E-Performance at Work: Self-Service Action and Development Planning
By Tony Karrer and Elizabeth Gardner

The challenge for most organizations is that the use of technology to drive human performance is relatively new and not well understood. To gain insight on the sort of e-performance solutions that practitioners are using, TechEmpower spoke with some 150 people from nearly 50 companies. We found numerous and varied examples of e-performance, but there was little consistency in the descriptions of similar solutions. In general, it was difficult to know what worked--and what did not. It soon became clear, though, that most success stories involved quick, targeted implementations, such as self-service action and development planning. Here are four case studies that illustrate a variety of approaches that may help you identify options and your own quick wins.

The what, the how, and the opportunity

Performance review designs and processes sound remarkably similar across a wide variety of organizations. Most organizations base their performance reviews on “what” goals and “how” goals. The “what” goals focus on specific objectives that the individual should accomplish, for example increase sales by 10 percent. The “how” goals outline the means by which an employee will achieve the “what” goals, which often are expressed in terms of competencies and behaviors.

In general, goals are established during the performance review. The manager and employee create and agree on an action and development plan for achieving them. The plan identifies specific steps the employee should take and outlines milestone dates and final deadlines. In other words, the plan identifies how the individual will work on competencies, behaviors, and objectives to achieve the goals.

As TechEmpower discussed performance review design and process with the different organizations, we were struck by the following three facts.

• Approximately only half of the organizations effectively link goals up and down the hierarchy. Most organizations have high-level goals that serve as guideposts to establish individual goals. For example, an organization and the vice president of sales has a goal to increase revenue by 10 percent, but the HR manager might has a goal to accelerate training and cut training costs by 10 percent by reducing reliance on face-to-face training. While the goals may be related, they’re not explicitly linked. Tools exist to help organizations identify links.
• Most organizations struggle to link “what” goals and “how” goals. In other words, objectives are identified but not necessarily matched to specific competencies and behaviors. Without linking goals and other drivers around development, HR and training development can become a tertiary issue during performance reviews. Many companies found that linking goals in this way was too difficult and gave up trying to do so.
• Although performance review designs and processes are similar across organizations, action and development planning processes vary widely. Many organizations allow managers and employees develop individual action plans. Meanwhile, some organizations provide extensive resource books, and others rely on help and suggestions from the training department.

On the whole, TechEmpower found a clear gap between what organizations and employees need and what is provided. But how can organizations better support development and action planning through the use of technology?

Four stages of self-service action and development planning

Different needs, common constraints, varied solutions

Here’s a look at several companies that have moved beyond Stage 0 into the e-performance realm--using technology to support their action or development planning.

Kaiser Permanente

Even though Kaiser Permanente has gone farther than many other organizations, Albert Maggio, technology training and development manager at Kaiser, apologizes for having not done more with e-performance.

Kaiser’s approach is a very good example of what can be done at Stage 1. “Employees and managers have access to a portal that is organized first by job function and then around ‘workflows,’” says Maggio. “Simply put, a workflow is the set of the most important tasks or activities that a person performs regularly, even daily. For example, for managers it might be ‘building a team.’”

Kaiser’s system for determining what resources to provide employees illustrates some of the complexity lurking behind the scenes. Kaiser started by researching and collecting a fairly standard set of resources for particular job functions. But these resources—for example, a description of a project-approval process—were too general. While the generic descriptions were a good starting point, they needed to be reworked to be credible. Enter the concept of workflows. After studying a particular job functions and levels within each function to determine the most important tasks, Kaiser collected generic resources and best practices from inside the organization. This was (and is) a significant undertaking.

The payoff, however, was great. The resources were loaded into a portal that’s a one-stop shop for tools and services related to the daily activities for all jobs. Users can find job aids, best practices, templates, access to learning activities, and so forth. It’s an organic knowledge center, organized in a way that’s meaningful to the user. As new ideas emerge and things change, the portal grows and changes with it.

The portal has become a natural part of performance management. To define an action or development plan, employees drill down to find appropriate activities. For Kaiser, the net result has been a solution that’s both part of the performance review process and a day-to-day tool to support the primary tasks of each employee.

From a technology standpoint, Kaiser’s performance portal relies on standard Web technology. It’s a series of Webpages, some of which point off to particular resources housed in different environments. For example, they may link to courses in the LMS. The technology is not elaborate and it already existed at Kaiser. Kaiser used it in a smart way, though. It organized content appropriately to create a performance aid.

Boeing, Integrated Defense Systems, C-17 Program

Boeing has long been known as a leader in the use of technology for performance. Helping to spearhead the use of e-performance within the organization are Kim Armstrong and Jim Groom, human resource specialists in the C-17 Program. One of the most interesting things that they’re doing is the Individual Training Plan (ITP) tool, which is a good example of a Stage 2 approach.

Using the ITP tool, managers determine exact training needs by answering a series of questions about their employees. From an initial set of 17 questions, positive responses drill down to specific requirements. The result is a precise training plan for each worker. In addition, the tool generates reports that show overall training requirements, enabling training groups to make sure that they offer appropriate classes and schedules.

As business requirements change and new training is required, such as compliance or contract training, it’s added to the ITP. The ITP tool feeds into Boeing’s LMS (BLMS), which reports to both managers and employers on employees’ progress on meeting the requirements.

Unlike Kaiser’s offering of open-ended lists, the ITP is a wizard-like, prescriptive tool. Because more organizations are focusing on empowering managers and employees, they need to consider this type of approach.

PacifiCare

Embarking on a major transition of its business, PacifiCare rolled out a new management competency model. With an eye on the company’s culture, Monica Ebert, manager of corporate education and development, defined an approach that focused on specific, concrete tasks and associated resources that managers could use without delay.

Ebert’s solution had to help managers achieve company-wide competency targets that were now part of their performance planning and review process. “We wanted to provide hands-on development suggestions that a manager could use immediately,” says Ebert. “We also wanted to provide appropriate training activities. For this kind of major transition you need to think about different learning and work styles.” So, she defined an assessment tool, a learning tool, a development-planning tool, and a performance support tool—all tied together in a Stage 3 solution. These resources were really job aids, but they also served as development aids.

Here’s how it works: When employees receive their performance reviews, the automated process integrates assessment results with 360 reviews (from another tool). The results will indicate any best practices or lessons learned from each completed project. Then, the worker can check an online list of training opportunities, specific actions, and supporting tools available to improve performance on the particular competency. For example, he or she may see a sample agenda and notes to use when planning and conducting debriefing meetings. The employee and manager may add other resources and assign deadlines. As the employee completes items, they’re noted in the system.

While a variety of technical approaches could have worked for PacifiCare, the organization used a customized LMS, which provided users with the capability to view resources organized by competency. Because self-assessment, 360 reviews, and manager assessments are based on competencies, the results of all three inputs can be factored into development planning.

Applied Biosystems

Applied Biosystems thinks that annual reviews and planning are too slow. The company wanted to move from an annual process to a quarterly process with status checks every two weeks to review goals and progress.

The company uses “what” goals and “how” goals, which it refers to as success factors. There’s a core set of success factors for all employees, and additional competencies and behaviors for particular job functions and domain expertise. Based on those success factors, an action plan and at least one development item are identified and reviewed at least four times a year.