ED7631 Week 2 Discussion Two - Applying the HPT Model

At this point, you should have completed your readings about the HPT Model and its systematic approach for analyzing performance to ensure the application of appropriate and sustainable solutions.

Now you will have an opportunity to walk a mile in the shoes of Bert, the performance consultant, who gets called to address the case that you are about to review – the NuPlant Case Study.* Bert uses the Anatomy of Performance framework to explore the organization as a system while analyzing work at the individual level. And as you know, this whole system perspective is a critical component for using the HPT Model.

As you begin to review this interactive case study consider the following questions that you will be asked to respond to in your courseroom discussion forum:

· How would you apply the HPT Model to address this NuPlant performance issue?

· How would you present the benefits of using of this approach to the NuPlant stakeholders?

Main Characters

Bert Performance Consultant

Malorie Plant Human Resources Manager

Katherine Director of Corporate Training

The case study is a story of Bert, a performance consultant, who along with his team conducts a performance analysis to determine the cause of poor supervisory and plant performance and prescribe what can be done to effect change.

Setting

Big Auto Major U.S. based automobile manufacturer

NuPlant Big Autos newest and largest stamping plant

NOTE: Despite NuPlant's new and highly automated processes, it's modern and large facilities, and workforce of about 3,000 employees, the plant is not meeting performance expectations. In fact, it is ranked at the bottom in division productivity, labor cost, yield and scrap.

Conversation 1

This was the conversation that Bert had with Malorie, the HR manager at NuPlant.

Bert

Malorie

Conversation between Bert and Malorie00:31

Audio Player

00:00 / 00:00

Hide Transcript

Bert (Performance Consultant): They did what?

Malorie (HR Manager): "Yup last week someone put a dead rat in a supervisors lunchbox and then welded the box to one of the steel girders out in the production area. I would say things have gone from bad to worse. Every day there is more tension between production supervision and hourly personnel. The supervisors just have a generally bad attitude toward the hourly workers. That attitude is one reason we can't get our local union agreement signed. We need human relations training for our production supervisors no doubt about it!"

Conversation 2

The project began when Bert received a call from Katherine, an acquaintance, who manages the corporate training organization at Big Auto.

Katherine

Bert

Conversation between Katherine and Bert00:41

Audio Player

00:00 / 00:00

Hide Transcript

Katherine (Training Director): "Hi Bert, this is Katherine from Corporate Training at Big Auto. I was wondering if you and your organization would be interested in looking at an opportunity. Here is the situation as I see it: the HR Manager at NuPlant, which is our largest stamping plant, requested training for first-line production supervisors from the stamping divisions training organization. NuPlant does not have the resources to respond to this request, thus why they referred it to us at Big Auto. I, as the director of corporate training, I am not convinced that training is the solution and want an outsiders view and opinion. Bert, would you be willing to join me at NuPlant to take a closer look at this situation?"

Bert (Performance Consultant): "Yes, of course. This is definitely worth a look."

The request from the client is a critical point in this or any project. Let's take a look at the typical performance consulting situation.

A: The majority of consulting work begins with a request from an executive or manager of some operation who sees or hears something depicted by the letter A that causes that person to believe a problem exists. Moreover, in many instances the requestor also reaches a conclusion as to what an appropriate solution should be.

B: The requestor then contacts a resource depicted by the letter B and requests that particular solution.

C: The requestor seldom mentions any gap in job performance or organization results depicted by the letter C.

D: The first option for the receiver (B) is to follow path D and just say yes to the request and faithfully deliver the solution. Alternatively, the resource could follow path E.

E: Alternatively the resource could follow path E.

Should Bert Take Path D or E?

Bert knows the response to a request. We need human relations training for our first-line supervisors can go in a variety of different directions, depending on the viewpoint, model, assumptions, and capability of the receiver of the request.

Path D

The likely interventions in response to this particular request could include the following:

· Human relations training.

· Training in communications.

· Installation of a 360 degree feedback system.

· Changes in a performance management system.

· An employee attitude survey.

· Team building.

· A ropes course.

· An analysis of the organizations culture.

Bert knows that this could lead to a "buyer beware" situation.

Path E

As a serious performance consultant, Bert knows he needs to remain solution-neutral and trace the symptom back to desired organizational results to determine the performance context of the symptom/request and work from there.

To be a serious performance consultant, Bert knows he needs to:

· Apply a conceptual framework called the Anatomy of Performance.

· Follow the results improvement process.

The Anatomy of Performance (AOP) consists of 7 Key Points:

1. Organizations are systems.

2. Organizations are processing systems.

3. Organizations are adaptive systems.

4. Jobs or roles and functions exist to support the processes of the organization.

5. All performers are part of a human performance system.

6. Management must keep the organization system aligned.

7. The results chain must link to a critical business issue.

The Results Improvement Process consists of 4 phases:

1. Desired results determined and project defined.

2. Barriers determined and changes specified.

3. Changes designed, developed, and implemented.

4. Results evaluated, and maintained or improved.

Request for "Help" or an opprtunity

Ⅰ Desired results Determines and Project Defined

What and Where is the Gap in Results?

Ⅱ Barriers Determined and Charges Specified

Why Gap in Results and What is Required to Close it?

Ⅲ Changes Designed, Developed and Implemented

How are we Closing the Gap in Results?

Ⅳ Results Evaluated and Maintained or Improved

Did we Close the Gap in Results?

This interactive piece introduced you to the Nuplant Case Study. You learned about NuPlant: Big Auto's newest and largest stamping plant.

Despite NuPlant's new and highly automated processes, it's modern and large facilities, and workforce of about 3,000 employees, the plant was not meeting performance expectations. In fact, it was ranked at the bottom in division productivity, labor cost, yield and scrap.

In addition to this major performance or low productivity problem, hourly workers and supervisors are not getting along – displaying unacceptable behaviors. HR sees human relations training for the production supervisors as the solution to the problem.

Consider the following for your response to the Unit 2 discussion forum:

· Will human relations training for the production supervisors solve the issues between workers and supervisors and get productivity on track to meet performance expectations?

· How would you apply the HPT Model to address this NuPlant performance issue?

· How would you present the benefits of using of this approach to the NuPlant stakeholders?