Performance Support Maturity (PSM): A Performance Support Rebirth

TheRenaissance was a movement that transformed European culture and intellectualthought for the better part of three centuries. Though the roots of theRenaissance can be traced back to Italy starting in the early 14^thcentury, it was not until Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press a centurylater that its ideas and influence accelerated across the continent.

Performancesupport (PS) was a movement introduced with much excitement and expectation almostthree decades ago. Gloria Gery challenged the traditional notions of enablingperformance through just-in-casetraining and advocated instead for just-in-timelearning that occurred in the workplace. She argued that rather than providingvast quantities of learning to employees outside the context of work, we shouldinstead provide “individualized on-line access to the full range of … systemsto permit job performance.” (Editor’sNote: Please see the References listed at the end of this article.)

LikeEurope centuries ago, performance support is currently experiencingrejuvenation – a performance support renaissance, if you will. Since Gery’sintroduction, empirical research and case studies have made us smarter aboutwhen and how to best implement performance support. Web 2.0 technologies havemade performance support easier and less costly for organizations to adopt. TheeLearning Guild’s upcoming PerformanceSupport Symposium is the first dedicated industry event in more than 10years.

Atmore than any other point in its history, performance support appears ready to significantlytransform the field of learning and performance.

Performance support maturity

Aswe witness a rebirth of performance support, it will soon be insufficient fororganizations to simply declare, “Yes, we have a performance support system.” Itwill become increasingly important to be able to develop a cohesive strategy onhow performance support integrates with your learning strategy and how itimpacts business performance. It will become essential to identify strengthsand weaknesses in your PS strategy and supporting processes to drive continuousimprovement. It is critical for us in this field that we evaluate anorganization’s maturity in performance support.

Arguably,the best-known maturity model is the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) developed atCarnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute and documented byMark Paulk and his colleagues. They designed CMM to be an objective tool toassess an organization’s software development processes. It is a framework thatyou can use to categorize a software organization’s internal practices againstfive levels of maturity ranging from chaoticprocesses (level 1) to optimalprocesses (level 5).

Similarly,we’ll explore a Performance SupportMaturity (PSM) model. Rather than focusing on software practices, theintent of PSM is to objectively assess your organization’s performance supportpractices. Using this information, you will be able to identify areas toenhance your PS efforts, future targets to invest time or money, andopportunities to drive continuous improvement.

<H2>Factors that drive performance supportmaturity

Asshown in Figure 1, there are five factors you can use to measure yourorganization’s performance support maturity.

Figure1: The performance support maturity grid

WorkplaceIntegration

Whenorganizations first adopt performance support, it is common that employees willaccess content using an externalinterface such as a search engine, a Webpage with a list of common questions,or even a printed job aid. Gloria Gery noted this as far back as 1995. Suchmethods to interface content require the least amount of dollar investment and arerapidly deployable from a time-to-market perspective.

Asorganizations mature in their performance support capabilities, one of the initialstrategies to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of PS is to intelligently embedcontent directly into work tools or the environment. Research in recent yearshas firmly established that such intrinsicperformance support will increase use of PS, build user confidence, andtherefore elevate individual performance. (See the research listed in theReferences: Gal & Nachmias; Nguyen & Hanzel; Nguyen & Klein; and Nguyenet al.)

Itis, however, not always pragmatic or advisable to embed performance support. Forexample, it may be difficult if not impossible to integrate PS content intophysical tasks such as driving a forklift in a warehouse or repairing anaircraft. Research has also found that, while intrinsic performance supportwill enhance the performance of novices, experts do not necessarily benefitfrom this extra level of integration. (See Gal & Nachmias and Nguyen in theReferences.)

Becauseof this, you should strive to intelligently embed PS as much as possible intothe workplace, but complete integration is generally not a realistic goal.

InformationTechnology

WhilePS includes business process and cultural components, most organizations focusfirst on the performance support system.As with any software tool, the success of any PS effort is therefore heavily relianton the support of your information technology (IT) stakeholders.

ITorganizations often invest in knowledge management systems to capture andcatalog technical and help desk issues. Despite the similarities between such knowledgemanagement systems and performance support, most organizations that attempt toadopt PS find their IT partners to be ambivalent at best or an obstacle atworst.

Investingin your IT department’s competency and attitude towards performance supportoften drives the PS maturity level of your organization.

Proliferation

Mostinitial forays into performance support target solving a specific problem in asmall part of the organization. This might involve keeping sales representativesabreast of the company’s constantly evolving product lineup. It could focus onassisting technicians to repair equipment in the factory as quickly aspossible. It could address customer complaints regarding the usability of a newlyrevamped eCommerce Website.

Smallsuccesses in performance support are often contagious and drive itsproliferation across the broader organization. As a result, more matureorganizations expand PS beyond solving niche problems to address other internalproblems. In some cases, organizations even provide performance support toexternal suppliers or customers.

Itis important to note that organizations usually construct performance support systemsto address a specific problem (e.g., product-knowledge database, equipmentrepair videos, embedded context help), and these are not always extensibleacross the enterprise. Organizations that have expanded PS across theenterprise may often have one or more systems to support their varying performancesupport needs.

