Last month I shared V10 of the Performance Improvement Process Model or PIPM. While I had started writing earlier about the differences between problems and opportunities in “Opportunities vs. Good Ideas“and needs vs. wants in “Putting the NEED in Needs Assessment,” V10 has had some significant changes! Rather than write a long post – it seemed like a better idea to share the recording of a webinar I did last week that covers the changes and includes some stories relating to the main steps. Hope you enjoy it! If you would like copies of the handouts/articles mentioned in the webinar, drop me a line and I will send them to you!
The statistician George Box (1976) coined the phrase “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” I have used this quote many times… in workshops, as content in lessons for clients on modeling and simulation and at cocktail hour. Okay not at cocktail hour!!
If you are one of the seven avid followers of this blog, you have seen the continual efforts to make the Performance Improvement Process Model, (PIPM) now in it’s tenth iteration, useful. Every time I post an update or use it in an article, I get more feedback that moves me and the model closer to that goal.
Recently I received a comment from my friend and colleague Dr. Jim Hill, the CEO of Organizational Performance Systems, regarding the PIPM on LinkedIn. Jim reminded me that part of the value consultants bring to their clients is the adaptation of “our” models (there are soooo many) to fit their processes and language. So very true!
Another good friend and colleague of mine, Lieutenant Commander Janice Kirk, is doing exactly what Jim described, using the PIPM and a host of other models to inform the creation of a process model for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Materiel Division (the folks that buy the big equipment aka tanks, planes and submarines) to clearly explain to project stakeholders what the differences are between Needs Assessment/Analysis and Training Needs Analysis. With her permission, I am sharing it below.
I know… hard to read in this form! If you right click the image and select “open in a new tab” you can see a larger image that’s much easier to read. (You’re welcome!) If you are a “keener” and compare this model to the PIPM, you will see that the major steps are the same… it’s the bits in between that:
1. Drill down more,
2. Address the ADM Mat specific requirements, and
3. Link to the military guidance (Canadian Forces Individual Training and Education System (CFITES) policies and processes.
It’s a great example to underscore Dr. Hill’s advice that we need to work within and adjust to the client’s processes and just as importantly, speak their language. If you did open up Janice’s diagram in a new tab, you have seen it is rife with “CAF” TLA’s (Three Letter Acronyms) and more! Just for fun, I have included them below under TLA’s in case you are REALLY interested 🙂
Box, G.P. (1976). Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association 71(356) pages 791-799.
ICT: Initial Cadre Training – training which enables CAF members to perform the tasks associated with new equipment, systems or directives upon their fielding, delivery or initiation. The responsibility for this training rests with the Project Management Office/Contractor for new equipment and systems, unless specified otherwise in the statement of requirements.
JBS: Job Based Specification – the document that describes the tasks, medical requirements etc for specific jobs.
MES: Military Employment Structure – The arrangement of CF [Canadian Forces] jobs into structural elements, consisting of military career fields, occupations and sub-occupations that collectively provide the necessary management framework for the personnel life cycle of activities across all components of the CF and throughout the spectrum of conflict.
MOS: Military Occupation Structure- The arrangement of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) jobs into structural elements, consisting of military career fields, occupations and sub-occupations that collectively provide the necessary management framework for the personnel life cycle of activities across all components of the CAF and throughout the spectrum of conflict. It is a structural arrangement of the work performed by members of the CAF.
MOS ID: Military Occupation Specification Identification Code – Equivalent to a National Occupation Code.
QS: Qualification Standard – Describes how well the job should be done using Performance Objectives (POs).
QSP: A combined QS and TP. Far more efficient.
RQ: Rank Qualification – A qualification, obtained via formal training, that enables a member to perform one or more entry level occupational jobs, where required to attain a new substantive rank (RQs replace former occupation qualification levels, such as QL3, QL5, etc.)
SST: Steady State Training – training identified in the QS/RQ for normal career progression.
TP: Training Plan – describes the instructional programme which will enable the learner to achieve, at optimum cost, the performance objectives from the QS.
It’s time for the next installment of the Performance Improvement Process Model or PIPM. A couple weeks ago, I talked about the difference between an opportunity and a “good” idea. This post will address the next step in the model “Want or Need.”
I’m an old dog. As hard as it might be to teach me a new trick, my good friend and mentor Dr. Roger Kaufman keeps trying. He has written extensively about the difference between needs and wants. The problem starts when we used need as a verb instead of a noun. I do this ALL the time – publicly and in private correspondence with Dr K. Thankfully he is patient and reminds me of the error and we keep moving forward. One day it might just stick!
When we use need as a verb, like “I need a new boat” (my wife may have heard this once or a dozen times) we are going right to the solution and not considering other potential options. Seriously! Look at it! In dire need of replacement.
