Gap Analysis


There is an old children's rhyme that goes something like this:

  • Good, better, best

  • Never let it rest

  • 'Til your good is better

  • And your better best.

Too often the implied focus of PT is the performance problem. "In fact, the technology can and should be used proactively to address new opportunities and to make that which is good even better." [34]

Analyzing the desired and actual performance states (gap analysis ”see Table 3-7) is the last step in the performance analysis phase of the HPT Model, and the first step toward making a poor performance better and a good performance best. During this step all of the performance pieces come together. Gap analysis identifies the type of performance improvement opportunity that exists and paves the way for cause analysis and intervention selection or design.

 
Table 3-7: GAP ANALYSIS COMPONENT OF THE HPT MODEL
click to expand

Definitions and Scope

From the perspective of many leaders in the field, performance gap analysis is much like needs assessment. During a needs assessment, needs are often viewed as "gaps in results, consequences, or accomplishments" and needs assessment is defined as "a very valuable tool for identifying where you are ”the current results and consequences ”and where you should be ”the desired results and consequences" [35] (see Figure 3-4).

click to expand
Figure 3-4: KAUFMAN'S DEFINITION OF NEED

The two major differences between needs assessment and performance gap analysis are as follows :

  1. Needs assessment tends to focus on knowledge, skills, and attitude; performance gap analysis "identifies any deficiency or proficiency affecting human performance."

  2. Needs assessment tends to focus on the past and present; performance analysis also looks to the future. [36]

Performance gaps may also be viewed as performance improvement opportunities that provide a chance to:

  • Improve the actual performance state when it does not measure up to the desired performance state, or

  • Enhance or intensify the actual performance state when it is equal to or exceeds the desired performance state (innovation).

There are six potential gaps in performance: present positive, present neutral, present negative, future positive, future neutral, future negative. [37] Figure 3-5 illustrates the concept of the six gaps in terms of the HPT Model.

click to expand
Figure 3-5: ROTHWELL'S SIX CELL GAP ANALYSIS

The PT practitioner should be aware of three yellow caution flags regarding positive and neutral gaps:

  1. Decisionmakers and PT practitioners should not become complacent about positive gaps.

  2. "Organizations that experience breakthrough improvements in productivity are sometimes able to distinguish themselves by applying innovation to a neutral gap."

  3. The greatest opportunity for performance improvement may occur when future neutral gaps exist "because competitors tend to overlook them." [38]

Purpose and Timing

Within the framework of the HPT Model and the work cited above, the purpose of performance gap analysis is to identify present and future gaps between the desired performance state and the actual performance state. Along the way the analyst performs the following three tasks :

  1. Identifies the gaps as positive, neutral, or negative.

  2. Identifies the type of performance improvement opportunity offered by each gap.

  3. Prioritizes the performance gaps according to how important (criticality) the gap is to meeting the goals of the organization, how difficult (complexity) it will be to resolve the gap, and how often (frequency) the gap occurs.

The proverbial horse-before-the-cart problem applies here. Performance gap analysis must occur before cause analysis, which in turn must occur before intervention selection and implementation. Performance gap analysis is truly the key to successful performance improvement or enhancement.

Conducting a Performance Gap Analysis

The systems approach to analyzing performance gaps includes three sequential steps:

  1. Identify the gaps (present and future; positive, neutral or negative) between the actual performance state and the desired performance state.

  2. Prioritize the gaps that are identified.

  3. Analyze the causes.

The first two steps are discussed below. The third step, cause analysis, is examined in the next chapter.

Identifying the Performance Gaps

Identification of performance gaps may be approached by one or a combination of the following methods : [39]

  • A single PT practitioner collects and analyzes information on the desired and actual performance states. Data collection techniques may include reviewing pertinent records to discover present realities and future trends and examining opinions , feelings, and ideas from a variety of sources. The major tools available to the PT practitioner are surveys, interviews, and group processes such as brainstorming, focus groups, critical incident technique, etc. [40]

  • A group of people (standing team, task force, committee, etc.) works together to collect and analyze information on the desired and actual performance states. If an PT practitioner is included in the group, he or she helps the group to organize and clarify issues, roles, and responsibilities and to keep focused on PT philosophy and strategies. The group may review pertinent records and examine individual and group feelings, opinions, and ideas. The major tool is an appropriate form of group process; however, the PT practitioner may wish to conduct surveys or interviews before, during, or after the life cycle of the group.

