While its precise etymology is not known, "ABCD" has become a mnemonic most often associated with Robert Mager's work. The memory aid serves to remind us of the necessary components of a behavioral objective: an indication of the Audience (or "who" is expected to perform), the Behavior (or "action") they are expected to carry out, the Conditions (or "givens") under which they are to do this, and the Data (or "measures") that will gauge their success.

This approach has become near-ubiquitous in the realm of workplace learning. However, it is less helpful when one is seeking to develop objectives that specific results to be accomplished rather than actions to be undertaken ... so long as we are clear about what we mean by the distinction. As Watkins alludes to in his post concerning the language of performance, many interpret "performance" as "behavior" – the actions, processes and work that people engage in within organizations with the intention of accomplishing useful results (Watkins and Leigh, 2001). From this perspective, it is natural to focus on improving workplace efficiency and productivity with the belief that it will lead to desirable results. In common practice, performance improvement is typically not distinct from process improvement in that its purpose is to make better, faster or cheaper the activities, interventions, and practices that make up work.

Step outside of the context of work for a moment, and consider the field of performing arts. What does it mean to have (or witness) a “performance?” For some, it may be a musician playing a concert, an actor delivering their lines, or a dancer engaged in ballet. What all of these alternatives share in common is their grounding in action … in performing. This is reasonable for the performing arts, but it is useful to distinguish performance as something different within the context of work.

When defining results to be accomplished, we are defining not learning objectives nor behavior objectives; we are defining performance objectives. Whereas ABCD serves instructional designers well in crafting objectives that satisfy "Level 2" of Kirkpatrick's framework (e.g., learning) , if we seek to develop objectives consistent with the measurement of results, we must work from a new schema, one in which to-be performance is clearly and unambiguously stated as performance objectives.

A simple mnemonic device for developing performance objectives is denoted by the acronym PQRS (Leigh, 2003). First, requirements should specify the Performer or performers who are expected to achieve the desired result. Next, relevant Qualifying criteria should be laid out, typically indicating the time frame over which a result should be accomplished. Lastly, the Results to be accomplished should be stated, along with the Standards against which the value of a performance will be judged. A hypothetical example from a construction company seeking to reduce the amount of scrap (waste) generated by employees cutting electrical conduit, with PQRS components indicated in parentheses, could be: "Construction workers (P) will reduce the amount of scrap conduit (R) produced this month by 10% less than the prior month (Q), as demonstrated by the ordering of no more than 11 feet of conduit per 10 feet of wiring required (S)."

That performance objectives follow the P-then-Q-then-R-then-S format is not critical. However, addressing each component is necessary if we are to develop  meaningful statements of expectation.

For further reading, see Watkins, R. and Leigh, D. (2001). Performance improvement: More than just bettering the here-and-now. Performance Improvement. 40 (8), pp. 10-15.

 

I have attended many presentations, both at ISPI and other conferences, where the talks promise to be about systemic approaches, or where the authors accurately identify their focus as "systematic" in the beginning, but somewhere through the presentation, magically "systemically" and "systematically" start swapping out with each other in the language, like synonymous butterflies that flutter in and out of the same place in a sentence.  I have just finished reviewing a round of presentation proposals in which these two words continue to battle with each other.  Even though they have very similar letters, in a very similar sequence, they are so different in meaning so as to nearly run perpendicular in definition.  And yet, these two concepts are at the core of the principles of professional performance improvement practices (did I string enough big words together there?).

Ryan just posted on the language of performance.  As a student of language and rhetoric, I find it interesting that the first two blog topics to roll from us are on language.  At the core of language is thought - our language both reflects our thinking and creates our thinking.  Lack of rigor in our language is indicative as lack of rigor in our conceptualization of our professional practices.  Given that, getting clear on what the heck we mean when we say "performance" or "systemic" or "systematic" - since these are the core words of our very principles - is critical. 

So - let's wrest systemic from the dependably mundane systematic. More...

An insatiable focus on “performance” is often the defining characteristic of what most of us do, or profess to do, in both our professional and personal lives.    Yet, the words, terms, jargon, slang, lingo, acronyms, and other language of “performance” are often misinterpreted by those with differing backgrounds.  While we talk about “results”, they hear “processes”; while we talk about “ends”, they hear “means”; and while we talk about “performance”, they hear “performing”.  And somewhere among the many miscommunications that populate our interactions, the focus of our profession is somehow watered down, adulterated, diluted, weakened, or even worse… lost.

