Through her Action Mapping process Cathy Moore has demystified, and put a friendly face on an analysis process that produces lean and effective learning programs with an emphasis on practice and application. The four step analysis process of identifying  business goals (1), desired actions/behaviours (2) and  practice activities (3) before identifying content (4) is much advocated but rarely practiced in instructional design. She also uses a helpful visual mapping method to work through this four step process.

Extending the process to performance design

I used the process (and visual mapping approach) to facilitate a learning requirements session a while back. I thought then that the process might be taken a little further and be used to identify gaps in the immediate performance environment known to impede performance and then specify solutions for improvement. Here’s what I’m getting at…

Performance Consulting tell us that newly developed skills alone, without a supporting environment rarely produces the performance impact we need. If you accept this view, you understand that skills and knowledge are only one factor among many that are needed for performance and that, in fact it’s often the performance environment and not the skills that need adjustment. Geary Rummler organized these critical performance factors within a systems framework and labeled it the Human Performance System (HPS), Thomas Gilbert categorized the factors in his seminal Performance Engineering Matrix which Carl Binder has distilled into his Six Boxes Model. The Robinsons summarized the factors in their Performance Consulting process. These authors have developed diagnostic tools based on the performance factors that can be used by teams, managers and performance consultants to identify barriers in the work environment and to design tools, processes, and systems that improve performance.

Borrowing from the above models the critical performance factors might be summarized as follows.

  • Clear Expectations and goals (E)
    Do employees understand the behavior and results expected of them and their team?
  • Supportive Tools, resources and business processes (T)
    Are employees supported by helpful performance aids, process guides and knowledge tools?
  • Timely and meaningful Feedback on results of action (F)
    Is immediate feedback provided to employees and their team (system generated or human) on the quality and accuracy of their actions and output?
  • No Interfering or competing demands (I)
    Is the role free of demands on time and task that interfere with accomplishment of individual and team goals?
  • Consequences aligned to expectations and goals (C)
    Do good things happen when employees accomplish goals and meet expectations or do they happen more for undesired performance?

So how might we extend Cathy’s Action Mapping method to design an optimal performance environment in addition to a learning solution? The first two steps remain the same. 1. Identify the business goal 2. Identify what people need to do to reach the goal. However, at this point the process would shift to the key performance support questions defined above. For each behaviour (or behaviour cluster) the following performance design actions can be taken

  1. Create a vehicle to continuously communicate the key goals, expectations and standards of performance
  2. Design performance aids, automated tools, social learning environments, Communities of practice, and business process adjustments. The appropriate tools and supports will, of course, depend on the type of work.
  3. Create a mechanism for providing continuous information (feedback) to individuals or teams on how they are performing against the desired actions.
  4. Define specific actions for reducing interfering tasks and multitasking and increasing opportunities for focus on task without completing demands.
  5. Revise the balance of consequences in favor of the desired performance.

Using the labels I listed above the extended Action Map might look something like this (Common support actions could support more than one behavior):

Adding Outputs and Accomplishments

The approach could be further enhanced by identifying work desired outputs before behaviours/actions (a revised step 2).  This would be especially useful when starting with the analysis of a job rather than a specific business objective. This is important for knowledge work where there may be multiple behavioural paths to the same work output. Carl Binder has labeled this approach the performance chain. The same performance thinking is at the root of both Action Mapping and the Performance Chain approach. You can learn more about performance thinking and the performance chain approach at the Six Boxes web site here.

Implementation

Performance Consulting gets legitimate criticism for sometimes for being too prescriptive and relying external experts to implement processes like those above. But there is no reason empowered self-managing team or process improvement groups cannot use the same tools to diagnose and design or influence their own performance environment. A good performance consultant can  facilitate teams through this process.  I learned a while ago from Geary Rummler that good performance consultants can provide both the training artifact requested by the organization and an improved performance environment. The extended Action Mapping method may be a great way to sneak some performance improvement into your training projects.

About the author

6 Responses
  1. Tom,

    Great blog on extended action mapping for performance design. What I like most is that it seems to be task based. This model easily lends itself to and supports Mager’s Criterion Referenced Instruction and Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation by concentrating on what the learner is supposed to DO. I have read other blogs on rapid task analysis, but this one seems to be short, sweet, to-the-point, and visually effective for all participants.

    That said, what recommendations do you have for dealing with stakeholders and SMEs in this process? Often times, I find that our backlog of learning deliverables is populated by other parties; who have little or no concept of learning and performance design. How do you begin to flip the paradigm from ‘We need training on X’ to ‘We think learners will need to learn and practice this skill – will you be our trusted advisor to determine if we need learning or not?’

    THX
    John

    1. John:
      Your challenge is a common one…more a consulting and collaboration issue than as design issue. It’s not unnatural for clients to come to the training group, looking for a training program so it’s hard to fault them for that. Consulting and contracting skills with stakeholders and internal clients are as important as design skills. I’ve always found the best guidance for that to be Peter Block’s Flawless Consulting. He offers strategies for getting beyond techniques and methods to working authentically with clients to contract for results. See especially the section for internal consultants. There are great sections on understanding and dealing with resistance.

      Robinson and Robinson borrowed the approach specifically for the application to training design and performance improvement. Their books Training for Impact and Performance Consulting are good resources.

      Tom

      http://www.amazon.com/Flawless-Consulting-Guide-Getting-Expertise/dp/0787948039"
      http://www.amazon.com/Training-Impact-Business-Measure-Management/dp/1555421539/
      http://www.amazon.com/Performance-Consulting-Dana-Gaines-Robinson/dp/1881052842

Leave a Reply to Action mapping « Teaching & Learning with Technology Cancel Reply

About the Blog

This blog contains perspectives on the issues that matter most in workplace learning and performance improvement.  It’s written by Tom Gram.

Subscribe to our mailing list

You’ll receive an email update when a new post is added to the blog. You can opt out at any time. We will protect the privacy of your personal information.

Recent Posts

The Learning Design Sprint
August 16, 2018
Practice and the Development of Expertise (Part 3)
August 9, 2018
Practice and the Development of Expertise (Part 2)
August 6, 2018
Practice and the Development of Expertise (Part 1)
August 5, 2018
Learning, Technology and the Future of Work
June 10, 2018

Popular Posts from the Archive

Here are some popular posts from Tom’s former blog, Performance X Design. Some older posts contain inactive links and unedited formatting while they wait impatiently for him to update them.