Reference+3

=Reference 3=

http://staffsite.gunadarma.ac.id/widyo/index.php?stateid...id...**part**=files


Use the space below to discuss the parts of the reference. You can also add comments and summaries.

Dear Prof,

Here contains the summary of what I understand after reading Chapter 2 "The Performance Architect's Essential Guide to the Performance Technology Landscape", and with my comments are my questions regarding the topic. Hope you may answer to clarify my thoughts and confirms what I have understood and rectify if my understanding was inaccurate.

"The Performance Architect's Essential Guide to the Performance Technology Landscape" contains a case studies which is similar to my own organisational problem in chapter "What is Performance Architecture?". That is, applying to my own organisation problem, employees desperately need training what with implying the change in using the tool for e-Learning software development, and although all team members are experience employees all in the senior executives range, their work performance was deteriorating. It has been always like a nagging problem for us, but now based on this 'manual' in chapter 2, I know how to systematically approach this problem in our organisation and writes/recommends solution for it.

However in the "Performance Architect Guide to the Performance Technology Landscape", It prepared a map which is the figure 2.1 Performance Technology Landscape, focusing on the systematic approach (1, Need, 2, Results, 3. What, 4. How, 5. Do, 6.Evaluate) to the four principles of performance technology (1). focus on results,( 2). Take a system(s) viewpoint, (3) Add value and focus on the business or organizational purpose, (4) establish partnerships ans work collaboratively), also when taking a system viewpoint it is important to follow a Systems Model (in figure 2.2), as by thinking systematically, we are able to view the organisation as a 'complete system'. On the other hand, In order to repair an existing peformance system, two models can be utilized which is 1. The Performance Map (Fig 2.3) and the Iceberg Model (fig 2.4). However how does the "Performance Technology Landscape" relates to either of the HPT Models (the Pershing or Van Tiem's?). DO we identify theareas on either of the theory e.g as you wrote
 * Analysis
 * Design of Intervention
 * Evaluation of Success

and then to identify the steps in each of these three areas? And in order to identify the steps we need to look into the "Performance Technology Landscape"? (Enna)

Enna, thank you for your questions. Chapter 2 essentially tells us the various things that need to be considered when applying either Pershing's or Van Tiem's Model. It speaks of the nature of organisations and the nature of people who work in it. When reading Chapter 2, we should try and link each section to the Case Study given or your own Organisational Problem. While we are doing that, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the HPT analyst to work out how and why the Analyst came up with the solution step-by-step.

Hi Prof,

In an organisation, it is essential to consult a professional when a challenge is faced in the organisation. At times, a third party may see things in a different angle and indirectly by doing this the manager saves cost and time of the organisation. Such as in my school, I believe that the problem of preparing lesson plans using laptops and computers can be consulted and may need someone that spend time with the teachers day to day to highlight the reason why some of them are reluctant to prepare their lesson plans using the technology approach and how this can it be overcome. In this case study, the Performance Technology Landscape (Figure 2.1) is used as a framework to guide through the process to improvement. The landscape looks into 4 principles to performance technology, the workforce, business case and system (s) viewpoint.

The important area that the landscape focuses is on performance and human performance technology. Performance is to gain a valued result and in the end benefit the stakeholder such as if I take my school as an example, teachers perform activity by preparing their lesson plans a day ahead by keying in their lessons and produces a result of good lesson planned for the next day and work is saved in the PC. Stakeholders such as the management, HOD, students, parents are affected by this result. The system model (Figure 2.2) looks into the stakeholders that are directly affected by the results.In addition, using PT improves the teacher’s performance in preparing their lesson plans. It is fast, easily view, easily duplicated, save time and effort to prepare again for the following year (once done can be used and modified easily by others) and also it is saved in the PC than carry a large book of lesson plan every day to class.The system approach is systematic way used to organise the process that includes the need, results, what, how, do and evaluate. Thus, it make is easier to approach and enhance the challenge faced.

On the other hand, performance architecture tools were used in the case study to improve the existing system. On the tools is the Performance Map’s simple grid format. It is a useful tool for diagnosing performance-related issues (Figure 2.3). It looks into the structure, motivation, environment and learning areas. This is an important step in my school situation because it provides an overall view such as it allows the principal to rate the identiﬁed employees from 0 (no skills or knowledge) to 10 (highly skilled and knowledgeable). In result, determine the identiﬁed teacher’s job competence.

The Iceberg Model encourages us to start our work at the base organisational level with a cultural audit, so that we get to know the operational norms (Carleton and Lineberry, 2004). Understanding the organisations environment avoids costly and time consuming errors. Thus, in my school as shared early understanding the usefulness of typing the lesson plans avoids cost and time errors.

=
The evaluation planning goes through the formative, summative evaluation and return of investment. When bothparties agree on the design the next step is the evaluation process. Formative evaluation is done at each milestone and immediate corrective action is taken. Summative evaluation done at the conclusion of the pilot testing. ROI provides clients with meaningful measures. Such as at the school level it allows the designer, learner and instructor to observer how did the instructional goals and objectives met the course. Summative evaluation focus on the outcome of the course. It is conducted at the end of instructional design. It can be conducted thru questionnaires, survey, interviews, observation, testing and expert. ===== (Jesvin)

Jesvin, thank you for your summary. To help you start with the manual. apply parts of your summary to the Case Study.

