cpt期刊投稿

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT: APPLYING A HUMAN PERFORMANCE MODEL TO ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES IN A MILITARY TRAINING ENVIRONMENTWayne Aaberg, CPT Carla J. Thompson Haywood V. West Matthew J. Swiergosz This article provides a description and the results of a study that utilized the human performance (HP) model and methods to explore and analyze a training organization. The systemic and systematic practices of the HP model are applicable to military training organizations as well as civilian organizations. Implications of the study for future organizations grappling with registrar office concerns include the development of a rich information base and the acquisition of data collection resources. DURING THE LATE 1990s, the U.S. Navy commissioned a new organization, the Human Performance Center,with a major integrant mission to optimize Navy war fighting performance by applying the human performance (HP) model tenets to all facets of Navy operations,while focusing on performance improvement (HPC,2007). The history provided by Van Tiem, Moseley, and Dessinger (2001) contends that the HP model uses a wide range of interventions drawn from many other disciplines,including behavioral psychology, instructional systems design, organizational learning, evaluation, and management sciences. Based on Van Tiem et al., the rationale for the present study generated a systematic application of solid investigative techniques for resolving organizational issues in military training environments. These background and rationale considerations prompted the selection of the HP model for use as the theoretical framework for the present study.The International Society for Performance Improvement posits that the HP model accents a rigorous analysis of present and desired levels of performance, identifies the causes for the performance gap, offers a wide range of interventions with which to improve performance, guides the change management process, and evaluates the results. The model consists of five segments: performance analysis, cause analysis, intervention selection, intervention implementation, and evaluation, as depicted in Figure 1 (ISPI, 2008).In addition to using the HP model methods, a scientific method (time motion techniques) pioneered by Taylor in 1911 (Harrison, 2004) helped create the framework for this project. Taylor’s scientific methods provided the insight to establish the metrics for this project to document and analyze daily student registration and other related activities.Taylor posited that efficiency could be increased by carefully planning workers’ movements to ascertain the most efficient manner that jobs could be standardized and simplified by breaking the jobs down into core elements. This process of standardization and simplification was called time and motion (Harrison, 2004).This study utilizes the HP model with a focus on student registration processes and concerns. Student registration processes at military training sites are continually plagued by complex workloads, and workflow frequently bottlenecks. Registration processes are often exacerbated by numerous repetitive administrative initiatives. TheseSource. Based on data from the ISPI Web site, 2008. Adapted with permission from ISPI.FIGURE 1. BASIC HUMAN PERFORMANCE MODELconcerns stimulated the current study. In addition, time and motion techniques (Chevalier, 2008) were applied to the project. The impetus for using time and motion methods was a result of initial data discovered during the assessment of student registration workflow processes. The HP model and the established rationale promptedthe current study.STUDY OBJECTIVEThe study objective was to reduce work hours associated with student registration processes by 10% within a 12-month period and to identify effective methods to improve workflow within student registration processes.The following data collection techniques were utilized in the study.DATA COLLECTIONMultiple data collection techniques were employed in the study. The following data collection procedures were utilized: interviews, observations, regulations, benchmarkings,and observed process work hours. Each data procedure is described in this section.InterviewsInterviews were conducted to capture the methods and perspectives of the various processes to determine the existing business practices related to student registration procedures. Interviews included key personnel in the training organization. These interviews involved the commanding officer, executive officer, training officer, technical training supervisor, registrar personnel, instructors,and administration personnel. Personnel (performers) were identified and their participation provided the focus to determine individual responsibilities, inputs, and outputs. This information is depicted in Table 1.ObservationsObservations were performed over a 2-month time frame to determine and document the scope of current performer responsibilities. These observations included extensive reviews of the registrar processes, academic review board instructions, student file retrieval processes,registrar/customer service processes, and student data filing processes in the Navy military training database.Observation data were pertinent to the organization process improvement.Regulations Governing documents were reviewed to determine whether the organization registrar functions were aligned with higher level training mandates. These documents included the Navy School Management Manual, taskbased curriculum development manuals, local organizational instructions, and personnel descriptions for the registrar training technicians. Therefore, these documents pertaining to organizational improvement were an integral part of the study.BenchmarkingRegistrar processes from several training organizations were compared with one another for the purpose of determining best practices in registrar