Summary / Discussion post

2) demonstrate your level of comprehension, not simply repeat what you read in the chapters.  Do analysis, critical thinking, synthesize, etc. choose 3 subjects of their own interest, from weekly chapter readings. write an APA style 3 paragraph minimum synthesizing those subjects. Should have a cover page and references page, too. Summary should also include an applied reaction concept. As an example: How would you apply this information to the work place? Review the chapters to help focus areas of summary. Use this assignment to demonstrate your level of comprehension.

Chapter 3 The Role of Intervention Specialist

Rothwell, W. J. (2007). Human Performance Improvement, 2nd Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781136397370/

The Role of Intervention Specialist Most human performance improvement practitioners, as well as managers and other stakeholders, are eager to find a solution or select a performance improvement intervention. The previous chapter explored the role of the analyst. You learned that one key tenet of HPI work is a strong grounding in performance and cause analysis. In other words, the urge must be resisted to jump to an immediate solution to performance problems. The interventions that are eventually applied to the performance problem or opportunity should result from careful analysis. The reason for this is that careful analysis increases the probability of identifying and choosing the appropriate intervention. Without analysis, solutions are unlikely to be effective—and may even make matters worse. Like physicians who are advised to at least “do no harm” in treating their patients, HPI practitioners should avoid causing more problems than they solve. That can happen if the wrong intervention is selected to solve a problem or if it is chosen in haste. This chapter reviews the role of the intervention specialist. First, the role is defined and the competencies and outputs associated with it are described. Next, a range of possible performance improvement interventions is discussed. This chapter also reviews various techniques for identifying and selecting appropriate human performance improvement strategies. The chapter concludes with some cautions about potential dangers and pitfalls in selecting interventions. ASTD Models of Human Performance Improvement defines the intervention specialist as the role that “selects appropriate interventions to address the root cause(s) of performance gaps” (Rothwell, 2000). The terminal output related to the role of intervention specialist is “persuasive reports to stakeholders about the appropriate intervention(s) to close past, present, or future performance gap(s)” (Rothwell, 2000). The ultimate objective of the intervention specialist is thus to formulate a solution that will solve the problem by eliminating its cause(s). These causes, you will remember, were surfaced during performance and cause analysis. Choosing and developing a solution is not necessarily an easy task. Often interventions fail—or fall well short of expectations—because they were not adequately and cautiously thought through before implementation, the focus of the next chapter. Misapplying an intervention can be costly for a number of reasons. A significant amount of time, money, and effort can be expended with a solution that was chosen on “gut feel”—only to find that the problem remains. Such poor decision making leads to loss of credibility of the HPI practitioner with other members of the organization. It may also complicate further efforts to solve the problem by raising the level of skepticism of stakeholders and those involved in the intervention. Some even may take matters into their own hands, drag their feet on moving forward, or sabotage the entire effort. As an example, consider what happens when training is chosen as a performance improvement strategy when it is not the appropriate solution. Too often, training is chosen as an intervention for the wrong reasons—or for no reason at all. Training may be selected as the solution to low employee morale, quality problems, decreased sales, or a number of other issues. Whenever these issues surface, the quick-fix, knee-jerk approach is to roll out “sheep-dip training” in which everyone is given the same dose of instruction whether they need it, or worse, regardless of whether training will even have a positive impact. The problem with this familiar scenario is that the desired results are rarely achieved. Low morale persists, quality issues continue, and sales remain sluggish. Then, the blame is placed on the training department for not producing the desired results. With the clarity of hindsight, decision makers realize that training could never have produced the intended results because training was not the correct solution to the problem. The result: wasted resources and negative perceptions of the training department and training in general. For these reasons, the intervention selection phase is not the appropriate time to shoot from the hip for an easy, quick-fix solution. Clearly, the results of the analysis phase must guide and achor the intervention selection phase. Competencies Associated with the Role of Intervention Specialist According to ASTD Models for Human Performance Improvement (Rothwell, 2000), the following competencies are associated with the role of intervention specialist: Performance information interpretation skills: Finding useful meaning from the results of performance analysis and helping performers, performers’ managers, process owners, and other stakeholders to do so Intervention selection skills: Selecting human performance improvement interventions that address the root cause(s) of performance gaps rather than symptoms or side effects Performance change interpretation skills: Forecasting and analyzing the effects of interventions and their consequences Ability to assess relationships among interventions: Examining the effects of multiple human performance improvement interventions on parts of an organization, as well as the effects on the organization’s interactions with customers, suppliers, distributors, and workers Ability to identify critical business issues and changes: Determining key business issues and applying that information during the implementation of a human performance improvement intervention Goal implementation skills: Ensuring that goals are converted effectively into actions to close existing or pending performance gaps; getting results despite conflicting priorities, lack of resources, or ambiguity Outputs Linked to the Role The outputs associated with the intervention selection competencies are displayed in Figure 3-1. What It All Means Taken together, the role, competencies, and work outputs of the intervention specialist are akin to the act of a carpenter selecting tools and material for a building project. The toolbox may be filled to the brim with potential tools that could be utilized for the job at hand. No carpenter, though, would be foolish to simply reach into the box and pull out the first tool he or she touches. Likewise, the carpenter would be foolish to select his or her favorite tool and use it in every situation. Imagine a carpenter using a saw to pound a nail, simply because the saw is the favorite tool! The selection of the appropriate tools and material by the carpenter is based on the analysis the carpenter performed when he or she studied the blueprints, took measurements, analyzed the soil composition, and other analytical activities. Then, and only then, is the proper tool pulled from the box and skillfully used to achieve the desired result. Intervention Specialist Role Terminal Output Selects appropriate interventions to address the root cause(s) of performance gaps. Persuasive reports to stakeholders about the appropriate intervention(s) to close past, preset or future performance gap(s) Intervention Specialist Competencies Enabling Outputs 1.  Performance Information Interpretation Skill: Finding useful meaning from the results of performance analysis and helping performers, performers’ managers, process owners, and other stake holders to do so. Written or oral briefings to performers, performers’ managers, process owners, or other stakeholders about the results of performance analysis or cause analysis Useful information drawn from performance or cause analysis 2.  