Dear Professor By reading "The Performance Architects Essential Guide to the Performance Technology Landscape" I realized that what I am reading in the case study is exactly the perception of many practitioners when there is a gap in performance, they think training will solve the problem. We tend to look at the tip of the Iceberg and normally miss the critical parts of the different layers.

The case study follows some logical steps by analyzing the problem first. The manager realized that there is a problem, more errors than usual from the same group of excellent workers. Realizing there is a problem the manager opt for a consultant. This to me is very essential, because we need to get a different perspective, an independent view. The manager also did exactly the obvious thing and that is to retrain the staff. What I also see as a positive aspect is that the consultant made use of the performance map and did not only look at the tip of the iceberg eventually. After realizing that retraining did not solve the problem the consultant was brought in.

Sometimes when we are part of the organization we tend to miss the actual problem. Observation is another critical aspect, because you look at a situation from the outside, another angle and you can make a better judgment. To me it helps that we look at the problem from different perspectives.

The manager thought that is was a big problem, but realizing that what lies beneath the surface should be considered as well.

The systematic approach of the performance technology landscape is a useful way to look and solve a performance problem. The four principles are:
 * 1) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">Focus on results
 * 2) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">Take a system viewpoint
 * 3) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">Add value and focus on the business or organisational purpose
 * 4) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">Establish partnerships and work collaboratively

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">What clearly stands out in "The Performance Architects Essential Guide to the Performance Technology Landscape" is that, no matter how appropriate the tools are for the task, they are useless to us and to our clients without the all important link to the organization’s business.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">Another aspect that is important to me is that “The Iceberg Model encourages us to start our work at the base organizational level with a cultural audit, so that we get to know the operational norms (Carleton and Lineberry, 2004).

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 16px;">The final thought on ROI, which is that we want to provide our clients with meaningful measures, from their own data, to show that the investment the organization made to improve performance has paid off. Rummler (2004) suggests in Pershing (2007) "that if we accurately identify the critical business issue at the organizational level, the critical process issue at the work or process level, and the critical job issue at the worker or individual level, we will have the necessary metrics to measure success". (Wynand)

<span style="display: block; height: 1px; left: -40px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: -25px; width: 1px;">Finally, we want to provide our clients with meaningful measures, from their own data, to show that the investment the organization made to improve performance has paid off. <span style="display: block; height: 1px; left: -40px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: -25px; width: 1px;">Rummler (2004) suggests that if we accurately identify the critical business issue at the organizational level, the critical process issue at the work or process level, and the critical job issue at the worker or individual level, we will have the necessary metrics to measure success.

Wynand, good job! The chapter provides us with HPT 'spectacles', i.e. what to look for, how to look and where to look for the problem. It also tells us to look for "motivation" behind things. As practice, you can also apply the various parts of the "Performance Map" of Fig 2.3 (page 45, ref 3) to the example in Case Studies to see how the workers were "empowered" to solve their own productivity problem. The workers themselves solved the cultural 'nepotism' problem when there was a collective focus on productivity. It is also important to see how the HPT technologist supported and empowered the Factory Manager to solve the problem of excess 'wastage'. The Garments Factory example shows where technology fitted in, what training was needed and how the incentives were applied. What you need to work out now is the steps an HPT person, who is unfamiliar with the workings of the organization, would need to take find the problem and design an intervention. Yousuf

The Performance Technology Landscape identifies four critical elements to guide the work of the performance technologist, namely: the principles of performance technology, examining the work environment so that nothing important, no matter how minute would escape the notice of the performance technologist. The technologist would also have to take a system's viewpoint of the organization knowing fully well that a single organization could be viewed as a system, that is a unit, and anything from the part of the unit could make the unit malfunction. Finally a systematic approach is expected to be taken to identify and recommend solution to a problem. These principles looks so straightforward, and as Addison and Haig (2006) indicates, they can be deceptively simple. Despite this, I would say that in my country, I have never seen where a performance technologist is called in to help resolve a problem. The best we have had is to set-up committees to discuss issues and make recommendations on how to solve the problem. In such cases, because people in the committee are insiders, they are usually afraid to raise poignant issues for the fear of being labelled anti-establishment, the problem of personal bias is also usually there and so issues are papered and in the end, interventions would not be thorough. Good observation. Another prevalent issue is that discussed briefly in the tip of the iceberg. I raised some issues concerning the continuous use of training of academic staff as intervention in resolving examination matters. However, these issue do go beyond the training intervention. For example, some of the academic staff are feeling that they are not usually carried along when issues like softwares to use are being discussed, yet they are the ones that would be called upon to use the software! In cases like this, training would not take away the feelings of alienation and that feeling may make some staff become clog in the wheel of successful implementation of program. We need to allow through analysis of issues in a systematic and systemic manner to unearth all possible issues and design effective intervention. (Olubiyi)

How does the organization evaluate its own performance? Are there any performance measures? The management should be allowed to see the result of its own efforts. If the management thinks it performance is poor, they may have the motivation to improve things.