Does this mean that we are wrong to create a language that communicates readily within our profession but haphazardly beyond the boundaries of a few professional associations? Most likely not; after all, we use our professional language, like most professions do, as a practical means for clearly communicating the particulars of theories, tools, and techniques with others that have similar interests, backgrounds, and language.

But when we attempt use our specialized language at the fringes of our profession (for example, in conversations with professionals in human resources, organizational development, or industrial psychology that each have a language of their own that only modestly overlap with ours), numerous obstacles to successful performance improvement will typically form. This is not, however, unique to our profession or our language; just try to carry on a meaningful conversation with a tax attorney sometime. And when other professionals can benefit from your knowledge then they will “learn” your language very quickly.

But most of the language barriers present problems when we are in the position of wanting something from someone who speaks another language, and that means we have to overcome the obstacles created by the differences in language. For example, if you want technical information from a subject matter expert, then you will have to speak their language.  Or if you want a to perform a needs assessment within a firm of electrical engineers, then you will have to speak their language.

To overcome the many obstacles created by our differing professional languages, we typically apply three tactics: 

First, do your best to identify and learn the language of others with whom you will be working. If you are working with a group of priests, take time to learn at least a little of the language they will be using to communicate with you.

Second, use their language to define your language. Unlike a dictionary, we do not want use our own words to define our words.

Third, model your language carefully and religiously.  If you do not use your professional language accurately and consistently, then you can’t expect that it will communicate across professions with any necessary precision.

These three tactics for improving the clarity of your communications can be used in relation to many professional activities.  From talking with potential clients to planning for a successful needs assessment, work to communicate effectively with others about what performance is, what it is not, and how it can best be improved in order to accomplish valuable results for everyone.

The Assessment Book Instruments

The Assessment Book includes seven self-assessment instruments—validated by professionals and organizations including IBM and Hewlett Packard—that provide solid guidance to calibrate where your organization is currently and help you decide where it should be.

These instruments address the issue of “what” before “how.” Whilst many professional surveys, books, guidelines, and support help available today are in the form of how-to approaches, research tells us that starting with implementation can often lead to consequences other than desirable results.

Seven Self-assessment Instruments

The seven self-assessment instruments provided below offer guides for you and your organization to define what results and consequences you want to deliver so that you may sensibly define the approaches, tools, and methods you should use to deliver success.

All instruments are available online for fast and effective implementation in your organization. Please click on the instrument titles for further information and to view a sample of the content.

1. Strategic Thinking and Planning
2. Needs Assessment
3. Corporate Culture
4. Evaluation
5. Performance Improvement Competencies
6. Performance Motivation
7. Readiness for E-learning

Please contact us for more information about using these instruments in your organization.

Welcome to the Mega Planning blog - a place where Roger Kaufman & Associates (including Roger Kaufman,  Ingrid Guerra-Lopez, Ryan Watkins, Doug Leigh and Stephanie Moore) discuss strategic planning for all types of organizations starting with societal impact.  Each of us will post discussions around our various foci, and from time to time we'll also invite other to post starter discussions on their implementation of Mega or related ideas.

All organizations - whether you're part of a corporation (for-profit), government organization, education (K-12 or higher education), non-profit, military or some other shape - are subsystems of our shared system of society.  As Dale Brethower puts it, you are either adding  measurable value to society or you are subtracting value.  Often, the planning of what value your organization adds is left to chance or is simply assumed - and that leads to negative consequences, or negative societal impacts. We all have lived through too many of these.

Through decades of working with organizations all around the world, Roger Kaufman has developed a model for measuring societal-level outcomes and strategically planning for the outcomes you deliver to external clients and society, including how that value-added is planned down into the Macro and Micro level planning of an organization, then on into processes, tasks and inputs.  In this blog, we discuss all different aspects - what is the rationale, why do this, how do you do it, what are examples of where this has been applied, what does assessment and evaluation look like, what are the implications for education or national security or higher education or business, and to governments at all levels.  We also present the theory, research, and practical experience that validates this approach.

For too long, our de facto planning has meant we don't truly strategically plan.  As William McDonough states, that means we have become strategically tragic.  There have been dire consequences for the lack of planning at the societal level.  It's time to stop being strategically tragic and instead add value to our shared society.