We can classify the multiple PI/HPT
models –more than 46 according to current research[1]- into
three main categories according with their focus and scope[2]:
- 1.
Individual performance models –such as Gilbert´s BEM
(popularly known as the “Six Boxes”), Mager´s performance analysis algorithm, Langdon´s
Language of Work (LOW) or Spitzer´s context of work considers individual
workers as the unit of analysis.
- 2.
Organizational performance models – such as Rummler´s Anatomy of
Performance (AOP), Brethower´s Total Performance System (TPS), Tosti, Carleton
and Lineberry´s SCAN, or Addison, Haig and Kearny´s Performance Architecture
(PA) makes process and functional performance their unit of analysis.
- 3.
Strategic, societal performance models – such as Kaufman´s Organizational
Elements Model (OEM) analyze single or multiple organizations´ performance in
the market, as part of business and social ecosystems from the perspective of
the value added (or subtracted) to customers,
employees, investors and other stakeholders.
In the real
world, most performance problems have multi-level causes and consequences, and
require the collaboration of multiple specialists as multi-disciplinary teams.
A review of the models and disciplines
involved in more than 60 projects and organizations – summarized in Figure 1 (Bernardez, 2006) -, shows that improving
performance to create value for customers and internal stakeholders involves connecting
external and internal factors and multiple
HPT and non-HPT models.
Developing worthy[3],
value-adding performance starts by
analyzing external, strategic factors defining results
–what is to be accomplished-. Multiple
HPT and non-HPT models are required to identify markets, clients and
stakeholders’ needs –defined as gaps between current and desired results- and
define strategic, business and marketing plans.
Once the strategy is defined, multiple
HPT and non-HPT models and tools must be combined working inside the
organization to deliver tactical and
operational performance, dealing with internal
factors addressing how to get the
desired results.
Individual performance models
Individual
performance models –such as Gilbert’s classic Behavior
Engineering Model –BEM- (shown in
Table 2) - are quite helpful in understanding and optimizing performance at the
job level –the level of the individual worker-.
Table 2: The behavior engineering model (Gilbert, 1978)
S₫
Information
|
R
Instrumentation
|
Sₓ
Motivation
|
|
E – Environmental supports
|
Data
1. Relevant and frequent
feedback about the adequacy of performance
2. Descriptions of what is
expected of performance
3. Clear and relevant guides
to adequate performance
|
Instruments
1.
Tools and materials of work designed scientifically to match human
factors
|
Incentives
1. Adequate financial
incentives made contingent upon performance
2. Nonmonetary incentives
made available
3. Career-development
opportunities
|
P – Person’s repertory of
behavior
|
Knowledge
1.
Scientifically designed training that matches the requirements of
exemplary performance
2.
Placement
|
Capacity
1.
Flexible scheduling of performance to match peak capacity
2.
Prosthesis
3.
Physical shaping
4.
Adaptation
5.
Selection
|
Motives
1.
Assessment of people’s motives to work
2.
Recruitment of people to match the realities of the situation
|
Organizational performance
models
A few years later, Gilbert’s former business
partners, Geary Rummler and Dale Brethower, took the entire approach to
performance analysis and improvement several steps further in the systemic direction,
noticing that using Gilbert’s BEM
model frequently led to optimize individual workers’ performance at the expense
of process and organizational performance.
If each worker were allowed to
“improve” his/her own activities at the job level based on Gilbert “Six Boxes”,
regardless of other co-workers working ahead, before or while collaborating in a shared work process, their collective performance would experience
a noticeable setback –as it would happen if each rower in a coxed four were to
row at his/her own pace and rhythm-.
Rummler’s and Brethower’s[1]
Anatomy Of Performance –AOP- model
started by envisioning three levels of performance –nested one into and under
each other-: job level, process level and function level –as shown in Figure 1-
Figure 1: Three levels of
performance (Rummler & Brache, 1995)
From
Rummler’s AOP model
analyzes performance in three levels –job,
process, organization- and at three levels of “performance needs”: -goals, design, and management-
considered from a performance management perspective.
Table 3: Geary Rummler’s organizational “nine boxes” (Rummler & Brache, 1995)
Performance needs
|
||||
Goals
|
Design
|
Management
|
||
Performance level
|
Organization level
|
Organization objectives & indicators
n Macro
n Micro
|
Organization design
n Macro
n Micro
|
Organization management
n Macro
n Micro
|
Process level
|
Process objectives & indicators
|
Process design
|
Process management
|
|
Job level
|
Job and task objectives & indicators
Resources levels & requirements
|
Job and task design
Resources allocation system
|
Job and task management
Resources management
|
|
Rummler & Brethower’s
matrix includes at the lowest level all key elements of Gilbert’s BEM models,
although not organized in Six Boxes[2].
Strategic, societal
performance models
Although Rummler/Brethower’s AOP and
Tosti/Carleton’s SCAN include references to the societal context considered as
the “supra-system”, their models do not pay such prior intense attention to
societal performance as Roger Kaufman’s Organizational
Elements’ Model – OEM- does.
Kaufman’s model –later reframed as part
of his Megaplanning methodology-
focuses on the planning process, particularly in differentiating the true
“strategic” part –represented by Mega-level, societal results driven by a Minimal Ideal Vision (MIV)[3]
of the future- from “tactical” levels such as benefits for the organization
–Macro- level goals such as revenue, market share or profit- and “operational”
–which for Kaufman starts at the “outputs” (products or services) level or
Micro-level and includes Activities[4]-
and Resources –defined as inputs for Activities-.
Figure 2: Organizational Elements
Model –OEM- (Kaufman, 2006)
Kaufman’s model focuses on establishing
vertical alignment between strategic,
tactical and operational results. Such alignment is –according to Kaufman- the
only way to guarantee delivering actual value to external stakeholders, keeping
the organization useful and focused.
