Running head: UNDERSTANDING HPT

Understanding Human Performance Technology (HPT)

N. Alvarado, B. Grella, C. Reese

Georgia State University Dr. Shoffner, LT7150

 Understanding Human Performance Technology (HPT)

Human performance technology (HPT) is a term that references a broad academic and

industry practice concerned with optimizing potential in individuals and organizations. In the

most general sense, the field explores questions related to systems. Brewthower and Dams

(1999) capture this aspect of HPT in their definition that HPT is concerned “with living systems

at the levels of individuals, groups, and organizations. We typically refer to such systems as

“performance systems.” (p. 37). Further, Brewthower and Dams assert that HPT is about

systematically improving and managing performance. Given this definition it is clear that HPT

practitioners’ work is far-reaching - it is concerned with optimizing active and complex systems.

History of HPT: Origins and Evolution

While it is difficult to identify the precise origin of the HPT field, the roots of HPI

germinate in the work of Frederick Taylor. Taylor, a mechanical engineer, was a pioneer in the

area of workplace efficiency and one of the foundational thinkers in human performance

improvement. Taylor studied factory workers in the early 20th century and applied his efficiency

ideas to observe and measure factory workers. Utilizing a scientific approach, Taylor used a

stopwatch and clipboard to observe workers and engage in time and motion studies of factory

tasks. From his observational data, he established the most efficient manner to complete the task

and then trained the workers to execute their jobs more effectively. His goal was to improve

human performance and optimize productivity. Taylor dubbed his approach ‘scientific

management’ and documented it in the influential book The Principles of Scientific Management

(1911).
The “Official” Discovery of the Field

The HPT field was officially discovered between 1958 and 1969 (Rummler, 2007, p. 5).

The work in this period laid the groundwork for the publications in the 1960s. In the early 1960s,

Geary Rummler and Dale Brethower, two well-known contributors to the field, worked together

at University of Michigan’s Center for Programmed Learning for Business. This program was

the birthplace for HPT thought and hosted many of today’s foundational thinkers in roundtable

discussions and conferences. Working with this brain trust of HPT thinkers, Rummler developed

the human performance system (HPS) model. HPS is a model that describes the characteristics

that impact behavior. Since its inception, it has been used by HPT practitioners to diagnose and

influence behavior of individuals in performance systems (Tosti, n.d, p .9).

Concurrently, in the early 1960s, Thomas F. Gilbert published the Journal of Mathics.

Although only two volumes were published, they had far-reaching effects in the field as they laid

a foundation for his later work (O'Driscoll, 2015, p. 34).

HPT in the 1970s

By the 1970’s Gilbert published his seminal work Human Competence. The book is

largely regarded as one of the most significant contributions to the HPT field and cemented

Gilbert as the father of HPT (O'Driscoll, 2015, p. 34). The book lays out a conceptual

understanding of performance with two fundamental concepts. First, in this book Gilbert

proposes the notion that performance is measurable by its accomplishments. Second, Gilbert also

introduces his Behavioral Engineering Model (BEM). The BEM is a tool that systematically

identifies both (a) barriers to individual and organizational performance and (b) causes of

performance discrepancies. “These two significant conceptual milestones would forever change

the way that HPT professionals would analyze and evaluate performance in the work­place”
(O'Driscoll, p. 34).

HPT 1980s and 1990s

The 1980s brought depth to the HPT field as technological advances started to impact

organizational environments. Scholars began thinking earnestly about performance and consider

technology as a means to achieve desired performance objectives. The impact of technology on

the field was apparent to Mager, an HPT theorist and practitioner, who aptly noted at the time

that “the mission of information technology is to change performance capability” (Mager, 1988,

p. 8). His prescient words would prove true throughout the next decades. Technological

innovations and tools gained a foothold in organizations and provided an additional means to

support, measure, and track performance.