  • The organization sends executives, middle managers, and supervisors on a retreat. The retreat environment promotes a high level of participation and encourages buy in. The PT practitioner plans and implements activities that encourage the participants to focus on the following issues:

    • the present and the future

    • the desired and the actual performance states

    • the resulting gaps and their relative importance in light of the organization's mission, strategy, and goals

    • the internal and external environment

    The techniques and tools to use during a retreat are the same as those indicated in the previous bulleted discussion.

  • When the organization is massive and the stakes are high, a large-scale, short- term change effort may be the best method for analyzing performance gaps. This method involves stakeholders from inside and outside the organization ”"Such gargantuan meetings are advantageous because they build a critical mass for change among many key decision makers at one time." [41] The purpose is to reach a general consensus among a broad base of stakeholders. The tools include both small group sessions and large plenary sessions. Once more, the participants may review existing data and probe opinions, feelings, and ideas using a variety of group processes. Surveys and interviews may prove helpful, particularly before and after the change effort.

  • Using a Delphi group [42] to gather and validate information and to reach consensus might allow for wider participation, particularly if the Delphi is conducted on-line using e-mail or bulletin boards . A Delphi is useful for forecasting and prioritizing. During a Delphi, participants comment on questions or statements. The responses are then analyzed and synthesized and the respondents have another chance to comment or prioritize based on the results of the first round. The process may be continued until consensus is reached.

Prioritizing the Performance Gaps

Ideally, a group of people, preferably the stakeholders in the performance improvement effort, is involved in prioritizing the performance gaps. It is a crucial part of performance gap analysis because "...merely identifying a difference between what people are doing and what you would like them to be doing is not enough reason to take action." [43] In addition to the Delphi method discussed above, there are a number of process tools that help groups prioritize items and reach agreement or consensus on the results. As facilitator, the PT practitioner may provide a list of performance gaps or begin with a brain- storming session to generate the list. [44] Then the facilitator may use one or a combination of the following sorting tools to prioritize the gaps and to gain consensus:

  • Nominal Group Technique [45]

  • Priority Matrix (see the job aid at the end of this section)

  • Consensus Survey [46]

Each of the above activities involves listing the performance analysis gaps (either in matrix form or on separate cards) and manipulating the list through several rounds, using criticality rating scales or physical sorting techniques. Using some form of the Priority Matrix (Job Aid 3-3) is the key to effective sorting and the attainment of consensus.

Job Aid 3-3: SAMPLE PRIORITY MATRIX
start example

Directions to the Participants: After considerable analysis, we have identified the following performance gaps within our organization. The gaps are listed in the first column. We are asking you to help us determine how critical each gap is to the attainment of our organization's strategic goals. Rank ( ¼ ) each gap on the Criticality Scale; then be prepared to compare your results with the rest of the group. Together we need to reach consensus on which gaps are the most critical and need to be resolved first.

 

Low

Criticality Scale

High

Performance Gap

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     

ISPI 2000 Permission granted for unlimited duplication for noncommercial use.

end example
 
start sidebar
Case Study: University Development Center

The following case study has been adapted from an actual faculty consultation session at a university faculty development center. References to department and nationality have been changed to ensure client confidentiality. Faculty development specialists are experts in various course content areas and are exemplary performers.

Situation

The faculty development center director at a large urban university received a call from a department chair. According to the department chair , students, including department majors, were complaining directly to him about one of the department instructors. The complaints included the following:

  • Unclear lectures

  • Difficulty of the mathematics used in the course

  • Poor English skills exhibited by the instructor

  • Instructor's demeaning attitude toward the class

Of the 30 students originally enrolled in the course, 10 dropped out during the drop-add period.

Gap Analysis

The faculty development center director suggested that the instructor should call the faculty development specialist assigned to his content area. Shortly thereafter, the instructor made an appointment with the specialist for an initial interview and for a class observation. The specialist interviewed the instructor over the phone, reviewed student course evaluations and complaints made directly to the department chair, and observed the instructor during one of the course sessions.

The faculty development center uses the following criteria to describe desired performance in teaching:

  • Content knowledge and organization

    • The instructor demonstrates a command of the course content.