Kaufman’s OEM model provides a uniquely
helpful guide to align all internal elements –after all, organizations are not
ends unto themselves, but means to achieve results and produce value- and make
sure that our sequence of definitions follows an “outside-in”, “top-down” order
rather than the other way around.
Using Kaufman’s OEM as a “builder’s
plumb”-to continue with the home improvement analogy-, we can keep our
performance improvement efforts honest and aligned with results and actual
value for external stakeholders and the survival of the organization.
Integrating Kaufman’s OEM, Rummler
& Brethower’s AOP and Gilbert BTE as shown in Table 4, we can connect and
align the three levels of PI models and get a complete, systemic “blueprint” of
what is involved in change and its probable impact in the organization’s
overall performance.
Table 4: Aligning models: multi-level framework
Level
|
Objectives
Goals, standards & indicators
|
Design
“How to”, programs
|
Management
Implementation, control
|
Societal/External(Mega)
n Community
n Clients
n Market
n Suppliers
n Value chain
|
Mega objectives & indicators
n Community
n Market
n People
n Suppliers
|
Social & organizational plan strategic directions
related to
n Community
n Market
n People
n Suppliers
|
Social and regional management
n Market
n Policies
n Regulations
|
Organization
n Macro (org. results)
n Micro (products)
|
Organization objectives & indicators
n Macro
n Micro
|
Organization design
n Macro
n Micro
|
Organization management
n Macro
n Micro
|
Processes
n Internal services
|
Process objectives & indicators
|
Process design
|
Process management
|
People & resources
n “Six boxes”
n Individual performer
|
n Job and task objectives & indicators
n Resources levels & requirements
|
n Job and task design
n
Resources
allocation system
|
n Job and task management
n
Resources
management
|
Combining models to create new business
Developing new organizations from the
“kitchen table” to the market required also to align and adapt traditional
performance improvement models and tools –developed to help existing
organizations at a mature stage- with the requirement of the different stages
of organization development,
Another application of the multi-model
“adapter” matrix developed in by the PII Faculty team working in collaborative
online and on site sessions in Sonora, Tucson, Chicago and Albuquerque[1] helped combine
the specific strengths of different models in developing new organizations
along the stages of planning, incubation
–developing the organization- and acceleration
-placing the new business in the market-
Figure 2: PII multi-model
process “roadmap” for developing new organizations from the “kitchen table” to
the marketplace
Using the multi-model adapter as a
process “roadmap” the PII Faculty and students identified the specific tasks
and deliverables required for each stage and aligned the HPT and non HPT models
better suited to produce them.
Table 3 shows the HPT and non HPT
models utilized, organized following the three stages of new business
development:
Table 3: Combining different HPT and non-HPT models in the real
world (the ITSON case)
Stage
|
Deliverables
|
HPT (and non-HPT) models applied
|
Planning
|
·
Strategic plan (Vision, Mission, SPI)
·
Business Case (Top line, Bottom lines)
·
Marketing plan (Value proposition, client experience,
Competitive model)
·
Organizational Design (high level)
|
·
OEM
·
Double Bottom line
business case
·
Value proposition (Anderson, Narus, & van
Rossum, March 2006)
·
Client experience model (Bernardez,
2008)
·
Competitive strategy
model (Prahalad
& Krichnan, 2008)
·
AOP
|
Incubation
|
·
Organizational Design (detail)
·
Value chain design
·
Key process design
·
Management system
·
Work level-design and individual competences
·
Training design & delivery
|
·
AOP
·
Organizational SCAN
·
Value chain design
·
AOP
·
TPM
·
BEM
·
ISD/ADDIE ,
e-performance
|
Acceleration
|
·
Brand development
·
Market development
|
·
Brand architecture
and engineering model
·
Ecosystems model
·
Clusters development
model
|
Combining different models actually
helped both to enrich and accelerate the collaborative process, since each one
of the key HPT and non-HPT models had a long and solid track record along
decades or application to a variety of organizations, was supported by detailed
documentation and tools customized to a variety of industries such as those of
the 34 new organizations to be developed through the PII program.
[1]
This multi-model business
creation process “roadmap” was developed in collaborative sessions in Tucson
(2006) by Geary Rummler, Dale Brethower, Roger Kaufman and the author. The last
time we met Geary at the ISPI Fall Conference in Albuquerque, shortly before
his lamented passing away, he presented to us the first drafts of yet another
combination of OEM and AOP models he have been working on.
[1]
According to their own report, Geary Rummler and Dale Brethower started
expanding and questioning the primitive BEM model during their years of
research together, and after parting for decades –Rummler to consulting,
Brethower to academia- developed two models AOP and TPS that were in essence
variations of a common one. They re-baptized it Anatomy of Performance –AOP-
and have been working later years associated at ITSON with AOP.
[2]
Alhtough Gilbert’s BEM formulation separates “environmental control” factors –see
Table 2-, these are considered as part of the “job context” as in a “job
description”. The AOP model goes much further by differentiating “job
conditions” such as these from process and organizational levels.
[3]
For a complete description of Kaufman’s
MIV see Kaufman’s Change, Choices
and Consequences (Kaufman, Change, choices and consequences: a guide to Mega thinking and
planning, 2006) or
Bernardez’s Tecnologia del Desempeno
Humano (Bernardez, 2006)
[4] Kaufman’s”Activities”
are a more general equivalent to what AOP defines as organization and
process levels
[1] (Kaufman, Thiagarajan, & MacGillis, THe Guidebook for Performance
Improvement: Working with individuals and organizations, 1997) (Dean & Ripley, 1997) (ISPI, 2006)
[2] The models
mentioned in each category are the most widely known and applied in each
category of performance.
We done!
ReplyDelete