PinPoint Performance Solutions Blog (Legacy Content)

Last week I had an interesting conversation with a colleague that included a discussion of Electronic Performance Support Systems (EPSS).

An EPSS is an integrated electronic system that is easily accessible by a user when it is needed. The information provided is individualized and likely in context to the situation that is encountered by the user.

I've always been interested in EPSS as it relates to business, training and support. The basis of my conversation with my colleague was that an EPSS can help lower support costs by providing just-in-time training and information (i.e. - feedback). If the end-user can solve their problem before calling upon support staff to assist or to halt their work to research the problem, they can continue to concentrate on their task at hand and still maintain a high level of productivity while receiving assistance.

You may have encountered an EPSS without realizing it. Do you remember the old Microsoft Office 97 Assistant, Clippy? Annoying as he was, Clippy was actually an embedded EPSS that monitored the performance of the end-user. As the end-user performed certain actions, Clippy would provide feedback, suggestions or assistance to maintain or increase performance.

Imagine how you could provide an EPSS with your technology your workforce uses in your business to maintain or increase performance. If this topic intrigues you as much as me, here are some additional resources for you to investigate the topic further.

• EPSScentral - home of Gloria Gery, an independent consultant and authority on EPPS.
• Types of Electronic Performance Support Systems - authored by Deborah Alpert Sleight

I never considered myself and early adopter. Everybody seems to have one in their life, either among their circle of friends or within their family, but I'm not one of them.

A little more than a year ago, Microsoft released its Vista operating system. When the product launched I didn't run out right away and install it on my company's PC's. I waited on the sidelines like a lot of other people and stuck to what I knew worked for me, met my needs and what I was familiar with. I didn't want to change to something that was unproven and had little to no guarantee that it will work with my software and other hardware devices.

Late last month, I upgraded one of my computers and chose the Vista OS. Actually, I had no choice with the box I purchased. It was either Vista or nothing. After a year in service, I thought it was time to give the OS a try. To me, the change was inevitable. Eventually I would have to make the change because Microsoft will quit offering XP and will no longer support it in the near future.

A recent PC World article titled Why Users Hate Vista explained how change in an operating system is more emotional (to the end-users) than technical (for the IT personnel). When it comes down to it, any technical change for an end-user is emotional. It's human nature to resist change. Just ask my friend who wrote a recent post on his blog about change. Bottom line: people are creatures of habit and will prefer to keep things status quo. At minimum they will be very selective about the amount of change they are willing endure.

In business and the IT world, change is unavoidable if you want to remain competitive. I don't recommend change for the sake of change, but if it improves your business processes it should be implemented with thought and consideration for the end-user. After all, it is they who will be leveraging the technology to drive the business processes that bring about success.

How does one implement a technology change despite the emotional reaction people will have to it? The answer is Change Management.

Here are some tips and thoughts I have on this subject:

• Focus on the people - consult with the end-users. Include them in the decision making process when making changes to the technology they will be interfacing with. Work with them to identify their needs, the obstacles they wish to overcome and their overall objectives.
• Communicate strategic messages - discuss the reason for the change and solicit feedback. Clarify how everyone will be involved in the change and give them ownership in the implementation strategy.
• Communicate and train - provide ample notice and support for the new technology measure the results. Above all, maintain open lines of communication to allow end-users to ask questions and voice their concerns. Address them promptly.
  

If you take careful consideration into what you are doing and who you are doing it for, you can be confident that the change will be embraced and implemented as it was intended.

One of my favorite websites, BNET, has put together a feature on Web 2.0 and how it can work for you in your business.

Not only are you able to find out what it is and what specific tools are at your disposal, you can also learn how to put it to use in your company. I encourage you to read this article as well as others in the feature if you are considering using Web 2.0 technologies in your organization.