    • The instructor provides a concise , meaningful organization of the course content.

  • Presentation skills

    • The instructor interacts with the students in a positive, nonthreatening way.

    • The instructor's verbal and nonverbal communication with students creates an environment conducive to learning.

    • The instructor presents the content clearly.

  • Use of instructional media

    • The instructional media support the educational goals.

    • The instructional media enhance the content.

    • The instructor demonstrates competency in the use of the selected media.

Results

The initial interview revealed that this instructor had been in the U.S. for five years . Before his current assignment, he had spent one semester as a teaching assistant at a research university, working with small groups of students. The instructor believed that he was teaching skillfully and that it was the students who were the source of the problem. He stated that he did not like his current students because they were unmotivated and had poor attitudes toward the class.

During both the initial interview and the class observation, the specialist noted English language communication problems, including the following:

  • Monotone delivery (lack of enthusiasm and expressiveness )

  • Soft, monotonous voice (difficult to hear in class)

  • Intonation and articulation problems

  • Generally low level of clear English speech patterns

  • Limited conversational English vocabulary

The classroom observation established that the instructor, although knowledgeable about the content, did not organize the content well and demonstrated poor presentation skills and inappropriate use of media. Specifically, the specialist recorded the following observations:

  • Knowledge and organization of content

    • The instructor seemed confident of his knowledge of the material.

    • The instructor did not present an overall organizational framework for the material (for example, transitions between formulas were inadequate).

  • Presentation skills

    • The instructor referred to a diagram on the board as he explained how to approach a problem solution, and he summarized the material in conclusion. However, he did not attempt to reach out to students or to connect with their experiences by using concrete examples.

    • Periodically during class, the instructor stopped the lecture to ask, "Are there any questions?" However, he demonstrated limited understanding of the few questions he did allow and consistently ignored unsolicited student questions.

    • Students were hostile in their comments and body language toward the instructor during the class.

  • Use of instructional media

    • The instructor wrote formulas and mathematical calculations on the board; however, he made multiple mistakes and would erase, start over, and erase again, in a very repetitive manner.

    • The instructor expended considerable effort on drawing and modifying diagrams on the board to supplement his explanations , however, he erased the formulas and notes on the chalkboard before students had a chance to copy or react to the visual material.

The faculty consultant sent the instructor a written report consisting of a general summary and some recommendations. The report suggested that the two major performance gaps were lack of communication (English) skills and lack of instructional skills. The instructor agreed to a series of sessions to improve his English skills as well as consultation sessions to polish his teaching skills.

Lessons Learned

  1. Performance gap analysis identifies the gaps between optimal and actual performance. However, it is not possible to jump to a performance improvement solution without carefully considering the cause of the identified gaps, including possible environmental, experiential , or organizational causes.

  2. In this case, the assumption was made that the performance problems were grounded in a lack of teaching experience and English language communication skills, both verbal and nonverbal. However, the collision between student and instructor expectations regarding course delivery and feedback may also be the effect of environmental, experiential, or organizational factors. Is the instructor basing his teaching style and expectations on his experience as a student? Are there cultural differences regarding education between the universities in his country and the university where he teaches?

  3. Further analysis is required before a complete performance improvement package can be designed to meet the needs of the instructor, the students, the department, and the university's needs. Interviews with the department head and the students could be helpful. At the very least, the specialist needs to discuss the report and review the recommendations with the instructor.

This case study was written by Deborah Armstrong, MA. Used with permission.

end sidebar
 

[34] Geiss, 1986, p. 6

[35] Kaufman 1993, p . 4

[36] Rothwell, 1996b, p. 132

[37] Rothwell, 1996b, pp. 129 “132

[38] Rothwell, 1996b, pp. 131 “32

[39] Rothwell, 1996b

[40] Zemke, 1987

[41] Rothwell, 1996b, p. 136

[42] Bunning, 1979

[43] Mager and Pipe, 1984, p. 13

[44] Hurt, 1994, pp. 57 “59

[45] Ford, 1975, pp. 35 “39

[46] Zemke, 1987, pp. 141 “151




Fundamentals of Performance Technology. A Guide to Improving People, Process, and Performance
Fundamentals of Performance Technology: A Guide to Improving People, Process, and Performance
ISBN: 1890289086
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2004
Pages: 98

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net