Intervention Selection Skill: Selecting human performance improvement interventions that address the root cause(s) of performance gaps rather than symptoms or side effects. Approaches for choosing appropriate human performance improvement strategies to close performance gaps 3.  Performance Change Interpretation Skill: Forecasting and analyzing the effects of interventions and their side effects. Written and oral briefings to performers, performers’ managers, process owners, and other stakeholders about the likely impact of change or of a human perfor-mance improvement intervention on processes, individuals or the organization Problem-solving activities to lead performers, performers’ managers, process owners, and other stakeholders to discover/forecast the impact of an intervention’s implementation on processes, individuals or the organization 4.  Ability to Assess Relationships Among. Interventions: Examining the effects of multiple human performance improvement interventions on parts of an organization, its interactions with customers, suppliers and distributors, and workers. Written and oral briefings to performers, performers’ managers, process owners, and other stakeholders about the likely impact of multiple interventions on processes, individuals or the organization Problem-solving activities to lead perfor-mers, performers’ managers, process owners, and other stakeholders to discover/forecast the likely impact of multiple interventions on processes, individuals or the organization 5.  Ability to Identify Critical Business Issues and Changes: Determining key business issues and applying that information during the implementation of a human performance improvement intervention. Organizational analyses Process analyses Individual assessments White papers on improvement strategies Oral and written briefings to performers, performers’ managers, process owners or stakeholders about possible improvement strategies Customer satisfaction information/survey results 6.  Goal Implementation Skills: Ensuring that goals are converted effectively into actions to close existing or pending performance gaps; getting results despite conflicting priorities, lack of resources, or ambiguity. Written or oral goals for human performance improvement Performance objectives for interventions Facilitated performance objectives Figure 3-1 Outputs associated with the intervention specialist. Source: Rothwell, W. (2000). ASTD Models for Human Performance Improvement: Roles, Competencies, and Outputs, 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: The American Society for Training and Development. Used by permission of the American Society for Training and Development. The intervention specialist, similarly, reviews the report and other information gathered during analysis regarding the performance gap(s) and their cause(s). Following this examination, decisions are made to determine which solutions should be chosen and applied to the situation. Just as it is imperative for the carpenter to select the correct tools for the building project, the intervention specialist also must select the appropriate interventions so that the desired human performance results will be achieved. In practice, when the analysis stage is performed well, the solutions often seem to surface with relative ease and clarity. For example, if goals and objectives are missing or unclear, the obvious intervention would likely involve establishing or clarifying goals and objectives—certainly not rocket science! However, such potential solutions must still be rigorously vetted through a process such as the one described later in this chapter to ensure the optimal intervention is selected. The other point worth mentioning here is that the rigor and outcomes of the performance and cause analysis steps of the HPI process pay great dividends in the intervention selection phase. Thorough analysis makes intervention selection both easier and more accurate. Intervention specialists may thus apply their competencies as illustrated by the following examples: With performance information interpretation skills, intervention specialists may:   Sift through the key findings contained in the analysis report or other documentation to locate the nuggets representing the key areas to be addressed by the subsequent intervention.   Begin to build a case for change with key stakeholders, such as performers, managers, and process owners. This may involve one-on-one discussions or group briefings to convey the situation, the importance of acting, and the need to select a solution that will address the problem. Influencing skills often come in handy here (Laborde, 2003). With intervention selection skills, intervention specialists may:   Consider the wide range of alternative solutions that are available to achieve the purpose of eliminating the root cause of the performance problem or achieving the desired end result. Numerous interventions are possible, and care must be taken so that others do not jump too quickly to a solution.   Explain to others that the most appropriate solution must be chosen. Appropriateness of a solution, which will be discussed later in this chapter, is determined by identifying key criteria, such as its ability to remove the problem, its cost, and the feasibility of implementing it.   Recognize their own strengths and limitations regarding knowledge of potential interventions. It is always good practice to consult with others, sometimes using brainstorming, to generate all possible solutions. With performance change interpretation skills, intervention specialists may:   Forecast the effects of interventions. Changes brought about through various interventions may result in both positive and negative effects on individuals, processes, or the overall organization. The intervention specialist must have the ability to forecast these direct and indirect consequences and bring them to the attention of those in the affected areas.   Involve others in attempting to anticipate the impact of the intervention. Discovery of the good and bad aspects of the intervention should be encouraged so that strengths can be capitalized upon and negative ramifications can be minimized or prevented. With the ability to assess relationships among interventions, intervention specialists may:   Recognize the systemic nature of organizational reality and attempt to determine how proposed changes to one part of the system will likely affect other parts of the system.   Facilitate the recognition of the effects of interventions on individuals, groups, and the organization by various stakeholders. Tools and techniques from the field of change management, such as stakeholder analysis, can be useful here as well (Change Management Toolbook, 2006). With the ability to identify critical business issues and changes, intervention specialists may:   Locate the leverage points or the key business issues that will be impacted by the interventions. Reduction in “pain” felt by various stakeholders as a result of the problem is likely to be welcomed. Much of this information will stem from the analyses conducted in the role of the analyst.   Produce written and oral briefings to key stakeholders about possible strategies for improving human performance. The key business issues and needs driving the change effort must be kept in the forefront of people’s thinking so that the link between the findings from the analysis and the selected intervention is clear. With goal implementation skills, intervention specialists may:   Establish goals and objectives for the implementation of the intervention(s). Formulating goals helps to drive the project forward because it provides a clear picture of the end result to be achieved through the intervention. This helps the human performance improvement practitioner and others to move ahead despite obstacles, such as insufficient resources, that are bound to be encountered.   