Here are some highlights from the article and some thoughts I have on this topic:

• Web 2.0 - simple deployment, simple management and lower overall costs. There is typically no software to buy and configure on a network server or desktop. Management and maintenance of the application is often minimal. Somebody else is usually responsible for the "dirty work".
• Implementing Web 2.0 in an organization should be done out of a need to improve performance, productivity and communication. It shouldn't be done for the sake of the technology or just because "everybody else is doing it." The solution the technology provides should be to evolve current processes and practices, not to revolutionize what is currently being done. The key is to have minimal pain and minimal resistance during a time of change. Otherwise, your initiative could be rejected by the end users. Find a champion for your cause that people respect and are willing to follow. It could be you or it could be someone else.
• Some Web 2.0 applications have poor usability or counter-intuitive interfaces. This is a young field and there are bound to be many bugs, glitches and overlooked features that may be important to you. In this day and age, beta is the new "final release". It just comes with the territory.
• Be willing to experiment. Find the root causes to performance problems and identify whether or not a technology solution is the answer. If so, choose an application and see if it works for you. If not, you are out very little due to the nature of the technology. Simple deployment, simple management and low cost make it affordable to try on different hats until you find the one that is the best fit.

I would be very interested in learning what you discover in these articles. Perhaps you'll come to the same conclusions or arrive at your own. Enjoy!

Recently I became a contributor to Evan Carmichael, a website and forum dedicated to providing inspirational and strategic content and information to entrepreneurs. My main focus will be providing content for their new technology section.

Recently another contributor added an article that caught my attention. The focus of the article was about the criteria a company should use when choosing between building a custom software solution and purchasing an off-the-shelf solution.

The litmus test, according to the author, is to decide whether you need something useful or if you need something innovative.

Useful is when you need something that will help you with normal, everyday tasks such as accounting, budgeting, planning or managing information in a database. Innovative is when your business is so unique it requires an application with functionality that fits your business processes. In fact, the author contends that if by developing a customized application you are able to demonstrate a sustainable competitive advantage and if it is something your competitors will have trouble copying, then your needs call for something that is innovative.

So, if your business needs call for a simple, yet useful solution, then an off-the-shelf application will do just fine. Most businesses who have faced this choice when applying a technology solution to their business processes will tell you that it is hardly worth the headache to create a custom application when a solution that has likely been produced will do the job nicely.

Whether you choose a useful solution that is off-the-shelf or if you decide to go with a fully customized application, the key is to make is sure it fits within the framework of Bailey’s Human Performance Model. If the application doesn’t meet the needs of the end-user (someone), doesn’t fit within the environment where it will be used (someplace) or if it doesn’t help the end-user overcome an obstacle or help them accomplish a specific task (something), then the application will hold little value and likely be rejected. That’s an expense most companies are unwilling to risk.

Since I decided to go "back to my roots" in this week's posts, I was reminded of an event that occurred at one of the companies I worked at long ago. I think by telling you about certain aspects of that event it will demonstrate how human performance improvement and its subset, training, plays a role in PinPoint's mission to help companies integrate technology in their organizations to improve overall performance.

I don't want anyone to think that just because I was trained on how to design, develop and deliver training that I'm claiming to be an expert. However, I've met many people who claim to be a trainer in their place of work only to find out that their job is merely a communications liaison. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just that there's a big difference between telling and training.

Let me set the scene for you. I was asked to advise a group that was set to roll-out a software program to a number of employees in one of the company's many divisions. My job was to give them pointers on how to deliver the training. By the time I arrived my help wasn't needed because the group leaders have already decided how they were going to deliver the training. The employees were going to assemble in a room and watch a demonstration of the software application. According to the group leaders, they'll know what to do once they start using the application.

Again, there's a big difference between telling and training.

In situations such as these, always remember that people are going to learn more if they experience what they are learning. This means touching, feeling, exploring, making mistakes and learning from those mistakes.

There are basically four types of training:

1. Receptive - this is telling. Your learners watch and listen, but the likelihood of them tuning out during the session is far greater.
2. Directive - this is the "follow me" approach. We see this in a lot of physical or on the job training. An instructor essentially drills the learner on how to do something.
3. Guided Discovery - control is shared between the learner and the trainer. Learners are more in control as they move through the learning at their own pace and are given prompts, cues and corrective feedback. The amount of guidance given to them by the trainer really depends on the skill level of the learners.
   
4. Exploratory Learning - the learners are in control and work at their own pace and direction. The trainers only serve as a resource when needed.

When you train people to use technology and expect them to use it in ways that will boost their performance, you can't just give it to them and tell them to go. You especially can't put your learners in a room and expect them to watch someone else using software when they should be the ones experiencing how it works and observing how it benefits them.

