migrated and evolved from those principles. Gustafson and Branch (1997) state that ''the role of models in instructional design is to provide us with conceptual and communication tools that we can use to visualize, direct, and manage processes'' (p. 18). The key concept here is the ability of the individual, when looking at any complex activity, to conceptualize a myriad of causal relationships and chart them in some manner that can be communicated to others. A given model's criterion must enable HPT analysts to accurately conceptualize a suspected performance problem in a given business environment. The ability to visualize and then communicate the process logic to others will be the true measurement of any HPT model's effectiveness and suitability for use.Stolovitch and Keeps (1992) report that early HPT practitioners attempted to use linear instructional design models to describe performance technology processes. These linear models did not always accurately describe the environment or inter-relationships in sophisticated, multifaceted business processes. As a result, the early pioneers in the HPT field began to develop their own unique models. The diversity and complexity of the analyzed environments, coupled with different perspectives and backgrounds of the profession's pioneers, have created a large number of models, many of which are still emerging and evolving. HPT PIONEERSThe works of Gilbert, Harless, Mager, and Rummler became the principles of the foundations for performance analysis and HPT modeling theory (Rosenberg, Coscarelli, & Hutchinson, 1992). Many have acknowledged Thomas Gilbert to be the ''father of performance technology'' (Dean, 1998). Gilbert felt that improving the performance of people must begin with identifying and resolving the environmental barriers, thus enabling the people (performers) to achieve maximum performance (Dean, 1997).Another performance technology pioneer who continued with Gilbert's diagnostic approach was Joe Harless. Harless believed that understanding the cause of a problem should drive any solution (Ripley, 1997). This belief would eventually become the process of front-end analysis as reflected in his first performance technology process model (Figure 1.1). This model had a clear focus on the early determination of goals and performance during the analysis phase. Later, Harless revised his original model so that it included the four phases of analysis, design, development and testing, and implementation and evaluation, which became well known by its abbreviation, ADDIE (Figure 1.2). Harless proposed to the performance technology disciples that a partnership and business focus should exist in order to apply the most costeffective intervention.

No abstract

AS THE FIELD of human performance technology (HPT) begins to gain more mainstream attention in the eyes of those charged with improving organizational efficiency, questions arise about how to put these concepts and theories into practice. Several recent articles (Langdon, 2000 ;Chevalier, 2000 ) have described how HPT can be used in an organization. This article aims to identify the major models in the field and examine the ideas and beliefs that have lead to their conception, development, and acceptance.For the purposes of this article, HPT is defined as "a systematic approach to improving productivity and competence, through a process of analysis, intervention selection and design, development, implementation, and evaluation designed to influence human behavior and accomplishment" (International Society for Performance Improvement, 2000 ). The article will focus on HPT as a process that bridges the gap between what is and what should be in human performance systems (Applied Performance Improvement Technology, 2000 ). HPT MODELINGModeling has traditionally been an integral part of the instructional design process. Because many of the early practitioners of HPT came from the field of instructional technology, it is not surprising that HPT process modeling has migrated and evolved from those principles. Gustafson and Branch ( 1997 ) state that "the role of models in instructional design is to provide us with conceptual and communication tools that we can use to visualize, direct, and manage processes" (p. 18). The key concept here is the ability of the individual when looking at any complex activity, to conceptualize a myriad of causal relationships and chart them in some manner that can be communicated to others. A given model's criterion must enable HPT analysts to accurately conceptualize a suspected performance problem in a given business environment. The ability to visualize and then communicate the process logic to others will be the true measurement of any HPT model's effectiveness and suitability for use. Stolovitch and Keeps ( 1992 ) report that early HPT practitioners attempted to use linear instructional design models to describe performance technology processes. These linear models did not always accurately describe the environment or inter-relationships in sophisticated, multifaceted business processes. As a result, the early pioneers in the HPT field began to develop their own unique models. The diversity and complexity of the analyzed environments, coupled with different perspectives and backgrounds of the profession's pioneers, have created a large number of models, many of which are still emerging and evolving.

No abstract