By the 1990s, the systems approach was introduced by Peter Senge. Senge proposed

systems theory as a framework to view organizational change in his seminal book The Fifth

Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (1994). Since its publication, the

systems perspective is a common lens through which practitioners view HPT. Geary Rummler

and Alan Brache's book Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the

Organization Chart (1995) connects Senge’s ideas to HPT and describes the introduction of

systems thinking into the organization. In this book, Rummler and Brache describe their Nine

Performance Variables model. This tiered model notes the three distinct parts of an

organization's performance system: the organization level, the process level, and the individual

level as well as the three performance needs: the goals, the design and the management. The

components of this systems must work effectively for an organization to optiminally achieve its

performance goals.
Present

HPT continues to evolve with adaptations of older models and the introduction of new

applications, theories and tools and practices. The goal of this paper to consider HPT’s history

definitions, actions, and trends. The hope is that the reader of this text will secure a firm

understanding of the field and understand it as a robust and growing discipline that is advancing

our understanding of performance improvement and optimization.

Defining and Describing HPT

Human performance technology (HPT) is a field of study focused on improving

performance at the organizational and individual performer levels. The word “technology” is

commonly misunderstood to mean information technologies. In HPT “technology” refers to the

specialized aspects of the field of Human Performance. It is the application of scientific

knowledge for practical purposes, or a branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied

science.

HPT "uses a wide range of interventions that are drawn from many other disciplines,

including total quality management, process improvement, behavioral psychology, instructional

systems design, organizational development, and human resources management" (ISPI, 2007). It

stresses a rigorous analysis of requirements to identify the causes for performance gaps, provide

interventions to improve and sustain performance, and evaluate the results against the

requirements being analyzed.

The International Society for Performance Improvement defines HPT as: "a systematic

approach to improving productivity and competence, uses a set of methods and procedures -- and

a strategy for solving problems -- for realizing opportunities related to the performance of

people. More specific, it is a process of selection, analysis, design, development,

implementation, and evaluation of programs to most cost-effectively influence human behavior

and accomplishment. It is a systematic combination of three fundamental processes: performance

analysis, cause analysis, and intervention selection, and can be applied to individuals, small

groups, and large organizations"(ISPI, 2012). A simpler definition of HPT is a systematic

approach to improving individual and organizational performance (Pershing, 2006).

Trends in HPT

As HPI evolves, so too, do its trends. In addition to the history and definition of HPT, this

paper will also examine some of the trends that have gained traction in recent years. Two trends

that are emerging are microlearning and performance support.

Microlearning

Microlearning is generally defined as an approach to breaking up and delivering content

and information into specific, focused segments. Many labels circulate for this practice including

“Bite-sized learning,” “snackable content,” and “learning chunks” (Eldridge, 2017).

Microcontent exists in myriad formats, and the timeframe in which a microlearning event occurs

is one of its only restrictions. The accepted time frame for a microlearning activity varies, with

some sources establishing four minutes as the maximum amount of time (Eldridge, 2017) while

others propose that an event can last from “a few seconds up to 15 minutes” (Giurgiu, 2017).

Examples of microlearning include videos, checklists, infographs, and podcasts. Microlearning

has primarily been used in e-learning and informal learning environments (Mukan, Fuchyla, &

Ihnatiuk, 2017).

Microlearning is used for various reasons and is considered advantageous as it

Engages the learner due to the focused, relevant and often interactive content. In addition,

microlearning is flexible, lending itself to mobile learning, “continuous updates, multitasking,

getting interactive” (Jomah, Masoud, Kishore, & Aurelia, 2016). Lastly, microlearning produces

effective training (Fox, 2016). Microlearning does have its limitations, namely that it is not

meant to replace standard training, but rather works best when it is used to boost information and

skills gained from training (Paul, 2016). In other words, microlearning may not be effective

“when people need to acquire/learn complex skills, processes, or behaviors” (Jomah et al., 2016).

The main driving forces behind microlearning’s increasing relevance include failures in

training and the changing workforce populace. Amy Fox identifies the main reasons why training

frequently fails, including “focusing on one-off event without thorough follow-up, coaching and

reinforcement” and quantifying results based on behavior rather performance (2016). She

proposes that microlearning helps address some of these training pitfalls, concluding that

microlearning encourages learners to find solutions, boost their skills, and consequently, increase

outputs (2016). In addition, microlearning’s relevance becomes more evident as Millennials to

overtake the workforce. This group is expected to make up 75% o the workforce by 2025

(Eldridge, 2017). And, because the average Millennial has an attention span of about 90 seconds,

Eldridge argues that designing “compact and engaging learning experiences is more relevant

than ever” (2017).