I know… it’s a sweet boat and I have caught a lot of fish in it. There is no need here what-so-ever. There were some issues with the old gal (my boat NOT my wife). Mostly ancillary equipment like the trolling motor, bilge pump and *gasp* the stereo didn’t work. Long story short, I didn’t need a new boat, rather, I wanted to get all the little irritants fixed so my fishing trips would be more enjoyable. I have talked about this misuse of need and the jump straight to solutions in past blog posts as well. See Just gimme training and Just because it says performance doesn’t mean it’s there (sadly).
How did I get onto boats and fishing!? Okay – seriously, if I keep using need the wrong way, what’s the right way? It’s so simple. Kaufman (1998) has been trying for decades to get everyone on the same page and define it as “a gap in results.” For example, I want to catch more fish. I currently catch an average of 20 a summer. I want to catch 50. The gap between my current and desired results is 30 fish. A new boat may or may not close that gap. In reality, the best way to close in on 50 is simply to spend more time fishing.
Let’s shift over to a work related example of needs. Did you know that cashiers get measured on the number of items they scan per hour? It’s called the ISAH or “Items Scanned per Active Hour” and it is calculated by averaging the total items scanned per hour when cashiers are actively signed into their registers. Generally, good industry performance is 500 ISAH.
In this fictitious example, our experienced cashiers have an average ISAH of 900. The rock stars of retail. Cashiers with 3 months experience or less have an average ISAH of 250. Based on customer feedback, there is dissatisfaction with slower transactions. They prefer to get through the checkout line fast. What’s the need?
The gap in results at the worker (cashier) level is to increase the cashiers ISAH from 250 to 500 or better. The gap in results at the workplace or organizational level is the level of customer dissatisfaction. Improving the cashier’s ISAH will contribute to increased customer satisfaction.
If you can’t describe the problem or opportunity in terms of a gap in results, it’s a want, not a need and you should proceed directly to the stop sign, take a breath and give your problem a second look. It’s probably not the real cause of whatever is giving you business pain. Next up – the Needs Assessment. Stay tuned!
Kaufman, R. (1998) Strategic thinking. A guide to identifying and solving problems. (Revised edition.) International Society for Performance Improvement and the American Society for Training Development. ISBN: 1-56286-051-8.
Words are important. I hate to admit it – but they are. There are some folks who love to sit and debate from dawn until dusk about the best verb to use in a performance objective statement. I am 180 degrees opposite and want to get the verb that the majority agree on and move on! In my experience, the subject matter experts are pretty good at choosing a verb that works.
There are two terms that continue to get used interchangeably, Needs Assessment and Needs Analysis. Even worse is the fact that both can get shortened to “NA” by practitioners which can lead to even more confusion. Want to get crazy? Add in Training Needs Analysis (TNA) which is also often described as the “NA.”
If you want to find “the” explanation of NA and NA, be prepared for an arduous search through the Internet and many many texts where authors have put their own spin, tweak, massage and a coat of rust-o-leum paint on the definitions. I say “the” because there is no single definitive explanation.
While analyzing a previous client’s training system, the NA and NA terms were being used in very interesting but not necessarily accurate ways. To help clarify how the terms are related (but different) I headed to NeedsAssessment.org to do my own research. Watkins, Meiers and Visser’s (2012) FREE book A guide to assessing needs: Essential tools for collecting information, making decisions and achieving development results is an exceptional resource which helped me to develop the first version of this diagram:
With some feedback from my colleagues John Egan and Julie Maiilé (merci mes amis), the diagram was tweaked, spun and massaged into the picture above which tells this story:
A performance problem or new opportunity starts with a Needs Assessment. When you do a Needs Assessment you will (should?) use both needs analysis and performance analysis. The results of the Needs Assessment works to improve results through the implementation of non-training and/or training interventions.
If a training intervention is required, then you will have to do a Training Needs Analysis. The TNA uses task analysis to determine what has to be trained and what doesn’t.
One of the big ah-hah’s in this client’s situation was that the Needs Assessment function resides within the training system and was being done by training specialists. How many non-training interventions do you think get recommended?
This is a very macro view of Needs Assessment aimed at making us all a little wiser about when we should use NA or NA… or maybe never use the acronym at all? If you want to learn more, go get that book! Did I mention it’s free!?
May 2018 Update: This is by FAR the most popular post I have made and still gets looked at most every day. I have updated the concept map to a full process model and it is available in the Performance Improvement Journal, doi: 10.1002/pfi.21785. If you would like a FREE copy – just drop me a line at firstname.lastname@example.org and I will be happy to send it to you! Something for free… ‘magine!
Watkins, R., Meiers, M.W., & Visser, Y.L. (2012). A guide to assessing needs: Essential tools for collecting information, making decisions and achieving development results. Washington, DC: The World Bank.