Communicate goals with others involved in the performance improvement effort. Keeping all parties informed of the goals, as well as progress toward them, avoids a loss of focus. Selecting Interventions Sometimes interventions are selected for inappropriate or incorrect reasons. They may be chosen because they are the least expensive, the most technologically advanced (thus demonstrating “technolust”), or politically correct. While these factors may, in fact, be important in the decision-making process, they should not represent criteria used without thoughtful planning and consideration. Sometimes interventions such as those listed above are selected because the analysis phase was circumvented or shortchanged. When that happens, there is a tendency to make decisions based on what “feels good” at the time (sometimes called “shooting from the hip,” just as cowboys used to shoot from the hip without taking careful aim). This is similar to hiring decisions based on the gut feeling of the interviewer versus a structured approach that is more objective and, therefore, has a higher likelihood of leading to the right person for the job. Decision making based on hunches or intuition can be dangerous because it sets the stage for failure by creating a disconnect between the cause of the actual problem and its proposed solution. It should be noted that the notion of decision making based on immediate reaction or intuition has gained in popularity in recent years (Gladwell, 2005). However, this type of decision making can, and often does, lead to “trash-can decision making” in which problems, solutions, and participants are thrown together, much as trash is thrown together without any order in a can. To avoid this problem, HPI practitioners, while being mindful of what their intuition is saying, should follow a systematic process for selecting interventions. While different scenarios are possible, the following four-step process contains the primary components of solid decision-making systems (see Figure 3-2). Figure 3-2 Intervention selection process. This intervention selection process fills a void in the human performance improvement literature. Much has been written about possible interventions. The literature, however, is quite sparse on detailed systematic approaches for intervention selection and decision making. Most processes in the literature approach solution selection by starting with a general category of causes, surfaced through the performance analysis, and suggest a general intervention and, perhaps, some examples (Rossett, 1999; Stolovitch, 2004). The process described here attempts to fill that gap by offering a step-by-step method for choosing solutions. The first task in the process described in this book is to establish selection criteria against which the potential solutions can be judged. Then, a list of potential interventions is generated. Next, this wide array of possible solutions is evaluated against the predetermined criteria until the list is narrowed. From this point, the appropriate solution or solutions (when more than one intervention is appropriate) is selected based on the situation and key factors. Step 1: Establish Selection Criteria Criteria are standards or measures by which potential interventions are evaluated or judged, and ultimately chosen, in Step 3, as follows. It is important to determine the criteria in advance because doing so helps the HPI practitioner or team to remain open to all possibilities and more objectively judge the quality of potential interventions. In some cases, such criteria may even be established before or during the analysis phase. Attempting to establish selection criteria after solutions are articulated can introduce bias, which may artificially sway the decision toward that preference. There are many criteria that can be used, but it is up to the HPI practitioner or team to decide which they will incorporate based on their relevance to the situation at hand. Some criteria are essentially standards that must be met by the proposed intervention. For example, if someone were purchasing a house, he or she may decide beforehand that the house must meet a standard of possessing a basement or must have at least four bedrooms. Certain criteria, though, are considered constraints because they describe limitations or restrictions that exist. A constraint in the house example might be that the house should cost no more than $450,000. These constraints may or may not be negotiable with the client. Keep in mind that criteria do not equate to interventions. Rather, criteria form the basis for evaluating potential interventions. Possible criteria that could be used when considering alternatives include the following: The intervention affects the root cause of the problem. The intervention is feasible to implement. The intervention is affordable to implement. The intervention is acceptable to management or other stakeholders (minimal resistance). The intervention is efficient. The intervention is timely. The intervention is (free or relatively free) from negative effects on other areas. First and foremost, a solution should be able to affect the root cause of the problem or achieve the goal that was identified during the analysis stage. If the solution is unable to eliminate or reduce the cause(s), then perhaps an alternative solution should be sought. Another possibility is that multiple solutions are required to fully deal with the problem. Feasibility to implement focuses on the workability of the potential solution in terms of required resources, such as people, time, money, and effort. Affordability deals with the cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to budget or cost constraints. A high-cost intervention applied to a low-cost problem or issue is obviously not advisable. A frequently discovered truth that HPI practitioners realize is that low-cost interventions often have extremely high leverage in dealing with performance issues. Establishing goals or standards for a process is an example of a relatively low-cost intervention that can conceivably result in greater performance gains than hours of costly training. Acceptability to management or other stakeholders is an important consideration because these people are the decision makers who control the purse strings and other resources, and often make the “go” or “no go” decisions. Politics may enter the picture here, and the HPI practitioner must be adroit at navigating such political waters (Brandon and Seldman, 2004). Interventions should also be efficient and produce a “big bang for the buck.” Timeliness is another possible criterion. It deals with issues such as organizational readiness for the solution and the degree to which the timing matches with other simultaneous initiatives or events that may be occurring throughout the organization. Timeliness also relates to the speed by which the solution can be implemented. The final criterion mentioned above is the effect that the potential solution or intervention might have on other areas. The systemic nature of organizations and organizational changes surfaces the need to examine potential effects that changes in one part of the organization may have on other areas (Senge, 1994). A number of additional criteria could be added to those listed above, such as safety, legality, urgency, or requirements mandated by external entities like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Further, the group brainstorming method is a means by which other potential criteria can be generated for consideration. What is important is that practitioners, in partnership with their clients, carefully choose those criteria that are most relevant and therefore most likely to lead to selection of the appropriate intervention. As was the case in the analysis phase of HPI, involving clients in establishing criteria and ultimately selecting the solution helps to build buy-in and commitment for the subsequent change management activities. John Kotter has written extensively about the importance of, and strategies for building, commitment through involvement (Kotter, 1996; Kotter and Cohen, 2002). In general, the more involvement, the greater chance of commitment. Attempting to impose a solution on a client without input generally does not work. An opportune activity in which to engage the client is in brainstorming criteria or reacting to a draft set of criteria established by the HPI practitioner or team. A general rule of thumb is to limit the total number of criteria to three to five items. When too many criteria are used, it can become difficult to narrow and focus the list. One means for deciding which criteria options to use is to determine which criteria any intervention absolutely must meet to be considered seriously. Those that do