"Proven" Magazine & Guy Wallace Article Reprints Now Available

The fifth issue of Proven is out - and it and the prior issues are available at http://www.getproven.com/ - and so you can obtain the 1st four articles/columns of mine easily - and the current article/column. And the future quarterly issues too.

My quarterly series - of which there are 11 columns - is all about both the drivers and the providers for the human asset management systems (HAMS) and the environmental support asset management systems (EAMS) that enable a paper process. Most processes are one thing on paper and another in their physical reality.

To me a process is it's conceptual design (on paper) and the people and non-people things that make it real.

This is part of my EPPI - Enterprise Process Performance Improvement - model/methodology-set.















In a typical "three legs of the stool" model - with the Process as #1 and the #2 Process-driven Human Asset Requirements and the #3 Process-driven Environment Asset Requirements - the Big Picture of EPPI attempts to identify a framework for Process investigation/inspection.

Key to this is the framework of AoPs - Areas of Performance - which facilitate a WBS - Work Breakdown Structure for a Process, a family of Processes (which is a System to me), and the entire Enterprise as needed - which creates a Enterprise Process Architecture - following the existing Organizational structure. No need to revamp that first before becoming Process-centric.
















The HAMS and the EAMS look different in any Enterprise - and Enterprise to Enterprise. The model provides a framework for figuring out where the assets come from and are cared for in any one particular Enterperise.

The HMAS are typically the "province" of HR - and the EAMS are typically scattered throughout an Enterprise - making them more challenging to get aligned.















Please pass this link and info on to those in your professional networks who are interested in Process Performance Improvement!

# # #

Learning Discriminations and Other Performance "What Ifs"

Warning: Opinions Comings...















Enterprise Performance Competence - which in my mind is: the ABILITY TO PERFORM TASKS - TO PRODUCE OUTPUTS - TO STAKEHOLDER REQUIREMENTS - requires the performers to "learn" the appropriate response to each situation. There are many way to learn this. And there are a variety of Formal and Informal approaches to encourage and enable this learning to take place, either BEFORE the need and/or DURING the need.

As always - it depends.
















A client of mine back in the early 1980s once stated with pride that his organization valued people being "Maze-Bright." That's the ability to "figure it out"
- to "master the maze" - and to "perform in spite of the maze" I recon.

That "maze" stuff is now less talked/ written about due to all of the Business Process Engineering and ReEngineering that's happened - also formally and informally - since the 1980's craze with that silver bullet.


But perhaps not. Maybe it is coming back round for a revisit now known as something different....

Perhaps many find that appealing because they have not or can not find a way to approach the learning needs of jobs, teams, departments, functions, business units, and the entire Enterprise - and can come up with nothing more than a Wants Assessment versus a performance-based Needs Assessments.


I start my Needs Assessments with a group of hand-picked Master Performers. Because we want everyone else to emulate them. learn their tips and tricks. And because if I interview them one at a time they'll miss up to 80% of what a novice really needs to learn. And observing them one at a time is too time consuming - too much cycle time and cost.

Can the Needs Assessment be done better, faster and cheaper?

Yes.

I work with my Analysis Team of Master Performers to create my version of a WBS - a Work Breakdown Structure - by creating a set of Areas of Performance (AoPs) for a job Performance Competence Requirements, or for a team (a roll up), a department (a roll-up), a function ( an roll up), a business unit (a roll up) and the Enterprise 9 the final roll up).

Here are a set of AoPs for a Sales Representative who has a large geographical territory, has prioritized accounts, and has sales plan targets per customer and prospects, and has to master the sales process as well as product knowledge and perform continuous customer service...















Once I have that WBS of AoPs in hand - I can start to capture relevant data (relevant to my downstream needs in my version of an ADDIE approach to engineering an instructional product (or product set)) in my Performance Model charts.

The PM Chart data can be derived from Process Maps if available - to ensure that the more detailed PMs align exactly to any other description of the process or job, or can be chunked out to overlay to some other descriptor. The PM ensures a "process-orientation" to everything else - which helps with "authenticity" issues/needs, as well as later being central to your Change Management Systems for all of your Instructional and Informational Content.

















But if there is no set of Process Maps already available - I don't create them - unless asked to - and that's something that's created using the AoPs and Performance Model Chart's data. It's a roll up.