ContentReuse

Aswith workplace integration, most organizations begin their PS journey bycreating content that is external and separate from training materials and processdocumentation. Despite similarities and sometimes redundancies between theseassets, they usually author PS content using a distinct set of tools and storeit in a separate knowledge base. As business processes or procedures change,organizations often find themselves simultaneously updating eLearning courses,standard operating procedures, policy documents, and performance support objects.

Organizationswith more extensive experience in PS will adopt strategies to reduce thisredundant creation and maintenance of content. This sometimes involves linkingto performance support content from other systems or vice versa. Other organizationsmay unify their content into a single knowledge base and automatically publishin multiple formats to streamline employee access.

LearningExperience

Performancesupport efforts often emerge from training organizations’ desire to enhance thetransfer of learning to the workplace. As a result, they position performancesupport, at times, merely as a reference tool introduced at the conclusion of aformal training session.

Todemonstrate the power of PS and enhance its transfer and adoption, matureperformance support organizations embed it further into the learningexperience. Very mature organizations focus on PS as the primary solution toaddress business problems and only include training as part of the learningexperience when necessary. (See Lanese & Nguyen in the References.)

Measuring your performance supportmaturity

Theperformance support maturity gridintroduced earlier in Figure 1 provides a framework to determine yourorganization’s respective maturity in PS. Organizations generally advanceamongst four levels of performance support maturity:

• Level 1characterizes organizations that have recently adopted performance support orhave a legacy system/strategy unenhanced since its original implementation. Theseorganizations generally provide no integration with workplace tools. Informationtechnology stakeholders represent an obstacle to expanding PS beyond its niche deployment.Content for performance support is created and stored separately from training,which is still the default solution to all business problems.

• Level 2 performancesupport organizations have begun intelligently embedding PS content intoopportune, high-volume, or high-cost tools in the environment. IT stakeholdershave begun to comprehend the potential impact of performance support on thebusiness and are willing to enable the increased adoption across theorganization.

• Level 3organizations find broad adoption of PS in multiple lines of business,including information technology. They embed performance support not just inthe workplace but include it as a blended intervention in conjunction withtraining. They define and link PS processes to the design and delivery of training.One common instructional strategy is to include actual performance-supporttools as resources during training activities.

• Level 4represents the most mature performance support organizations, where they apply PSacross the enterprise and integrate it in the workplace where possible and/orpragmatic. The organization has minimized or eliminated redundancy andmaintenance issues between PS and other content. They have defined and fullyintegrated PS processes with training processes. Information technologypartners are not just adopting PS for their own purposes, but they areenthusiastic champions of its methods and technologies as new problems andprojects emerge. Performance support is so pervasive that customers ask for PSsolutions in conjunction with or instead of training.

Itwas not long ago that we were content with deploying a PS system and countingthe number of support requests accumulated on a monthly basis. Thanks to ourongoing performance support rebirth, we understand that there is more that wecan establish in our respective organizations.

Usingthe Performance Support Maturity model, you may discover that your organizationhas varying levels of maturity in different points on the grid. You may find moreadvanced parts of your organization than others. Like those who lived duringthe Renaissance itself, the key is to identify areas to improve, revive, andrefresh your strategy, and advance the sophistication of your performancesupport organization.

References

Gal,E. & Nachmias, R. (2011). Online Learning and Performance Support inOrganizational Environments Using Performance Support Platforms. Performance Improvement, 50(8), 25-32.

Gal,E. & Nachmias, R. (2012). The Effect Of Users’ Attitudes On ElectronicPerformance Support Systems Implementation. PerformanceImprovement, 51(5), 22-31.

Gery,G. (1991). Electronic Performance SupportSystems. Tolland, MA: Gery Associates.

Gery, G. (1995). Attributesand Behaviors of Performance-Centered Systems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(1), 47-93.

Lanese,L. & Nguyen, F. (2012). The Journey from Formal Learning to PerformanceSupport. Performance Improvement, 51(5),17-21.

Paulk,M.C., Weber, C.V., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B. (1995). The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process.Boston: Addison Wesley.

Nguyen,F. (2006). What You Already Know Does Matter: Expertise and ElectronicPerformance Support Systems. Performance Improvement,45(4), 9-12.

Nguyen,F. & Hanzel, M. (2007). LO + EPSS = Just-in-Time Reuse of Content toSupport Employee Performance. PerformanceImprovement, 46(6), 8-14.

Nguyen,F., Klein, J.D., & Sullivan, H. (2005). A Comparative Study of Electronic PerformanceSupport Systems. Performance ImprovementQuarterly, 18(4), 71-86.

Nguyen,F. & Klein, J.D. (2008). The Effect of Performance Support and Training asPerformance Interventions. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 21(1), 95-114.

The Performance Support Symposium 2012, a new event produced by Learning Solutions Magazine, offers you an exceptional opportunity todiscover how organizations can leverage investments in training and eLearningby offering employees performance support tools so they can continue to learnwhile they work. You are invited to join other senior learning professionals inBoston for this deep exploration of strategies, technologies, and bestpractices for performance support. The time for performance support is now.