not meet the filter test may have to be dropped. In addition, the intervention specialist should consider which criteria might carry more importance. Such items could then be given more weight when solutions are assessed. These decisions will be determined by the situation at hand. For example, if financial resources are extremely tight, perhaps affordability becomes a criterion that receives additional weight during the selection process. Voting or attempting to reach consensus on which criteria to use (or not use) are other ways to narrow the list of possibilities. Ultimately, it is the client who should decide (or have a serious voice in determining) the major criteria and weighting to be used based on what factors are most important to them. When selecting an intervention, more than short-term solutions should be considered. In other words, if acceptability to management or feasibility to implement were determined to be criteria, then potential solutions also should be judged according to future acceptability or feasibility. For example, a particular intervention might not be feasible in the short term, but in several months it may be highly feasible. That is particularly true when an intervention is considered on the heels of another, failed, improvement effort or when a crisis confronts the organization that makes the proposal for an intervention particularly opportune. HPI practitioners should factor that information into the decision-making process whenever possible. Step 2: Consider Alternative Interventions There are an endless number of interventions that can be used to solve performance problems or to capitalize on performance improvement opportunities. The purpose of Step 2 is to scan the list of potential interventions, generate additional interventions, and weigh the alternatives. Potential Interventions Hutchison, Stein, and Carleton (1996) produced a list of approximately 230 potential performance improvement strategies subdivided into 20 classifications (see Figure 3-3). An excellent text titled Intervention Resource Guide: 50 Performance Improvement Tools by Langdon, Whiteside, and McKenna (1999) describes 50 potential interventions. Figure 3-4 shows a matrix of these interventions. Langdon et al. provide useful information in their matrix about these interventions, how they should be used, and strategies for selection. First, they highlight the level at which the intervention can be applied. Similar to the levels of analysis described in Chapter 1, they can be used at the individual, work group, process, or business unit levels. They also list four types of performance change that can be achieved through the intervention including establishing performance, improving performance, maintaining performance, or extinguishing performance. While the approach may appear to be somewhat simplistic, the authors suggest that the matrix can be used to select interventions by using the results of the performance analysis to match the type of change required with the level of change to yield a list of the potential interventions. This might be an acceptable way to narrow down the choices, but it does not provide for the identification of other interventions (which may or may not be on list). Also, details on how to select from the narrowed list of choices are not offered. Nonetheless, the book provides an excellent first step and describes 50 solid potential interventions. Career Development Systems Action Research Projects Affirmative Action Programs Assessment Centers Career Ladders Coaching Cross-training EEO Programs Experiential Learning Internet Recruitment Systems Job Rotation Systems Loaned Executive/Job Exchange Mentoring Outplacement Systems Promotion Systems Scholarship Programs Structured Practices Tuition Reimbursement programs Work Assignment Rotation Systems Communication Systems Announcement Systems and Practices Computer Networking Corporate/Organizational Newsletters and Bulletins Electronic Mail Electronic Bulletin Boards Information Mapping Meeting Planning Memo Design/Format Systems Negotiation Systems Social Information Processing Suggestion Systems Teleconferencing Systems Voice Messaging Systems Cultural Anthropology Beliefs and Attitudes Ceremonies, Rites, and Rituals Cultural Change Programs Cultural Diversity Programs Cultural Maintenance and Transmission Programs Dress and Practices Globalization Language and Jargon Merging Culture Programs Myths, Legend, and Heroes Documentation and Standards Articles of Incorporation By-Laws Contract, Letters of Intent, Letters of Agreement Expert Systems Formats Guidelines Partnership Agreements Policies Procedures Quality Assurance Documents (Internal and External Standards, Certification and Licensing) Reference Manuals Standardization of Materials Equipment Ergonomics/Human Factors Architecture Biomechanics Color Coding/Accenting Controls and Displays EEO Compliance (e.g., Handicapped Access) Facilities Design/Interior Design Fixtures, Furniture, and Equipment Design Information Display Systems Interior Decoration Labeling and Nomenclature Man/Machine Interface Safety Planning Signage and Placement Technological Advances Tools and Equipment Specification Warning Systems Work Station Design Workload and Fatigue Programs Feedback Systems Benchmarking Systems Customer/Client Feedback Mechanisms Developmental Practice Sessions Graphing and Charting Systems Identification and Documentation of Performance Indicators Performance Appraisal Systems Performance Information Systems Performance Management Systems “Real Time” Measurement Systems Suggestion Systems Upward/Peer Appraisal SystemsSystems Financial Systems Account and Market Analysis Activity Accounting Systems (AAS) Bartering Systems Capital Investment/Spending Systems Cash Flow Analysis Cost Accounting Systems Credit Systems Financial Forecasting International Exchange Systems Pricing Systems (Internal and External) Pro Formas Human Development Systems EEO Programs Employee Assistance Programs Health and Wellness Programs Leadership Development Programs Literacy Programs Personal Networking Systems Outplacement Systems Psychometric Tests and Measures Retirement Planning Scholarship Programs Support for Professional/Civic Activities Tuition Reimbursement Programs Industrial Engineering Preventive Maintenance Systems Process Management Systems Process Engineering/Reengineering Product Introduction Systems Value Engineering Work Methods Information Systems Applicant Tracking Artificial Intelligence Systems Database Management Expert Systems File Retrieval Systems Human Resources Information Systems (HRIS) Information Display/Format Systems Information Security Systems Management Information Systems (MIS) Personal Networking Systems Records Management Systems Instructional Systems Computer Managed Instruction (CMI) Curriculum Design Experiential Learning Programs Instructor-led Seminars, Courses, and Programs Job Aids Learner Controlled/Self-paced Instruction Media-based Instruction Job and Workflow Design/Redesign Activity Accounting Systems (AAS) Competency Modeling Job Classification and Evaluation Job Design/Redesign Job Enrichment and Enlargement Job Instructions Materials Handling/Flow Systems Process Engineering/Reengineering Self-managing Work Groups Workflow Design/ Redesign Work Schedule/Shift Programs Labor Relations Arbitration/Mediation Collective Bargaining Conflict Management Systems Contract Compliance and Documentation Grievance Systems Management Science Action Research Projects Centralization/Decentralization Distribution Systems Forecasting Systems Globalization Systems Goal Setting Systems Marketing Systems Matrixing Approaches/ Systems Mergers and Alliances Operations Planning/Implementation Organizational Structure Design Performance Management Systems Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Systems Public Relations Systems Risk Management/ Legal Review Systems Safety Planning/ Implementation Self-directed Work Teams Strategic Planning/Implementation Supervision/Management Leadership Visioning Systems Measurement and Evaluation Systems Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL) Assessment Centers Certification/ Accreditation/Licensing Programs Competency Testing Compliance Monitoring Systems Graphing and Charting Systems Performance Evaluation Systems Performance Measurement Performance Standards