide gift cards for transferring a specified amount of knowledge or incorporate the knowledge transfer into a quarterly bonus pool.  Aside from the monetary benefits, employees will soon see the rewards of having access to more knowledge that is beneficial to them as well as knowing who can provide them with the knowledge they need.  This will, in the long-run, provide a more effective and innovative workplace.

References:

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Knowledge Management: Distinguishing the difference between data, information, and knowledge

Knowledge management deals with capturing implicit and explicit knowledge within an organization, at the individual level as well as the team and/or group level.  Turner, Zimmerman, and Allen (in press) made the distinction that "knowledge management is more than just information management" (p. 3), it deals with creating, storing, and retrieving an organizations' collective knowledge.  In doing so, knowledge management makes the distinction between data, information, and knowledge.  

Davenport and Prusak (1998) distinguished data as "a set of discrete, objective facts about events" (p. 2) compared to information in which they described to be more like a message - typically in audible, visual, or digital form.  Knowledge is further separated from data and information by Davenport and Prusak's (1998) working definition:

      Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information.  It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers.  In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms (p. 5). 

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) contrasted knowledge from information by making three observations:

1. Knowledge, unlike information, is about beliefs and commitment.  Knowledge is a function of a particular stance, perspective, or intention.
2. Knowledge… is about action.
3. Knowledge… is about meaning.  It is context-specific and relational (p. 58).

Managing knowledge, rather than data or information, in an organization is critical to its' success.  For it is from this knowledge that innovation is spurred, new products are developed, and new customers are gained.  Drucker (2006) highlighted that every organization needs to be devoted to creating the new.  Drucker (2006) identified three systematic practices for organizations to complete this process, which includes the functions of knowledge management:

1. The first is continuing improvement of everything the organization does, the process the Japanese call kaizen.
2. Second, every organization will have to learn to exploit its knowledge, that is, to develop the next generation of applications from its own successes.
3. Finally, every organization will have to learn to innovate… as a systematic process (pp. 142-143).

References:

Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know.  Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Drucker, P. F. (2006). Classic Drucker: Essential wisdom of Peter Drucker from the pages of Harvard Business Review. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. 

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese Companies create the dynamics of innovation.  New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Turner, J. R., Zimmerman, T., & Allen, J. M. (in press). Teams as a process for knowledge management.  

America is Still Exceptional: As Long as Others are Copying Us

You hear some critics of Steve Jobs claim he didn't invent his creations, he only made someone else's creations better.  This may be so, up to a point, but it doesn't diminish Job's creativity, vision, and innovation.  Job's, and others at Apple, made the mouse better than what Xerox was able to do.  This collective innovation process, from Xerox to Apple, provided users with an interactive computer experience that changed the computing industry forever.  The rest is history, which has led to the Apple we know and love today.

Copying American innovations is a daily occurrence in some parts of the world.  Fletcher (2010) highlighted that "piracy has made China one of the world's most frustrating markets for software companies…. IDC estimated that 79% of the PC software installed in China last year was pirated" (p. 1).  Samsung has been accused of copying the Apple iPhone and iPad with their Galaxy line of products in which Apple filed a patent law suit against the company.  Apple claims that "Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging" (Fried, 2011). 

Online attacks that targeted a number of U.S. Corporations originated at two Chinese Universities: Jiaotong University and the Lanziang Vocational School (Packowski, 2010).  Sources are not clear on whether these attacks are government driven or rampant students just playing around on their computers.  Either way, the security of U.S. Corporations and their privacy has been violated.

The examples provided above are only a few of the copyright, piracy, hacking, security breaches, patent infringement, examples that can easily be found in newspapers on a daily basis.  These examples are clear evidence that America is still exceptional, still provides innovative products, and still provides a product desired from around the globe.  One question would have to be made: What if no one wanted to copy American products anymore?  What if everyone wanted to copy Chinese products, or Japanese products, or India's products instead?  The point is simple: American products are still clearly innovative and America is still Exceptional!