Performance Support

The performance support has become popular in recent years. Generally, performance

support is defined as “a tool or other resource, from print to technology supported, which

provides just the right amount of task guidance, support, and productivity benefits to the user—

precisely at the moment of need” (Rosenberg, 2018). Performance support matters in the

workplace because it focuses on performance goals -not learning objectives- and is thus able to
supplement training quickly and cost effectively (Rosenberg 2018). Table 15.1 below illustrates

the distinctions.

Source: Rosenberg, M. J. (2018). Performance Support. In R.A Reiser and J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional

Design and Technology (What's New in Ed Psych / Tests & Measurements) [Kindle version] (pp. 132-141). Retrieved from Amazon.com

It should be noted that effective performance support benefits both

employers/organizations as well as employees. It benefits employees in the sense that it provides

tools to render previously complex tasks as manageable. Support tools expedite tasks to allow

people “to excel in important roles and can also be used to help people help themselves”

(Coulson‐Thomas, 2013). As for employers, performance support delivers “improved

productivity, lower costs, quicker responses, bespoke services, and evidenced compliance”

(Coulson‐Thomas, 2013).

Conclusion

Potentiating individual and organizational outputs is the ultimate goal of HPT. It is a field

which is incredibly nuanced considering how relatively young it is. To outsiders, it is a field that

is difficult to encapsulate in a tidy definition, but one has to remember that at the core and start

of the field lies the individual- the human. From there, a system develops. As the late Donald

Tosti surmises, “Human performance is the valued result of the work of the people working

within a system.” (Tosti, n.d.). Therefore, while system performance and achievement are
expected outcomes, attaching prime importance to the individuals that comprise the system, and

seeking rational ways of solving human problems, will always be a central HPT concern.
 References

Brethower, D. M., & Dams, P. (1999). Systems thinking (and systems doing). Performance

Improvement, 38(1), 37-50.

Coulson‐Thomas, C. (2013). New technologies and performance support. Human Resource

Management International Digest, 21(3), 30-32.

Eldridge, B. (2017). Developing a Microlearning Strategy With or Without an LMS. Elearning

& Software For Education, 1, 48–51.

Fox, A. (2016). Why Training Fails and What to Change: A Case for Microlearning and Ongoing

Management. Employment Relations Today, 43(1), 41–45.

Giurgiu, L. (2017). Microlearning an Evolving Elearning Trend. Scientific Bulletin, 22(1), 18–

24.

Jomah, O., Masoud, A., Kishore, X., & Aurelia, S. (2016). Micro Learning: A Modernized

Education System. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience,

7(1), 103–110. Retrieved from

http://www.edusoft.ro/brain/index.php/brain/article/view/582

ISPI. What is Human Performance Technology? Retrieved June 12, 2012 from

http://www.ispi.org/content.aspx?id=54

Mager, R. (1988). Making Instruction Work. Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Company.

O'Driscoll, T. (2015). Chronicling the Emergence of Human Performance Technology.

Performance Improvement, 54(6), 34-47.

Paul, A. M. (2016). Microlearning 101. HR Magazine, 61(4), 36-42.

Pershing, J.A. (2006). Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Principles Practices

Potential. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Rummler, G. A. (2007). The past is prologue: An eyewitness account of HPT. Performance

Improvement, 46(10), 5-9.

Rummler, G. and A. Brache. (1995). Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space

on the Organization Chart (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rosenberg, M. J. (2018). Performance Support. In R.A Reiser and J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends

and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (What's New in Ed Psych / Tests &

Measurements) [Kindle version] (pp. 132-141). Retrieved from Amazon.com

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New

York: Doubleday/Currency.

Tosti, D. T. (n.d.). Human Performance System Analysis. Cambridge Center for Behavioral

Studies, Inc. Retrieved April 7, 2018 from http://www.behavior.org/resources/397.pdf