and Criteria Productivity Indicators Statistical Process Controls (SPC) Organizational Design and Development Change Management Conflict Management Cross Functional/ Partnering Systems Culture Change Programs Customer Focus/Service Systems Group Dynamics Management Structure Design Organizational Impact Studies Partnering Programs Sociotechnical Systems Design Team Building Values Clarification Quality Improvement Standards Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL) Benchmarking Programs Continuous Improvement Participative Management Systems Quality Assurance Programs Quality Auditing Quality Committees (Quality Circles, Steering Committees, etc.) Quality Process Design Quality of Worklife Programs Statistical Process Controls (SPC) Resource Systems Benefits Programs Budgeting Systems Capital Expenditure Planning/Implementation Forecasting Systems Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Allocation Plans and Ceilings Human Resource Planning and Forecasting Systems Inventory Control Systems Just-in-Time (JIT) Systems Manufacturing Systems Manufacturing Resources Planning Systems Materials Requirement Planning Systems Pension Control Systems Resource Allocation Systems Time-based Competition Systems Turnover Control Systems Vendor/Supplier Systems and Contracts Reward/Recognition Systems Benefits Programs Bonus Systems Commission Systems Compensation Systems Gainsharing/Profit Sharing Systems Incentive and Recognition Programs (Tangible/ Intangible, Public/Private) Merit Award Systems Motivation Programs Selection Systems Internal Recruitment Systems Job Postings Leadership Development Programs Personnel Recruiting & Hiring Systems Psychometric Tests and Measures Succession Planning Systems Figure 3-3 Hutchison, Stein, and Carleton’s matrix of strategies and tactics. ©1996 International Society for Performance Improvement. Hutchison, C.S., Stein, F., Carleton, J.R. Potential Strategies and Tactics for Organizational Performance Improvement, Performance and Instruction. Used with permission of the International Society for Performance Improvement. Figure 3-4 Langdon, Whiteside, and McKenna’s matrix of intervention. Source: Langdon, D., Whiteside, K., and McKenna, M. (Eds.). (1999). Intervention Resource Guide: 50 Performance Improvement Tools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Used by permission of Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. The listing of interventions in Figures 3-2 and 3-3 can provide you with an idea of the range of possibilities. The array of options available for performance improvement efforts begs the question, “How can one person possibly master them all?” By glancing at the lists of interventions, you will see that there is a simple answer to that question: It is virtually impossible for one person to be competent in all performance improvement strategies or interventions. That is why the HPI practitioner, when enacting the intervention specialist role, merely identifies the strategy but seeks competent professional help to implement and activate the strategy. Of course, the danger always exists that HPI practitioners will select the wrong intervention or will single-handedly undertake to plan and implement interventions for which they are not competent. Hutchison and Carleton (1991) provide some insight into this dilemma facing HPI practitioners. They suggest that the HPI practitioner should “be expert in 15 to 25 or more tactics across 10 or more of the strategy areas listed. Have working knowledge of 45 to 75 or more tactics across 15 or more strategies.” In addition, Hutchison and Carleton propose that the HPI practitioner should “know the basic tenets or principles in half or more of the tactics and be able to recognize expertise in them.” HPI practitioners are well advised to develop a network of contacts with expertise in the various interventions. More individuals and organizations are recognizing the importance of building networks and the power of social networks in building personal, professional, and organizational success (Uzzi and Dunlap, 2005; Cross and Parker, 2004; Cross, Liedtka, and Weiss, 2005). They can do this by participating in professional associations, such as local chapters of the International Society for Performance Improvement or the American Society for Training and Development, and/or getting involved with numerous online communities of practice that now exist in cyberspace. The approach offered by Hutchison and Carleton addresses the issue of developing expertise in many strategy areas. It is important for HPI practitioners to develop in-depth knowledge and expertise in several interventions. The intervention specialist should be able to recognize his or her limitations, as well as know when and how to seek outside expertise and assistance when needed. This also points to the usefulness of a team approach where, collectively, a group of HPI practitioners—or a broad cross-section of individuals from inside the organization—can team up. You may want to examine the list of potential performance improvement interventions shown in Figures 3-2 and 3-3 and perform a self-assessment. Examine each item and determine your current level of expertise or competence, as well as your knowledge of who you could turn to for assistance if you needed help to select, plan, implement, and evaluate each intervention. Use Analysis Results to Suggest Interventions: When identifying potential interventions, you need a place to start. Intervention selection can begin at the point where the analysis left off. Proper analysis should have identified the root cause(s) of the performance problem as well as the desired end state or requirements associated with successful performance. The intervention specialist should use this insight as a framework for pinpointing potential interventions to use in isolation or in combination. Rossett (1999) identifies four broad categories from which performance problems are caused: “lack of skill and/or knowledge, flawed incentives, flawed environment, and lack of motivation.” Similarly, Stolovitch (2004) identify three categories of performance gaps: “environmental, skill/knowledge, and emotional/political.” These cause categories can point toward certain types of interventions. Figure 3-5 lists these cause categories and suggests potential generic interventions that could be used to address each one. The specific intervention, however, must still be selected. These cause categorization schemas helps the intervention specialist to rule out certain solutions and concentrate on others. For example, if the cause category is determined to be a problem with the environment, such as inadequate lighting, then it is probably safe to rule out training as a potential intervention. Likewise, if a lack of knowledge is the cause category identified through analysis, then it would probably not make sense to focus on goal alignment. Causes Interventions Lack of skill and/or knowledge Trainning Job aids Coaching Flawed incentives Revised policies Revised contracts Training for supervisors Incentive and bonus plans Flawed environment Work redesign New and/or better tools Better selection/development for jobs Lack of motivation Inform workers so they can see benefits, impact, value Link to work challenges Use of role models Early successes to instill confidence Figure 3-5 Causes and interventions from HPT handbook. Source: Rossett, A. (1999). Analysis of Human Performance Problems. In H.D. Stolovitch and E.J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of Human Performance Technology: A Comprehensive Guide for Analyzing and Solving Performance Problems in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Used by permission. Brainstorm to Generate Additional Interventions: The interventions listed in Figures 3-2 and 3-3 provide a useful foundation for selecting potential interventions. Another technique that can either supplement the initial list or that can be used to generate a list from scratch is to brainstorm. You will recall from Chapter 2 that the brainstorming method is often used in group situations to generate a large volume of ideas or suggestions to identify the causes of performance problems. Brainstorming is helpful because it can help to bring out a large number of creative ideas while encouraging the involvement and active participation of