EVALUATING HUMAN PERFORMANCE

Evaluation is often the most misunderstood and least completed step of the Human Performance Model (HPT).  Using it correctly, however, helps performance consultants learn what activities the organization has completed and what the results of those activities have achieved. It also helps establish accountability for performers, business units, managers, and organization as a whole. This accountability helps focus the company’s efforts on the right path towards achieving their desired business results. 

Few organizations complete thorough evaluation of interventions because of time and resource constraints.  All too often, practitioners receive numerous pleas for help in improving performance, with these pleas being “emergencies” that must be acted upon quickly. With numerous requests coming, practitioners are pulled in many directions with little chance to completely follow through on this step. As Robert Brinkerhoff states in The Handbook of Human Performance Technology, “in the fast-paced work common in many organizations, it is increasingly likely that principles of good stewardship and thoughtful practice might be neglected in the hustle and bustle.”

In addition, many practitioners are not well versed on the types of evaluations available and tend to focus on the most well known theories of Kirkpatrick and Phillips.  Because they focus primarily on instructional interventions, non-instructional interventions tend to fall through the cracks.  Furthermore, practitioners tend to think of financial results when evaluating interventions.  Many do not realize that qualitative data from surveys and interviews can be just as important and influential in assessing the success or failure of interventions as numeric data; leaders are often just looking for results. Testimonials from performers, as well as case studies on successful performance, provide valid data and models for performers and business units that were not as successful.

While there are many types of evaluation models, this article will focus on three:

1.  The Iterative Model
2.  The Rapid Evaluation Model
3.  The Targeted Evaluation Model

Although all three models focus on tying evaluation to business needs, defining expected results and partnering with stakeholders, each takes a different approach.

The Interative Model

The Iterative model, as described by Brinkerhoff, focuses on the circular nature of evaluation and uses interim objectives to monitor whether the intervention is improving performance as expected. He defines it as a systemic process used as a strategic tool “to design evaluation to improve HPT project results and demonstrate their organizational impact”. The method behind the model is based on standard errors like aiming at the wrong goals, faulty root cause analysis, incorrect intervention design, poor project management, and little continued impact made by performance consultants when they evaluate interventions.  It follows a five-step process: 

1. Set HPT goals by ensuring they are reasonable, important and worthwhile.
2. Analyze performance issues to ensure accurate diagnosis of root causes.
3. Design the HPT initiative and evaluate its technical validity; key factors are established and supported.
4. Implement the HPT initiative and monitor it to guarantee the desired results are achieved.
5. Sustaining impact by evaluating what worked and did not work during implementation

This model is often used to support the Iterative HPT Strategy and is different from many other models because performance consultants are encouraged to cycle back and forth from step to step throughout the evaluation process.  This transforms the process to be interactive with analysis, data gathering and communication with stakeholders occurring throughout the evaluation, while many other models methodically move for one step to the next.

The Rapid Evaluation Model

The Rapid Evaluation model, developed by Susan Barksdale and Terri Lund, focuses on the customer and relies on who will be affected most by the intervention to determine the evaluation methods used. This model evolved through years of practical application in the field by Barksdale and Lund.  It begins with defining the purpose and objectives of the evaluation, and ends with communicating the results and implementing a maintenance plan to continue achieve business results.  Steps involved include:

1. Defining the purpose of the evaluation strategy
2. Determining the evaluation methods
3. Determining the focus of the evaluation strategy
4. Linking evaluation to business needs
5. Determining the scope and size of the evaluation
6. Identifying expected results
7. Identifying resource requirements
8. Integrating with other processes
9. Identifying reporting requirements
10. Identifying the project maintenance plan

The Targeted Evaluation Model

While the Rapid Evaluation method focuses on quick and direct evaluation by determining the affect on the customer, the Targeted Evaluation Process - created by Wendy Combs and Salvatore Falletta - identifies the different needs of stakeholders. By targeting the evaluation methods and corresponding questions to meet those needs, this evaluation method measures the success of the intervention as it relates to the desired results by the stakeholders. Based on many misconceptions around evaluation, this methodology considers the organizational context when evaluating interventions, thus accounting for any extraneous performance or system factors that may affect the success of the interventions. It also partners with stakeholder to determine relevant evaluation dimensions related to the objectives of the interventions and develop targeted evaluation questions to measure results.  It follows a six-step process including:

1. Partnering with stakeholders
2. Understanding the intervention and organizational context
3. Targeting evaluation questions and identifying the evaluation needs of stakeholders
4. Designing tools, technology, and techniques
5. Gathering and analyzing data
6. Reporting results

To change the typical shortcut of skipping the evaluation step in HPT methodology, practitioners will need to approach evaluation as they do any other project: developing a well thought out strategy and plan to follow. The key steps of partnering with stakeholders, gathering data, and communicating results during the HPT process can be used to put this strategy into action. By building credibility and trust up front, practitioners can communicate to stakeholders what kind of information can be gained and how it can further continued improvement of performance. This will ensure stakeholder support and the time and resources needed for accurate evaluation.  In addition, by delegating some of the data gathering steps, performers and managers will continue to be engaged in the intervention process while streamlining the time needed by the performance consultant to complete the evaluation steps.  Lastly, communication of the results will establish a history of successes and continue to build the credibility of performance consulting within the organization.

References:

Barksdale, S., & Lund, T. (2001), Rapid evaluation. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. ISBN: 1-56286-287-1.

Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2006). Handbook of human performance technology. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. 287–311.

Combs, W. L., & Falletta, S. V. (2000). The targeted evaluation process. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. ISBN: 1-56286-140-9.

Chapman, A. and Kirkpatrick, D. (2007).  Kirkpatrick’s learning and training evaluation theory. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from www.businessballs.com/kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm.

Phillips, J. J. (1999). ROI: The search for best practices [Electronic version]. The Manchester Review, 4, 11-18.