The PM Chart captures the Outputs and their key measures, formal or not - plus the associated tasks, the task-sets, a cluster of tasks per output. Most Enterprises' don't really have formal measures in place across all jobs - some jobs like sales, but not most jobs, leaving most to Informal Measurement, but Master Performers know what these informal measures truly are. That's just one of the many things that they have mastered. And they know what the informal standards are. And any Formal Standards.
















After the tasks are determined the roles/responsibilities (not shown in graphic here) can be linked back to each task.

Here the next column captures the Voice of the Master Performers and their collective/collaborative view on the typical Performance gaps - where the typical performer is not "hitting" the measures' informal standards well enough - or their focus is on the wrong things.
















I believe that it is important to capture these gaps from ideal and to not just focus on the positive things already going on - and avoiding the moose in the room of gaps from ideal, from standard, formal or not. Appreciative Inquiry is never going to fix a design flaw in an army tank. Or a mechanical deflect in the wing frame on a jet airliner. Or the shortages of critical materials to the process. Or the abusive practices by some bosses.

It'll help us celebrate the wonderfulness of our best practices as practiced by some/a few, and help others learn from that too. But avoiding what's not ideal and addressing that/those leaves a lot of performance improvement potential "on the table" - so to speak.

So we would want to look at that - what's not ideal everywhere - and why? Why haven't everyone else already mastered these places in performance where most performers are not performing to ideal - an ideal that isn't un-real, just ideal. It is a level of performance already achieved by a few or maybe many, but not all, performers.

As always - it depends.
















So the last part of the gap analysis is to determine what are the "probable causes" as opposed to a more time-consuming effort at "root causes" - are they due to a lack of K/Ss? Or Attributes/Values? Or are they due to a lack of Environmental Supports?

I separate the two types of "human assets" from the one broad category of Environmental Supports (which are more detailed in my EPPI methods than in my ISD focused PACT Processes methods). Some of the human assets can be addressed by Training/ Learning/ Knowledge Management - and others cannot. And the lack of Environmental Supports definitely cannot be fixed by Training/etc. But the learners/Performers can be forewarned.

And being forewarned is being forearmed. And that's a good thing!

There are three basic types of task-sets in my thinking.

Typical/ Routine. Atypical/ Non-Routine. And Rare/ Unlikely.
















In the typical/ routine task-set situation, once learned the need for continuously doing the performance will reinforce the knowledge/skills needed. This is where one must be on guard for bad practices that over time become the practices of many. Where this is risky and/or costly the Enterprise addresses this by potentially many means. Policy changes, training, etc., etc.


Perhaps Informal Learning is best. Perhaps old Joe or Jasmine can teach Guy the new guy what Guy needs when he needs it. I learned the job of sales clerk that way at a Do-It-YourSelf Lumber Yard in the mid-late 1970s while in college. Albert told Guybert what Guy needed to know as Guy dealt with customers when we were busy - and otherwise over Albert shoulder has he dealt with customers.


When he was satisfied that I had learned something - say about windows, plywood or roofing shingles, he would direct customers to me - unless there was a sales contest on - and then it was every man/woman for themselves. Then there was less learning from the Informal Learning approach.


I mastered kitchen cabinets on my own during a big promotion - and I was the top sales person for 4 months during that promotion - as a student working 24-30 hours a week. If you are motivated you can learn a lot even with very little Formal Instruction. If your employees are not motivated - then having Formal Instruction may not be effective anyway.
























With the knowledge and insight of what ideal performance is, and where the typical gaps are, one can think about the ROI for addressing those routine task-sets via Formal Learning or Informal Learning - and where Murphy lies - as in: Murphy's Law - as in: If anything can go wrong it probably will.
















But some task-sets are less routine. Either less seldom and/or on demand and not predicatable.


















Having some clarity and documentation about Performance Competence enables a focused, collaborative view - otherwise everyone's mental models are different, their language is different, and their points are interpreted with greater and not lesser variation.



















And there are those Performance Competence requirements that are "from left field" - highly unlikely - but of high RISK and/or high REWARD that you really do need to prepare for them, unlikely as they might be.















And within those there still lies in wait - MURPHY. Unlikely too, but a potential threat.

















After demystifying the authentic performance context with the AoPs and Performance Model Charts - one can prioritize targets due to their high RISKS/REWARDS potential and target testing and/or assessments of terminal performance competence and enabling K/Ss if really warranted and worth that cost to administer and track.

















Assess Performance Competence is easy with the PM Chart data in hand. Imagine having that data for the following Call Center Sales Job...















If you needed/wanted to test Knowledge/Skills then determining all of those K/Ss that enable performance can be systematically derived - from the Performance Model Charts' data.
