everyone on the performance improvement team. A sample list of ground rules or guidelines for brainstorming was displayed in the last chapter in Figure 2-12. When applied to selecting potential interventions, this brainstorming method can prove to be highly effective, especially if one of the ground rules prohibits initial judgment of the ideas. This rule can release the creativity of participants and encourage the development of novel intervention ideas. Conducting several rounds of brainstorming may prove to be a fruitful exercise in an effort to exhaust all potential interventions for further investigation and evaluation against the criteria, the focus of the third step. Groupware technology, which was discussed in Chapter 2, can be applied here to facilitate the brainstorming process. At the same time, groupware can also reduce negative group dynamics, such as one person highjacking the discussion. Step 3: Evaluate the Alternative Interventions Against the Criteria Step 3 is the time when each potential intervention (generated in Step 2) is evaluated against the criteria that were established in Step 1. Each potential intervention is evaluated independently in light of the chosen criteria. A useful tool for organizing and facilitating this evaluation process is the criteria matrix. A criteria matrix is a grid that displays the potential interventions on one axis and the criteria along the other. As mentioned previously, a criterion is a standard, measure or guideline by which the potential interventions can be evaluated or judged and ultimately chosen. It is useful when multiple criteria are involved in the decision-making process. In HPI efforts, it is common and also recommended that more than one criterion be used. The result is a grid pattern that allows the HPI practitioner or team to view each alternative and the overall priority ratings for several choices (see Figure 3-6). Potential Interventions Criterion #1 Criterion #2 Criterion #3 TOTAL Intervention 1         Intervention 2         Intervention 3         Intervention 4         Figure 3-6 Blank criteria matrix. The intervention specialist should begin by listing the potential intervention options in the rows on the left side of the matrix. Discussion of and reflection on these options should be undertaken to ensure that everyone involved understands the intervention and can make an informed evaluation based on its merits. The criteria should be displayed as column headers across the top. These, too, should be well understood by everyone before proceeding. Each alternative is then rated according to the criteria items. Whenever possible, the list of interventions, as well as criteria, should be narrowed to minimize the complexity of the matrix. Certain interventions may be eliminated as options, or at least moved into a “parking lot” representing options of last resort. Possible solutions may be eliminated if they are too large to be supported by realistic estimates of the budget, time, or other resources available. Or, if it is determined that the intervention will not effectively eliminate the root cause but rather will only serve as a temporary solution, then a simple “yes” or “no” decision can be made about whether to keep or drop the item. Once the intervention options and criteria are filled in, a rating scale must be developed. The voting feature embedded in many groupware software platforms can automate this process to improve efficiency. Many options are possible for the scales. It is important to use the same scale for each criteria item to ensure consistency and obtain an accurate overall rating. A simple rating scale is a Likert type system containing five-, seven-, or ten-point increments. For example, if the intervention specialist were considering the cost of the intervention as one criterion, the rating scale might run from 1 (representing highest cost) to 5 (representing lowest cost). Figure 3-7 displays several rating scales for various criteria that could be used. Criteria: Feasibility 5 4 3 2 1 High   Moderate   Low Criteria: Cost 5 4 3 2 1 Low   Moderate   High Criteria: Management Support 5 4 3 2 1 High   Moderate   Low Figure 3-7 Sample rating scales for criteria. Notice in Figure 3-7 that the rating scales are consistent, with 5 representing the positive side and 1 representing the negative side. Also, note that the overall ratings are calculated by adding the scores. The higher the total score, the better the option based on the criteria used. In Figure 3-7, the maximum overall score possible is 15, which would equate to the best option, and the minimum possible score is 3, representing the worst option. The ratings assigned to each intervention and each criterion can be done by a single person or by many people if a team approach is used. In the team-based scenario, each individual member could rate the items separately and an average score could be calculated. Another option is that the individual scores could be added together to reach a total score. Alternatively, the team may decide to discuss each item and attempt to reach consensus on the rating to be assigned. Figure 3-8 shows a completed criteria matrix. In this example, Intervention 3 had the highest overall rating. Often, when a criteria matrix is completed, several options emerge as viable solutions. In such cases, it may be appropriate to select multiple interventions for implementation. On the other hand, it may be necessary to choose one over another with the knowledge that both are acceptable. In Figure 3-8, in the criteria areas of management support and feasibility, Intervention 3 was the clear “winner.” On the cost criterion, however, Intervention 1 was the lowest cost. When certain interventions rate more favorably along selected criteria, these should be explored to ascertain whether elements from that intervention option can be transferred to the desired option to improve upon any weaknesses it may possess. Potential Interventions Cost Management Support Feasibility TOTAL Intervention 1 5 1 5 11 Intervention 2 1 1.5 1.5 4 Intervention 3 4 4.5 5 13.5 Intervention 4 3 2 3 8 Figure 3-8 Completed criteria matrix. Criteria Total Points Intervention #1 Intervention #2 Cost 20 5 15 Mgt. Acceptance 30 15 15 Feasibility Total Score: 100 points 40 60 Figure 3-9 Weighted points method of intervention selection. Option 3 in Figure 3-8 clearly meets all established criteria. This is not always the case, however. Sometimes an intervention may be very strong in several criteria areas but deficient in others (for example, Intervention 1 in Figure 3-8 was rated as having high feasibility and low cost, but low support). In such cases, it may be necessary to reconsider its viability as an intervention and the risks associated with moving forward. At times, the intervention specialist may need to return to the drawing board and revisit the criteria identified in Step 1, the list of potential solutions, and the decision-making process that led to the particular results. While frustrating, this is a better route to follow than to move forward with much uncertainty or minimal stakeholder commitment. It is possible to use a more sophisticated intervention selection strategy than has been described. Accuracy can be added when weights are assigned to the criteria being used. The various maximum scores (or weights) are then distributed among the intervention options. Figure 3-9 provides a scenario where different criteria are assigned varying degrees of weight, based on importance to the intervention specialist or the HPI team. Points within each criterion are distributed among the various intervention possibilities. In this manner, greater depth is gained about which intervention is most appropriate, based on the relative importance of certain criteria. The process of reaching clarity and agreement on the weight assigned to criteria can be both important and enlightening. The HPI practitioner may be under the assumption that stakeholder buy-in, for example, is an important criterion, while the client may place much more weight on cost (regardless of the level of buy-in). This discussion can be very helpful to ensure all parties are viewing the decision-making process through a similar lens. Another way to utilize weighted criteria appears in Figure 3-10. Each criterion is assigned a weight. The total weight equals 1.00. Step 