Moving into the future we need to consider what needs to be done to continue our technical and innovative advantage.  Are we producing an educated work force to operate in and to move beyond the Web 3.0 environment?  Are we leading the technology summits around the globe, or are we participants.  Where are most of the technology students coming from in the next 20 years (U.S., China, India, etc…)?  Where are the most innovated students coming from in the next 20 years?  Is America positioned to be the clear leader in innovation and new technological products for the next generation?

References

Fletcher, O. (October 26, 2010). Fighting China's pirates: Software makers try lower prices to lure users away from illegal copies.  Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704300604575554701758669106.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEFTTopNews

Fried, I. (April 18, 2011). Apple files patent suit against Samsung over galaxy line of phones and tablets.  Retrieved from http://allthingsd.com/20110418/apple-files-patent-suit-against-samsung-over-galaxy-line-of-phones-and-tablets/

Paczkowski, J. (February 19, 2010). World war WAN: Google hack traced to schools in China.  Retrieved from http://allthingsd.com/20100219/google-hack-traced-to-schools-in-china/

Recharge, Reboot, Reflect, Then Charge

It's near the end of the year and everyone has already drawn their attention onto their lofty goals for the next year, 2012.  Prior to jumping into the new year too early try to recharge, reboot, and reflect first.

Recharge your batteries before you start a new journey.  Take some time away from your stressors to allow yourself to recharge.

Reboot, clear your head, remove those cobwebs.  A lot has happened over the last year and it is time to remove the clutter before beginning a new year.  Restructure what occurred over the last year and organize this information into a clear outline or summary before adding more information to the mix.

Reflect on your achievements, failures, and learning.  Look back on your biggest achievements of the past year and pat yourself on the back, smile, and take pride in what you have accomplished.  Reflect on your failures over the past year and ask yourself what you have learned from the experience, if this was to happen again I would…  Over the course of the year we have learned a lot of knowledge.  Take time to outline your knowledge into easy to remember categories; either chronologically, or by location, or by content.  Organizing your knowledge is the best way to assure that that knowledge can be recalled when needed.

Now it is your turn to charge into the next year.  But wait, first you need to set obtainable goals, not unobtainable goals that will only leave you disappointed at the end of next year.  Set goals on two different levels: easy to obtain but necessary goals, and hard to obtain but intrinsically beneficial.  Necessary but easy goals are those that you know you have to do but may not like doing them.  These are goals because you have to schedule your time to do them; work tasks, exercising, cleaning, yard work, reading a book a month/week, submitting a journal article, etc…  Set harder to obtain goals that are internally worthwhile to achieve to you, not for the benefit of anyone else.  These goals could include enrolling in college, taking a vacation, volunteering your time, starting back at church, applying for that new job or promotion, etc…  The point is to set easy and hard goals, but none that are unobtainable, be realistic.

Now that you have recharged your batteries, rebooted your memory banks, and reflected on your achievements and failures, you are ready to take the first steps toward achieving your goals for the next year.  Good luck, and remember, you don't need luck when you have planned properly.

The Future of Libraries

With the increasing availability of electronic books (eBooks) and the vast amount of digital reference materials available to the learner many people have questioned the role of the library in the future.  Most information desired can be found online from one's home computer.  New reference books and fiction / nonfiction books can be bought online, or borrowed, and read on one's own preferred digital media device.  So one would ask, or conclude, that the future of the library is to expand access to one's own home computer, laptop computer, or digital device.  As I see it, a library membership in the future will provide the learner access to research publications and reference material, books, and magazine subscriptions, that can be viewed and checked out digitally.  Thus, the library will serve as a large database rather than a warehouse of books that can be read in place and taken home for two weeks at a time.