I use 17 categories of K/Ss - to leave no stone unturned. And to link to my "object-oriented" design methods (later/ downstream)...















Here is how I think about testing/assessing for Typical/ Routine...
















Here is how I think about testing/assessing for Atypical/ Non-Routine...

















And because this is important too - here is how I think about testing/assessing for Rare/ Un-Likely...

















The analysis methods are described in many of my articles - going back to 1984 in Training Magazine and ISPI's P&I Journal. This is also covered in my book: lean-ISD.


















The Performance testing aspects in this Post are covered more extensively in my book: Performance-based Employee Qualification/ Certification Systems, co-authored with Ray Svenson.




















# # #

Getting Aligned - If Not Already

Getting aligned - if not already so.

This is another one of those things you might start doing late, because late is still better than never at all. But ideally you should have had this addressed during the good times so that when the bad times came you were prepared - and aligned. Already so.

"Aligned to what?" You Say
Getting aligned to your internal/external customers and their current and future needs, their strategies and their tactics. Do you know what they are so you can help them see what your support might mean in terms of hours, schedules and costs?

"Aligning what?" You Say
Aligning the systems/processes of your Enterprise, Functions and Departments to those customers' strategies and tactics for today and preparing for any changes needed in your deliverables for your customers in the near-term future.













Running Training Like A Business requires having a business model about your primary deliverables and the processes that enable that directly or indirectly.

There's more than one way to do that of course, and I have mine. "Adopt" or "Adapt" As Needed for your situation/context! One size never fits all!

Here is my T&D Systems View Model with Call-Outs for the 12 Systems in my Systems View.















Key to everything is being aligned. With little variance. To the needs and desires of your Stakeholders.

Every context is different - but I think one of your first decisions has to do with how Formal to make this alignment - or how Informal.

Your choice may be a "cultural fit" or a "cultural misfit" - and you may have your very good reasons for going counter-cultural - or not. But how to succeed at it!?!

I would say - put your system/ your people/ your leadership in the hands of your Customers and Stakeholders - and facilitate them in deciding what's OK and what's Not OK. And where the priorities of needs and resources meet and end. And in some contexts - smaller contexts, less complicated contexts - being Informal about this is do-able. And in other complex contexts Formal would be preferable.

And where Formal is deemed most appropriate, then establishing a formal "Governance & Advisory System" (by any name you like) is the way to empower your Customers and Key Stakeholders to direct and resource you, and redirect/re-resource you as appropriate to your larger context.

You are their servant. So serve them. Help them decide how to steer your ship - or at least direct you regarding "where to?"




















In a complex situation I would try to set up a very Formal System so I could get better aligned, perfectly aligned, to the Voice of My Customers and My Stakeholders. Especially when complex. Especially when there are conflicts and some requirements/desires are "in conflict" with one another. How to make that happen both quickly and colaboratively - as it's most often best when those mechanisms are already in place when the need arises - and don't have to be done on the fly.

Especially for complex situations with high Risk and high Reward potential. Espedcially then.




















My book: "T&D Systems View" is available as a free PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/ - and it is available as a both a hardbound and a Kindle book at http://www.amazon.com/.

It just might provide you with a starting template for defining your systems and processes and the enablers you need to serve your customers and stakeholders to the best of your resources - so that you can self-assess and self-direct your own improvements.

Get aligned!

# # #

A Process Assessment & Design Tool: T&D Systems View

I believe that you have the following 47 Processes happening in your organization. Some are in more control than others, as appropriate to your situation/context. From chapter 4 of my 2001 book: T&D Systems View...

...Scan these to quickly assess whether these are OK or not - and/or IF improving any one or collection of them might produce significant RETURNS making it worthy of doing...

Where might "improvement" INVESTMENTS generate a siginificant RETURN? Focus there!