4: Select the Appropriate Intervention(s) and Determine Its Viability After the intervention specialist, or team, has carefully considered each potential intervention and the results of the criteria matrix exercise, the appropriate intervention(s) is then selected. Since most performance problems in organizations are usually multifaceted, often, a combination of interventions may be required to effectively deal with the problem or issue. Other situations may call for only one intervention. Identifying potential interventions, done earlier, is commonly highly creative and can be quite fun and engaging. Now it’s time to make the tough decisions and select an intervention. This can be less fun and may even be agonizing for the HPI practitioner, especially when stakes are high. Before actually selecting an intervention for implementation, there are several other activities in which the intervention specialist can engage to reduce the stress and help ensure that the most appropriate one is ultimately chosen. These activities help further analyze a potential intervention and determine its true viability and likelihood of success. It is not recommended that all techniques described below be used because, similar to the problem of analysis paralysis, “intervention selection paralysis” can be dangerous as well. For this reason, it is suggested that these tools be used when deemed necessary and when time and resources permit. It is recommended that each activity be done with as much engagement of the client as possible to build buy-in and ownership. Potential Interventions Cost (.15) Management Support (.35) Feasilbility (.50) TOTAL Intervention 1 5 × 1.15 = 5.75  1 × 1.35 = 1.35  5 × 1.5 = 7.5 14.600 Intervention 2 1 × 1.15 = 1.15 1.5 × 1.35 = 2.025 1.5 × 1.5 = 2.25   5.425 Intervention 3  4 × 1.15 = 4.6  4.5 × 1.35 = 19.575   5 × 1.5 = 7.5 31.675 Intervention 4 3 × 1.15 = 3.45 2 × 1.35 = 2.7  3 × 1.5 = 4.5 10.65 Figure 3-10 Another weighted points method for intervention selection. Listing and Considering Advantages and Disadvantages: It may be useful to create a list of advantages and disadvantages of the interventions under consideration. This is especially helpful when opinion is divided about what intervention(s) will most effectively address the underlying causes of a performance problem. The intervention specialist or team, working with various stakeholders, can conduct a modified brainstorming session or engage in a discussion to develop an exhaustive list of the pros and cons for the intervention(s). Doing this can shed additional light on the intervention by illuminating its strengths and weaknesses or other realities previously ignored. Sometimes a flash of insight on a previously unconsidered factor may arise that causes the group to either reinforce its preliminary decision or rethink it. Feasibility Analysis: This exercise involves attempting to forecast the chances of success of the intervention under consideration. According to Kirkey and Benjamin (2005), there are three primary categories to examine—practical considerations, cultural considerations, and political considerations. Practical considerations include elements such as cost, resources needed, time required, timing of the project itself, and bandwidth available. Cultural considerations include workplace climate, organizational values and cultural attributes, and organizational receptivity to change. Finally, political considerations include power dynamics, resistance levels, sensitivities that exist, sponsorship, and stakeholder support. Force-Field Analysis: A useful tool when selecting interventions is force-field analysis, a technique originated by social psychologist Kurt Lewin (1947). This is a more structured method for determining advantages and disadvantages of a particular intervention by identifying forces that help (driving forces) and forces that may impede (restraining forces) progress toward a goal or desired outcome. Figure 3-11 shows an example of a force-field analysis diagram. Figure 3-11 Force-field analysis diagram. Brainstorming can be used again here to develop a list of the driving and restraining forces that are helping or working against a particular intervention under consideration. When forces are generated, they are mapped on the force-field diagram according to whether they work for—or against—the successful adoption of the intervention. In addition to determining on which side of the force-field diagram a particular force falls, an attempt is made to quantify the magnitude or strength of the force. The diagram in Figure 3-11 uses a scale from 0 to plus or minus 4. When using this scale, a line is drawn to represent the magnitude of the force. The name of the force is written as a label next to the line representing it. The overall number of forces and corresponding magnitudes can be calculated for both drivers and restrainers. This helps to arrive at an overall direction for the intervention based on the difference between the two. For example, if the sum total of the restraining forces is 21 and the sum total of the driving forces is 12, the difference is 9. This helps to paint a picture of the overall nature of the intervention and conveys that it is an intervention with more forces working against it than working in its favor. This analysis can cause the HPI practitioner to consider the probability of success of the intervention and develop strategies to strengthen the driving forces and/or reduce those that are hindering. Force-field analysis is useful in further quantifying and getting a better handle on some of the subjective issues associated with choosing an intervention. The current level of employee morale, the prevailing work climate, or the quality of the management team may be forces that are taken into consideration in the analysis diagram and that may help to further delimit and define the merits of a potential intervention. One caution when using force-field analysis is the potential to omit an important force in either direction. This error creates an inaccurate portrayal of the factors surrounding the intervention and can lead to adverse impact on the future change effort. For this reason, care should be taken to ensure that all significant forces are included in the force-field analysis. Force-field analysis is an enjoyable method that helps to forecast and even dramatize some workplace realities that might accompany alternative intervention selections. It also facilitates a discussion among stakeholders and decision makers about the nature of each—especially those with the largest impact. It helps to consider and develop strategies that can be employed to strengthen the forces that drive the intervention forward and reduce the forces that undermine the success of the intervention. Ease-Impact Analysis: Another tool that can be used when selecting an intervention is an ease-impact analysis. For this analysis, a four-quadrant grid pattern, with one axis representing ease and the other representing impact, is drawn (see Figure 3-12). Using this diagram, interventions can be evaluated in light of their ease of implementation as well as their potential for impact. Obviously, interventions that are easy to implement and have a high potential for impact are stronger candidates than those with less ease or impact. The desirable quadrant then, in this diagram, is the upper right-hand corner. Other descriptors can be substituted; for example, cost or support could be used. The ease-impact diagram can be used to display a number of potential interventions in a visual manner. Further, a performance improvement team can utilize the ease-impact diagram in combination with voting as a way to visually represent people’s view of alternative options. Figure 3-12 An example of an ease-impact diagram. Principles of Intervention Design Once an intervention(s) has been selected, the design and development phase can be commenced. Remember that the terminal output related to the role of intervention specialist is “persuasive reports to stakeholders about the appropriate intervention(s) to close past, present, or future performance gap(s)” (Rothwell, 2000). This intervention design and development will lead directly into the implementation and change management effort. Spitzer (1992) presents a list of intervention design principles. These principles should be kept