Libraries, and bookstores, are in a time of drastic change.  In transitioning with current advances in technology, libraries and bookstores are only beginning to see the forced changes that the recording, movie, and newspaper industries have already had to deal with.  Ebooks will continue to gain in population requiring libraries and bookstores to change their offerings.  Hardback and paperback books will continue to decline while ebooks will continue to be in demand.  In following this trend, libraries and bookstores will have to increase their digital offerings while reducing their hardback and paperback offerings.  One example of this can be found in HaperCollins recent response to their eBook policy for libraries.  HarperCollins' President of Sales, Josh Marwell, posted an open letter to Librarians addressing the recent policy change.  In Marwell's (2011) opening statement he indicated that they would continue to support those who promote ebook sales: "all who are actively engaged in buying, selling, lending, promotion, writing and publish in books" (p. 1). Unfortunately, libraries are low on this list.  This example is only one sign indicating that libraries are being forced to change.

Regarding HarperCollins recent policy changes for libraries: from a business standpoint, and not from a community service standpoint, I feel that the publisher has the right to regulate the availability of ebook sales to meet market demands.  Provided below are a few reasons to support my decision.

1) Ebook sales have increased without the assistance of libraries supporting specific titles:

• The growing number of sales of ebooks continue to increase as buyers prefer the ease of the digital format and the cheaper prices available for ebooks.  Currently, Amazon sells 60 to 70% of all e-books in America, with approximately 90% e-books sales in Great Britain (Clayton, 2011).  If the role of the library is to promote reading - Amazon, Barnes and Noble, along with a number of other online providers of digital e-books, are providing this service to the online community replacing the traditional role of the library.
• The ebook format has also opened up new opportunities for self-published authors.  Self-published authors have grown to nearly 133,036 in 2010 from 51,237 in 2006, nearly tripling in size (Trachtenberg, 2011).  Penguin is offering books priced from .99 cents up to $2.99, with some books priced above the $2.99 price (Trachtenberg, 2011).
• The main drivers in the ebook industry are Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Apple, and Google.  The ebook publishers have to cater to these four key players at the expense of the public libraries.

2) Increasing ebook sales over traditional hardcover and paperback will reduce operating costs for book stores and libraries:

• The decreased costs associated with ebooks will help reduce costs for book stores and libraries.  As ebooks gain even further popularity, shelf space required to store hardback and paperback books will be decreased, furthering a reduction in overhead costs for book stores and libraries.  
• Trachtenberg (2011) indicated that most readers are switching to cheaper digital books.  One example provided by Trachteberg (2011) is that Amazon customers currently buy more Kindle titles than the traditional hardcover and paperback copies.  Trachteberg (2011) highlighted the impact that ebooks have had on print runs, print runs have decreased by 25% compared to one year earlier. At this rate, shelf space in book stores and libraries will be reduced, requiring a larger digital selection of titles.  This is evident by publishers reducing their warehouse capacity, such as HarperCollins Publishers Inc. who is currently closing two of its four warehouses (Trachteberg, 2011).  Another publisher, Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group Inc., an academic and reference publisher who also serve libraries, has no plans to build new warehouses since their digital sales for this year have tripled (Trachteberg, 2011).

3) Libraries will have to begin working directly with delivery agents rather than publishers:

• In September, Amazon begin allowing library users to borrow ebooks from their home computer (Olshan, 2011).  By providing ebook downloads the New York Public Library had their registrations double (Olshan, 2011).  This new offering has allowed the New York Public Library to continue its mission in this time of change.  According to Anthony Marx, the president of the New York Public Library, this move "would be a natural extension of the library's mission to get people to read more and think more" (Olshan, 2011, p. 1). 

References:

Clayton, N. (2011, Sept. 12). Digitization bring shrinking case for E-Books. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/09/12/digitization-bring-shrinking-case-for-e-books/?KEYWORDS=ebooks

Marwell, J. (2011, March 01). Open letter to librarians [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://harperlibrary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/03/open-letter-to-librarians.html

Olshan, J. (2011, Oct. 6). E-Readers on checkout. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576613310084522894.html?KEYWORDS=Amazon+ebooks

Trachtenberg, J. A. (2011, Aug. 29). New economics rewrite book business. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904875404576532351102200460.html?KEYWORDS=Amazon+ebooks

Trachtenberg, J. A. (2011, Nov. 16). Self-publishers get help: Penguin starts service as big houses see digital's potential. The Wall Street Journal.  Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203503204577040363712747708.html?KEYWORDS=ebooks