12 O’clock: T&D Governance and Advisory System
1. T&D Governance Process
2. T&D Advisory Process

1 O’clock: T&D Strategic Planning System
1. Enterprise Strategic Plans Surveillance Process
2. T&D Strategic Planning Process


2 O’clock: T&D Operations Planning and Management System
1. Annual Operations Planning and Budgeting Process
2. Quarterly Operations Planning and Budgeting Updates Process
3. Forecasting and Accounting Process

3 O’clock: T&D Cost/Benefits Measurement System
1. Cost/Benefits Measurement System Design and Deployment Process
2. Ongoing Cost/Benefits Measurement and Feedback Receiving Process
3. T&D Project Lessons Learned Process
4. Results Reporting and Archiving Process

4 O’clock: T&D Process Improvement System
1. T&D Issues Generation and Assessment Process
2. T&D Improvement Project Planning and Management Process

5 O’clock: T&D Product and Service Line Design System
1. T&D Product and Service Line Program Management Process
2. T&D Product Line Design Process
3. T&D Service Line Design Process

6 O’clock: T&D Product and Service Line Development/Acquisition System
1. T&D Product and Service Line Development and Acquisition Program Management Process
2. T&D Custom Development Process
3. T&D Purchased Product Acquisition Process
4. T&D Purchased Product Modification Process
5. Existing T&D Maintenance Process

7 O’clock: T&D Product and Service Line Deployment System
1. T&D Master Materials Storage and Retrieval Process
2. T&D Master Materials Change Management Process
3. T&D Scheduling Process
4. T&D Facilitator and Coach Development and Certification Process
5. Facilitator-led T&D Deployment Process
6. Self-paced T&D Deployment Process
7. Coached/Mentored T&D Deployment Process

8 O’clock: T&D Marketing and Communications System
1. T&D Stakeholder Communications Process
2. Individual T&D Planning Process
3. T&D Ordering and Registration Process

9 O’clock: T&D Financial Asset Management System
1. Organizational T&D Plans and Budget Roll-up and Adjustment Process
2. T&D Physical Property Management Process

10 O’clock: T&D Human and Environmental Asset Management System
1. T&D Staff Recruiting and Selection/Succession Process
2. T&D Staff Training and Development Process
3. T&D Staff Assessment Process
4. T&D Staff Compensation and Benefits Process
5. T&D Staff Rewards and Recognition Process
6. T&D Organization Structural Design Process
7. T&D Facilities Development and Deployment Process
8. T&D Equipment and Tools Development and Deployment Process
9. T&D Materials and Supplies Acquisition and Deployment Process
10. T&D Information Systems Development and Deployment Process
11. T&D Methods Deployment Process

11 O’clock: T&D Research and Development System
1. T&D Methodology and Technology Surveillance Process
2. T&D Internal and External Benchmarking Process
3. T&D Methodology and Technology Pilot-Testing Process

We know it’s a long list. We know it’s a lot to think about.

We know you wish this T&D world were much simpler.

It isn’t, so let’s get on with the business of managing it and producing worthy T&D better, faster, and cheaper. And by worthy we mean with return on investment for economic value add. T&D for the shareholders.

Are there any IMPROVEMENT TARGETS in your mind now?

Do these systems and processes exist in your current situation? We bet that they do in one way or another, either formally or informally, in control or not in control. And, we don’t believe that every one of them should be equally controlled or equally formal.

As always, it depends.

More on that later in Chapters 8 through 28 - in T&D Systems View - a 2001 book by Guy W. Wallace - available as a hardbound and Kindle at http://www.amazon.com/ - and as a free PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/


























# # #

What Would We See If We Were Outside Looking Inside?

If we were "Outside looking Inside" - and see ourselves and our products and processes as our Customers and Stakeholders see us and experience us – what would we see? What would our assessment be?

Is it even important to consider this?
















Determining your customers is probably relatively easy – even in complex situations. Look at the Org Chart and look at your Enterprise Process Architecture.

Determining the Stakeholders may not be as easy. Then determining all of their Requirements for YOU is where the real work begins. Because they may not be able to articulate that for you, easily.



They may just have a gut feel about it. Teasing out what they want and what they require is work and they have to want to cooperate with you to get that done well. Otherwise you are just guessing.


















Once we know who we are serving and how they are keeping score on us, where do we start? A T&D or L&D function is inherently complex itself. How can we view ourselves – our own processes - and can that view be used to view our Customers and their Processes?

















Yes. This is the T&D Systems View, used to structure 47 distinct processes into 12 buckets/systems that are organized into 3 groupings: Leadership and Core and Support.


















This can be converted easily and applied to your Customers’ and their Processes as well. See the “Management Areas of Performance” book (free PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/), articles and Blog Postings by Guy.


And after we assess our T&D Systems, using the T&D Systems View book (free PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/) we can determine the need for “Process Maturity” and formality and measurement/inspection on a process-by-process basis – as all are not equal in their critical ranking overall due to their impact to the Enterprise - regarding Risks and Rewards.


















Where are your critical ISD/T&D/L&D function’s processes? And where would you target improvements at what Investment costs and for what Impact and Financial Returns?