in the forefront of the intervention specialist’s thinking—both during the selection process and also when formulating a design and report for stakeholders. Spitzer’s principles* follow. High-impact interventions should: Aim at high-leverage performance improvement opportunities Be powerful Be sustainable Be enhanced interventions Often start with a small, focused intervention Focus on the users Involve the right people in the design process Have a strong evaluation component Be designed with development and implementation in mind Be designed with an iterative approach These items become a litmus test against which potential interventions selected by the intervention specialist can be evaluated. Bear in mind that you, as the HPI practitioner, may or may not be responsible for the actual implementation of the intervention. Sometimes an integration design and development team may be assembled to work on creating the intervention. The HPI practitioner may have no or very limited involvement or oversight, may be part of a team, or may be fully responsible. The level of subsequent involvement in implementation is often largely governed by the practitioner’s depth of expertise in the intervention that is selected. Dangers, Pitfalls, and Cautions Many potential problems associated with intervention selection have been discussed in this chapter. It should be clear by now to readers that one trap some people fall into is selecting a solution too quickly. During the analysis phase, discussed in the previous chapter, we stressed the importance of trying to remain as objective as possible and not engaging in analysis with an intervention already in mind. The same caveat applies to this chapter and to this step as well. Intervention specialists should be wary of rushing to a solution without careful consideration of the criteria, the alternative interventions, and other relevant factors. Another mistake that some make is the opposite of moving too quickly. Similar to analysis paralysis, sometimes intervention specialists consume too much time and are unable to reach decisions. This danger can cause momentum to be lost and people to become frustrated because they see no progress toward rectifying a problem or seizing an improvement opportunity. Another danger that was alluded to earlier in the chapter is the potential adverse effects of a solution on another area. The interconnected nature of organizational systems gives rise to the ripple effect when changes are introduced. Interventions may represent a change in one area that concurrently creates a negative change in another, sometimes unrelated, part of the organization. For this reason, potential side effects and direct and indirect relationships among variables should be carefully considered before moving forward with an intervention. Sometimes a strategy employed by intervention specialists is to include “lack of negative effects on the organization” as one criterion used in the decision-making process. Lack of knowledge about available interventions can be dangerous because it may cause intervention specialists to neglect viable solutions in favor of ones that they recognize more easily or are more comfortable using. The intervention that was passed over may have been more appropriate to the situation at hand or it may have been less costly, it may have had more impact on the root cause, or it may have had a higher level of acceptability among stakeholders. This potential problem highlights the importance of drawing others into the process, generating exhaustive lists of possible interventions (both creative and mundane should be included), and using techniques like brainstorming to consider all of the options before a decision is made. Lack of buy-in or commitment to a solution can create major problems for HPI practitioners as they move into the implementation and change management stages. If an unpopular solution is chosen without stakeholder buy-in, or if the appropriate people are not consulted, then that may give rise to problems. A general principle of change management that applies here is that if commitment is needed, then a high level of involvement should be sought. When those who are affected by change participate in the analysis, intervention selection, and change management stages they are likely to have a higher level of commitment to the solutions that are chosen. This is not to suggest that everyone who is remotely related to the project must be involved. Including certain people, however, will not only improve commitment to the ideas, but it also will probably improve the quality of those ideas. Expertise and knowledge of potential pitfalls or barriers can be recognized and the intricate details of the process, people, and work area can be communicated by those most closely involved with it. Other people, such as key managers and those with ancillary involvement, may only need to be briefed occasionally. The importance of a communication plan as a strategy will be discussed later in this section. Sometimes interventions that are selected to improve a performance problem can be too large or may be out of the control of the HPI practitioner. The stage is set for rejection of the idea or inability to carry through with it if it is approved. There is sometimes a tendency to lean toward ambitious solutions requiring cutting-edge technology because they are the most fun to work on. This highlights the related danger of resorting to familiar interventions. Trainers who are changing their role to that of HPI practitioner sometimes have difficulty letting go of training as the intervention of first choice. Others encounter a different, but related, problem when they view intervention selection as a chance to experiment with a dazzling intervention that lacks much substance. Some people may become overly enamored with technology-based solutions because they are viewed as “state-of-the-art”—or because they may increase the employability of individuals working on them or the consulting opportunities available to external vendors. This is acceptable if they are, in fact, the appropriate solution. Many find, however, that the low-tech solution that is appropriate for the situation at hand often has more impact on the problem at lower cost. In fact, some have noted that 80 percent of performance problems can be solved through communicating expectations, goals, and standards, and providing people with information they need to perform. Development of a communication plan, along with the intervention that is chosen, is an important strategy for avoiding problems. HPI efforts take place in a political context, and HPI practitioners must therefore be skilled communicators with organizational and political savvy. The importance of sales and marketing of intervention ideas in order to gain buy-in, commitment, and support of key stakeholders has been mentioned. Among the many items that intervention specialists should be equipped to discuss in great detail are the results of the analysis, the intervention selection process that was used, and details related to the solution that was chosen. A detailed justification should be provided to demonstrate deep understanding and build credibility with others. Doing this also influences the level of buy-in and the commitment discussed earlier in this section. Summary Intervention selection is not an easy task. This chapter has covered some steps that an intervention specialist can take to approach the task in a structured manner. There is often a tendency to jump to a solution. Through careful consideration of alternative interventions and sound decision making using relevant criteria, though, the appropriate solution is more likely to be selected. When the appropriate intervention is chosen, the probability of success, while not guaranteed, improves dramatically. This chapter also presented some supplemental tools, such as force-field analysis and ease-impact analysis, that can be used to generate additional insight and information about an intervention and its potential for success during the implementation phase, which will be the subject of Chapter 4. In addition to the intervention that is chosen, the information garnered through the selection process itself becomes extremely valuable during the implementation stage in areas such as forecasting potential sources of resistance.