ASTD HPI Model – Organizational Clarity

Organizational Clarity: Goals when learning about HPI

In one of my classes we were asked define our goals when it came to the class and what we should learn from HPI these are very general goals so bear with me! This is an actual entry from that class, please add any questions or points you want to share to this blog post. Please add points or possible solutions to the comments section of this blog entry.

What are your learning goals for this course? Why are they important to you?

My learning goals in this course is to understand the definition of HPI comes in the forms of questions as HPI translates differently from the academic (text) to real world application. For example, who is accountable for Intervention maintenance after the invention is completed and what factors determine the length of maintenance? This is important to me because even though an intervention is successful if the intervention is phased out after less than a year in operation what is the point of it?

I have seen this multiple times in which HPI programs have been rolled out and were implemented with success, the program got great feedback from management and the employees only to be trashed six months later. The reason I usually hear is because the program was not maintainable, whether due to budgetary concerns or staff allocation, which if proper planning was done this would not be a problem! However, it is usually because of other external factors which somehow floats the responsibility of such programs to different individuals each month like a game of spin the bottle that makes the program lose its consistency.

Another goal is to understand how Sponsors are really aligned with HPI, because accountability seems to be a problem whenever I see a workplace intervention that deals with HPI. Sponsors simply have no connection nor want to communicate or interact with anyone else involved other than say how good the intervention is going which is usually not the reality. In textbooks like the one for this class, sponsors are required to be in it for the long haul, but that is not really the case in real life applications (Van Tiem et al., 2012)! I hope that this class and the text can give me the insights to nail down disappearing sponsors that shy away from things like accountability and sustainability but look for a sizable ROI nor want to make decisions that affect change.

Oh I was sure I had to add this with the goals forum altogether but this is my questions forum post as well:

One of the burning questions that I have about HPI that I hope to be able to answer is, how to gain or maintain sustainability after a success intervention? Also another question I have, is how do you hold accountable a sponsor who is interested in a HPI one moment, then loses interests (and the HPI loses support) the next, only to be shocked when the HPI fails?

Organizational Clarity: Status plus moving forward

Looking through old assignments and found a couple of useful things that I can post upon here to help give some clarity to the field of organizational development. I noticed that many students and professionals post a few blog posts online with some great information but after a while either get disillusioned and quit or did it for an assignment then stopped after it was completed.

I started the blog as an assignment but decided to add more to it because there just is not a lot of information about the field out there. Plus, if there is any information it is usually disjointed or all over the place, giving the researcher multiple sources with bits and pieces everywhere. Hopefully, these new posts will streamline that process for everyone and make researching for material and sources easier for everyone.

HPI: Burning Questions and Takeaways

In one of my classes that dealt with HPI there were of course a thousand questions regarding the subject however you were only allowed to pick one and discuss what we learned that semester. This is an actual entry from that class, please add any questions or points you want to share to this blog post.

Part 1: Please post your “burning question” from the Module 1 group forum and the answers you found this semester. What aspects of the question are still unclear? How might you continue to learn and gain the knowledge you need after our semester ends?

Part 2: Next tell us your key take aways from our class and how you plan to apply what you have learned.

Part 1-The burning question from the Module one group was:

“One of the burning questions that I have about HPI that I hope to be able to answer is, how to gain or maintain sustainability after a successful intervention? Also another question I have, is how do you hold accountable a sponsor who is interested in a HPI one moment, then loses interests (and the HPI loses support) the next, only to be shocked when the HPI fails?”

I have not found in-depth answers for either of these questions, that I feel are valid and very important to the success of any intervention. Most of the material covered was about what is covered during the intervention, what types of tools used, how to get the sponsor to secure resources, etc., but did not go deep enough. I think that methods like RSVP, Capacity building and implementing for sustainability are great for discussion, but only answer a change in leadership as the most logical factor for a lack of sustainability, but not organizational culture as a deterrent. Even using Mosely and Hasting’s Model stage of institutionalizing it has been my experience does not work with sponsors or CEOs that have the interest in a momentary interest in a program. Even if you use standard evaluations either formative or summative, and have positive results if the sponsor is not interested in the details or wants to jump to another program altogether (that has been my experience) maintaining sustainability or making them accountable is very hard or even impossible.

One key takeaway I took from this class is from an issue I had early in the class with the differences between the Cause Analysis and Root cause analysis. As students we have the option to refer to textbooks and other students for answers. However, in a client’s case, and the advent of google if there is confusion about the difference of the tools the client might feel more empowered to research these terms themselves in order to bridge the gaps of their understanding of the process. This in turn could cause more problems for the professional than create solutions.

In fact, I would also include the issue of many individuals in management who confuse 360-degree feedback and 360 degree appraisals into this group. Knowing this I clearly need to be wary of individuals with this type of “initiative” and have ready clear definitions on hand in case of this possible scenario to set the record straight.

The other takeaway is that these interventions can definitely be used not as tool but as retaliatory options by those in management, against employees that they feel are not meeting a certain standard. Even in cases that the employee is meeting all organizational performance standards, if this employee is not meeting a certain organizational culture these positive interventions can be abused and it is up to professional to inform the sponsors in the organization to implement consequences on these individuals to ensure the success of the program’s implementation.