How good are we at being process-focused as well as Learning focused? Do we see Learning as an enabler of process performance and see that that is how it should be primarily measured?

How have we aligned our offerings to the processes of our Customers? How do we frame and capture our views of the processes that need to be performed by our Learners/Performers?


How do we organize our content – or is that too passé in today’s world of Web 2.0? Can we organize it at the “product level” for better access?

















Can we organize it at the “product modular/component/object levels” to speed reuse in new development? Can we organize it all to reduce our life cycle costs associated with inventorying it, administration of it, deployment/access of it, and maintenance of it all?
















How can we deliberately address our critical PUSH target audiences and yet serve many, but not all, of the needs for less critical PULL target audiences? And increase the R for very little additional I – as in ROI?

How can we avoid the popular fads and separate wheat from chaff? For ROI and good stewardship and all of that?
















How should we measure ourselves? And what should we share with our Customers and Stakeholders?
















How should we work-with our Customers and Stakeholders to do a better job of meeting their priority needs and staying current with the dynamics of their situational contexts, and be more proactive than reactive? Should it be informal or formal – and then how formal, how structured?

If we were Outside looking Inside- as our Customers and Stakeholders see us – what would we see? What would our assessment be? Is it even important to consider this?

Should we be proactive and show them all how they should see us, measure us and assess us?

Or should we wait and let them each tell us on their own, one at a time?

# # #

The 3 Levers of Enterprise Process Performance Improvement

EPPI - Enterprise Process Performance Improvement















My model for Enterprise Process Performance Improvement - EPPI - has three levers to improve performance at every departmental level, rolled up to a functional level and additional levels as needed to eventually roll up to the Enterprise level.

Those levers are:

• The PROCESSES themselves
• The enabling HUMAN ASSETS
• The enabling ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS

The PROCESS and PROCESSES must be designed to meet all Stakeholder Requirements - and balance those out for those in conflict.
















The HUMAN ASSETS must have the awareness, knowledge, skills, physical attributes, psychological attributes, the intellectual attributes and personal values as required by the Processes within the similar and varies Contexts that exist.
















The ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS must provide the humans exactly what is required to perform to Stakeholder Requirements in each of the Processes that they are part of.
















Does your analysis approach for instruction and/or performance improvement enable you to organize your collective understanding of Process Improvement requirements diagnosis results?
Does it enable you to look upstream and find those Provisioning Systems that provide the PROCESS with the HUMAN ASSETS and the ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS - as required?

Can you use this to determine "when it's not" a knowledge/skill - TRAINING ISSUE?

I've been writing about EPPI since the mid 1990s - it was always intended to be the umbrella methodology that my ISD methodology - The PACT Processes for T&D/ Learning/ Knowledge Management - would fit within. It is.

Moving from Training to Performance Improvement is the path any T&D/ L&D organization is on - or should be. You've got to be able to do both - and help your client and their stakeholders to learn by discovery with your approach to either.

See more about PACT and EPPI at http://www.eppic.biz/

# # #

Won't Get Fooled Again: Meet the New Boss - Same as the Old Boss

I've not turned my Twitter/ Facebook/ Blog picture-icon "Green" - as some have been doing to show their support for the Iranian election protesters.

I am reminded of The Who song: "Won't get fooled again." You know - meet the new boss - same as the old boss....

When I was back at KU (Kansas University) after my stint in the US Navy (1972-1975) - I happened to be on campus during an Iranian student protest - and being a Journalism/Radio/TV/Film major - I had my 35mm camera on me.

I cannot remember if this was in 1977 or 1978 - I cannot find a web reference to this event.
















The issue being protested was that there was a supposed SAVAK agent on campus - SAVAK being the Secret Police for the Shah of Iran.

SAVAK was not held in high regard by Iranian students at KU.
















I knew some Iranian students back in the late 1970s - and I knew about their view about their homeland and their view about our CIA's involvement in the coup that re-installed the Shah in 1953.

Having just gotten out of the US Navy where I had spent considerable time in The Philippine Islands (The PI) - where another one of our installed leader/friends ran roughshod over the people - Ferdinand Marcos (remember Emelda and all her shoes?) I have a particular dislike for dictator allies of the US.

So this protest march was of interest to me - beyond the photo opp.
















This was a long time ago. Before the US Hostage Crisis. Just before that.

















So given the real politics of Iran right now - and who runs in their elections and who does not - I cannot get myself all Green with excitement - I won't get fooled again.

# # #