Often times in business we don't have the luxury of time to conduct exploratory learning and we should certainly avoid receptive learning like the plague. Directive or guided discovery learning is usually the best method. This way, learners get the hands-on experience they needs with the right amount of guidance from a trainer.

In my last post I spoke about implementing technology for the right reasons. The "right reasons" are really more about the appropriateness to the need. That need is identified through the Behavioral Engineering Model I presented. If it is determined that a tool is needed to help people perform better within a business process or work environment, then it is likely the right choice.

I also mentioned that tools (those that come in the technical variety) sometimes are implemented to solve business problems for the sake of the technology and not so much to solve the problem itself. When this happens, it's hardly an appropriate solution. Sometimes the technology choice is trendy or a way to "keep up with the Jones'".

Technology isn't necessarily a cure-all for business problems. Most folks think of technology as computers, machines, software, web applications, etc.. In reality, these are the artifacts of something greater. Technology is the application of scientific and applied knowledge.

Through human performance improvement we can still apply technology to solve business problems even though its not of the technical, physical variety. I know it may sound surprising, considering PinPoint Performance Solutions is dedicated to supporting companies implementing technology solutions to improve performance, but by viewing the business problem through the lens of human performance improvement we can ensure it is appropriate and equally cost effective for the client.

I want to apologize for being somewhat of a shill for my company and a Boise-area organization I support. We upgraded our website and we threw our support behind Kickstart, an entrepreneur event happening in April. Last week's posts has little to do with PinPoint Performance Solutions and our overall mission to help companies implement technology in their organizations to improve performance. Still, why be in the blogging game if you can't do a little self-promotion from time to time and advocate a cause or two?

This week, I thought I'd dedicate a couple posts to my "roots". I started out my professional career as an instructional designer and human performance improvement specialist. Those titles may seem a little foreign to you, but that's OK. Before the week is out you'll have a better understanding of where I'm coming from, how it all falls into place and drives PinPoint Performance Solutions. All you really need to know about my previous career is that much of what I was taught and what I practiced supported the human resources function of an organization (or at least that's where it originated). I had a strong interest in technology and over time I found ways to merge my interest and my profession.

It wasn't all that hard to do. The fields of instructional design and human performance improvement today leverage technology and use it as a driver for many of the solutions that are developed. I'm sure you heard of e-learning. Well, that's an instructional design (i.e. - training) solution and if it is determined after an analysis conducted under the umbrella of human performance improvement that it will benefit the end-user and the organization, true performance emerges that is objective and measurable.

So how does this all tie in to what PinPoint Performance Solutions is doing today? I feel that technology, whether software, websites or web applications, even hardware products like hand held devices, is sometimes hastily implemented. In other words, the technology solution is created for the sake of the solution and not to address the true need or real performance problem in the organization. We get so excited about the possible outcome, but we have a clouded vision of what lies between the perceived need and potential solution.

The model I use at PinPoint Performance Solutions to validate the need to implement a technology solution in business, is Gilbert's Behavior Engineering Model. The link will take you to a PDF file with a copy of the model I have posted on my website. Gilbert, Thomas F., is considered the father of human performance technology. It basically boils down to this - problems in the workplace usually stem from either the business environment or the individual. Each have three sub-sets or areas where the problem(s) is usually centered upon.

Environment:

• Information
• Resources
• Incentives / Consequences
  

Individual:

• Knowledge / Skills
• Capacity
• Motivation

When we look to implement a technology solution in an organization to increase performance (or change the behavior of our workforce - because they aren't doing what they ought to be doing), what we are doing is concentrating on validating the environmental factor of resources. In most cases it is a lack thereof or having the wrong tool to complete crucial tasks, poor supporting systems, inadequate procedures, time (moving too quickly, moving very slowly or not enough) or lack of reference materials to support the transfer of knowledge.

Technology is a tool and if it is determined that a tool will help people and an organization perform better, then it is the right choice. Otherwise, there may be other factors at play that are causing the problem that should be explored more thoroughly. Technology is an expensive proposition for any organization to undertake. If a solution can be developed that doesn't involve implementing technology, then it should be pursued.

It may surprise you that I'm talking about steering clients away from implementing technology solutions, but that's quite the contrary. It's about serving our clients the best way possible and making sure they are implementing technology solutions for the right reasons.