Organizational Clarity: A wiki post called “Describe the ASTD HPI model”

So I wrote a couple of articles for a Human Performance Improvement class assignment that was a Wiki for the class and it was segmented into subject matter that dealt with organizational development and improving the human performance of the employees in the organization. I believe this will help students and professionals alike explain the concepts that deal with Human Performance improvement. This wiki posting is answering the question: Describe the ASTD HPI model. This is what I wrote for the class:

The ASTD HPI Model focuses on the Human Performance Improvement (HPI) professional during and after the intervention period. The ASTD HPI Model defines what the HPI professional’s role is, the outputs that are desired by the organization which they must deliver, and the ethical issues may they face during implementation. Plus, the ASTD HPI Model guides the Professional on how to assess individual stakeholder competencies and other various factors which can impact the HPI professional as they are trying to enhance human performance (Rothwell, 1999). The ASTD Model defines the roles for the HPI professional as it is divided into different stages: The Analyst, Intervention Specialist, the Change Manager and finally as the Evaluator (Rothwell, et al., 2012).

In each stage the HPI professional is gauging the performance gap identifying key issues that cause it (Analyst), then after identification, the best solution is chosen (Intervention Specialist) to narrow of fill the gap(s) in performance. The HPI professional then as the change manager guides or leads the organization through the program implementation until that implementation has been completed as judged by the impact and whatever its result (negative or positive). Then the HPI professional as defined by the ASTD HPI Model reports the impact, the results and how the intervention(s) affected all the stakeholders involved.

This is an illustration of the ATD Human performance improvement model: http://static.wixstatic.com/media/c8752e_dba67a6bbd13457393eec87f8030051c.jpg_srz_522_331_85_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz

Keyword team (2017) “Human performance improvement Gallery” Retrieved on February 1^st, 2017 from http://keywordteam.net/gallery/99159.html

Rothwell, W. J. (1999). ASTD models for human performance improvement: Roles, competencies, and outputs. American Society for Training and Development.

Rothwell, W. J., Hohne, C. K., & King, S. B. (2012). Human performance improvement. Routledge.

Organizational Clarity: A wiki post called “List various HPI models”

this is what I wrote for the class:

There are various models used to improve human performance within an Organization besides the usual ASTD HPI model. The five alternative models that I have found and each one differs in the organization of the model and how it approaches the problem.

Rossett Model
HPT Model
HPT Model – Gilbert’s Behavior Engineering Model
Performer Centered Model
Synthesized HPT Model

The one that stood out the most was the Rossett Model introduced by Allison Rossett in 1992 the model is broken down into three phases: Analysis, Selection, and Solution Systems (Cheek, 2013).

The first phase (the Analysis) is broken down into two more sections and simple to remember the actual section is the present state of employee productivity while the optimal section is of course what the organization standard of employee performance. Rossett uses a cause analysis to understand how the performance gap came to
The second phase (Selection) is where the professional takes the data gained by the cause analysis regarding the performance gap then the professional assesses the organization’s goals to determine they are achievable (realistic) if not changes are made.
The third phase (Solution Systems) is the most important because this is where the professional decides what intervention(s) will be used to clear or narrow the organization’s performance gap. This phase is broken (even more) into four categories:

human resources development (career development, incentives, training, and motivation),
organization development (this where the organization is reorganized to reach optimal performance levels),
human resources management, focuses on the management staff, their relationship with employees and how they motivate them to achieve tasks (King Jr, 2013).,
and engineering (is merely the technical devices that an organization uses to complete tasks and enhance performance).

This model is very extensive it stands out from the usual ASTD HPI Model due to the mission evaluation phase which measures the impact of such a program (based on this model) upon an organization.

Cheek, Ryan (2013) “Rossett Model” Human Performance Technology Manual PBWorks Retrieved on February 2, 2017, from http://hptmanual.pbworks.com/w/page/52968004/Rossett%20Model

King Jr, C. L. (2013). An exploration of the use of Gilberts behavior engineering model to identify barriers to technology integration in a public school.

Cheek, Ryan (2013) “Rossett Model” Human Performance Technology Manual PBWorks Retrieved on February 2, 2017, from: http://hptmanual.pbworks.com/w/page/52968004/Rossett%20Model

King Jr, C. L. (2013). An exploration on the use of Gilberts behavior engineering model to identify barriers to technology integration in a public school.

Organizational Clarity: Describing the ASTD HPI Model

In a Human Performance Improvement class, I had to describe the ASTD HPI Model for an HPI wiki project assignment, I admit I did something basic so that I could allow my fellow students to add to the description. But however brief it may be I wanted to post it here in hopes that someone else can use it as well:

In each stage the HPI professional is gauging the performance gap identifying key issues that cause it (Analyst), then after identification, the best solution is chosen (Intervention Specialist) to narrow of fill the gap(s) in performance. The HPI professional then as the change manager guides or leads the organization through the program implementation until implementation has been completed and there is an impact regardless of the result. Then the HPI professional as defined by the ASTD HPI Model reports the impact, the results and how the intervention(s) affected all the stakeholders involved.

Keyword team (2017) “Human performance improvement Gallery” Retrieved on February 1^st, 2017 from http://keywordteam.net/gallery/99159.html

Rothwell, W. J. (1999). ASTD models for human performance improvement: Roles, competencies, and outputs. American Society for Training and Development.

Rothwell, W. J., Hohne, C. K., & King, S. B. (2012). Human performance improvement. Routledge.