processes. ThisTABLE 1 PERFORMER GROUPS AND THE IMPACT ON THE BUSINESS PROCESSESprocedure generated benchmarks for the study, which revealed that the benchmark training organizations: (a) did not perform additional activities other than registrar functions; (b) used a local Microsoft Access database in conjunction with the U.S. Navy’s Corporate Enterprise Training Activity Resource Systems (CETARS; Corporate Enterprise Training Activity Resource Systems, 2006) todocument, track, and archive student status; and (c) closely adhered to military training manual and instructions. The resulting benchmarks were used for comparative analysisof the registrar study.Observed Process Work HoursThe work hours associated with processing student registration forms were based on the estimated time to complete selected functions. These data were collected from student registration training technicians. The estimated time for the training technicians to complete each form was determined by the following procedure: time required to complete each form was multiplied by the number of student cases per year to obtain the total available observed process work hours Per year.Approximately 49% of student registration work hours were found to be associated with forms processing. Table 2 depicts the estimates of student registrar work hours.PERFORMANCE ANALYSISThe HP model uses performance analysis, a procedure that involves the following components: assumptions, performance focus, root cause analysis, and root causes.Initial ObservationsThree major initial observations provided motivation for the present study: (a) estimates of the time involved in student intake forms and data entry exceeded expected time requirements; (b) recurring tasks in the administration department are not as demanding as registrar tasks,and some functions of both departments are duplicated; and (c) benchmarking observations involving two nearby training organizations have effective registrar routines that are viable models to demonstrate solid registrar processes. These observations provided the initiative for the study.TABLE2Performance FocusThe performance focus included tasks associated with student check-in andcheck-out,disenrollment, academic review, and graduation processes. For each task, the appropriate forms and documentation were examined and analyzed relative to the work processes. Therefore, the performance focus of the registrar operation was concentrated on specific forms and how each form was processed.Root Cause AnalysisThe root cause analysis included the following acquired data: (a) approximately 2,041 work hours were expended for processing forms (see Table 2), (b) approximately 200work hours involved performing data entry functions, (c) no evidence of existing registrar regulations that validate data entry, and (d) no documented defined process with which to enter student information. For example, it was difficult to retrieve student records, as evidenced by the fact that an attempt to retrieve studentdatatook approximately 30 minutes to search for 10 student records and not find any records.A comparison of the observed registrar workflow processes in this study with the benchmarked organization processes of another training organization resulted in the following findings: (a) the benchmark training organizations performed no additional activities other than registrar functions; (b) the benchmark training organization used a local Microsoft Access database in conjunction with the U.S. Navy’s CETARS (2006) to document, track,and archive student status; and (c) the benchmark training organization closely adhered to military training manual and instructions. When comparing the study’s registrar office with a similar training organization, the following additional comparisons were determined: (a) the registrar functions of the study’s registrar office were not aligned to the command’s mission; (b) a nearby training organization uses a dedicated individual (registrar representative) to handle military student administration forms, whereas the registrar in the study does not have a dedicated individual within the registrar office; (c) the CETARS (2006) person event data category is not aligned to accurately reflect actual student status at the study’s registrar office; (d) the study’s registrar automated computer tracking of person event codes (CETARS) is not aligned to each course of instruction assessments within each training division; and (e) personnel descriptions for registrar personnel are updated and aligned to organizational goals in the comparative organization but not in the study’s registrar office.Root CausesThe study found three processes that contribute to decreased efficiencies: (a) the registrar is performing duties and tasks that are not registrar functions; (b) there are inadequate policies, regulations, procedures, and supervision relative to registrar functions; and (c) there are no computerized tools to automate forms processing and enhance data input in the registrar office.The study uncovered the root causes through careful observation, analysis, and documentation of the findings. The root causes provide the commanding officer (CO) with a clear vision of the actual issues in the registrar’s office.INTERVENTION SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTIONThe next step in the HP model is the intervention selection and implementation. The analysis determined the roles and responsibilities of the performer and the responsibility of the performer to improve the organization. The intervention-selection step determines the best means to improve the process and estimate the costs of interventions and recommended interventions.The roles and responsibilities of performers for the implementation of interventions are listed in Table 3.This section reviews the estimated costs of interventions and provides specific recommended interventions for improving the workflow processes of a registrar office.