WHAT IS HUMAN PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY (HPT)/PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT (PI)? WHAT IS IT DOING IN OUR SCHOOL?: “WHERE DO WE BELONG?” PERSPECTIVES OFFERED BY ISPI ACADEMIC COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Preamble:

The ISPI Academic Committee was formed earlier in the year, in June 2024, following the ISPI conference. Broadly, the ISPI Academic Committee is looking into three areas: (1) Research and Publications; (2) Case Study Competition; and (3) Academic and Corporate Organizational Membership.

One of the ongoing conversations within the Performance Improvement (PI) academic committee is the quest to find an ideal home for departments that impart formalized education and training in the field.

Within this issue of Performance Improvement Journal are four perspectives offered by Dr. Sue Czeropski, Lead of ISPI’s Academic Committee; Dr. Deri Draper-Amason, Lead for the Case Study Competition Subcommittee; Dr. Holley Handley, Case Study Competition Subcommittee member; and, Dr. Ria Roy, Lead of the Research and Publications Subcommittee.

Name: Dr. Sue Czeropski

Affiliation: Capella University

Department: School of Public Service and Education

Perspective:

In the context of higher education, particularly within the School of Education at our institution, I serve as faculty specializing in the facilitation, mentorship, and instruction of courses pertaining to PI. While PI demonstrably transcends organizational structures, I am intrigued by what I perceive as the absence of this field of study within the curricula of a broader range of academic schools at the university level.

Our doctoral program features a curriculum in an Applied Improvement Project housed within the School of Education. This placement has piqued my scholarly curiosity, particularly in light of the field’s inherent applicability across various organizational contexts. A review of the University’s academic structure reveals an unanswered question: why is this program situated within the School of Education rather than, for instance, the School of Business? Further investigation into the historical and philosophical underpinnings of this program’s placement would be a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse surrounding interdisciplinary approaches to PI education.

In looking at higher education institutions and PI curricula, examples of PI processes were embedded using a different process name. Song and Tucker (2016) claimed that the healthcare industry is using the model of Transformation Performance Improvement, which highlights six key components of a PI process:

• System level goals

• Using performance measures

• Managing interdependencies

• Aligning projects with goals

• Establishing an improvement engine and

• Sustaining improvement.

PI in the School of Education is a prevalent theme across various research studies. The National Center on Scaling Up Effective Schools focuses on scaling practices to enhance student achievement in Broward County, Florida, and Fort Worth, Texas, utilizing a model based on building prototypes, rapid-cycle testing, and researcher-practitioner partnerships (Garcia & Cerado, 2020). Additionally, a study in the Philippines developed an evaluation tool for the Continuous Improvement (CI) Program in School-Based Management schools, highlighting dimensions such as strategic management, operational management, change adoption, stakeholder analysis, and CI sustainability (Aldana et al., 2022). Another project at the AGH University of Science and Technology in Poland involves students optimizing production and logistic processes through Lean Manufacturing tools, providing practical knowledge and experience in production engineering within the University setting (Kolodziejczak et al., 2019).

It has been argued that continuous improvement and PI are related concepts but not interchangeable due to the improvement processes used. The core principles could be shared and highlighted in various contexts. On the other hand, PI, as discussed in the context of continuous performance management, focuses on enhancing individual or organizational performance through various initiatives. While continuous improvement initiatives like 5S in Kaizen, SMED, Lean Six Sigma, and other suggested processes can contribute to PI in applying continuous improvement frameworks like the AIP process model or the ISPI PI (Human Performance Technology [HPT] model) can lead to operational efficiency and waste reduction ultimately impacting overall performance.

PI efforts in applied improvement research projects in universities share similarities, such as the level of rigor in evaluating specific interventions or protocols to assess their effectiveness, often requiring adherence to research standards, IRB review, and scientific validity considerations. This is the same regardless of what school the program resides. The alignment between higher education curricula and workforce needs is a crucial aspect of preparing graduates for the dynamic professional landscape. Exploring the effectiveness of current academic programs in equipping students with essential skills is paramount. I would like to see more schools outside of the school of education adopt a performance-improvement curriculum within a university umbrella regardless of the process improvement process used. If you are working in a university and would like to discuss this more or how to go about getting a PI curriculum in your university, please reach out to sueczeropski@ISPI.org.

Name: Dr. Darryl C. Draper-Amason

Affiliation: Old Dominion University

Department: Office of Enterprise Research and Innovation at Virginia Digital Maritime Center

Perspective:

Conceptualizing Performance Improvement (PI), also known as HPT, as an interdisciplinary field that integrates knowledge from psychology, organizational development, instructional design, and other domains to enhance human performance in individuals, groups, and organizations. Having worked in the corporate, government, and higher education sectors, it became apparent that a narrow view of PI will yield limited solutions to PI problems.

My doctoral program in Instructional Systems at Pennsylvania State University was situated with other complementary disciplines such as workforce development, adult education, and curriculum and instruction. Over the past decade, the Instructional Systems department transitioned into Learning and Performance Systems with distinct areas of focus: adult and lifelong learning, corporate training, distance and online education, instructional design, organizational development, learning sciences, workforce development, and workplace learning. Penn State University’s shift from Instructional Systems to Learning and Performance Systems kept the systems thinking approach while strengthening the HPT program.

This shift is indicative of a national shift within university programs. For example, focused on innovation and continuous improvement, Indiana University’s Instructional Systems Technology program was restructured to include PI. In an article by Cho, et al. (2017), the authors stated that “we improve human learning and performance in diverse contexts” (p. 34). Indiana University’s program focuses on K-12, higher education, business, government, military, and non-profit sectors. Indiana University has a long, illustrious pedigree for producing scholars in the instructional design field. Indiana University’s history includes “making efforts toward pushing and collapsing the boundaries of the field through theoretical diversity, which has fostered innovation and continued transformation in our program” (Haynes & Cho, 2013, p. 28).

Florida State University’s Instructional Systems and Learning Technologies program “focuses on instructional design, emerging technologies, and performance improvement” (Klein & Dennen, 2017, p. 38). The authors stated that “students attain skills in the design of instruction, performance system analysis, project management and change management across business, higher education and the military” (p. 38).

Florida State University’s purposeful inclusion of courses such as project management, business management, legal, and ethics is admirable. However, it is unclear if there are direct links to the business school curriculum and faculty. Are the instructors in these programs business faculty or education faculty? Do faculty have direct experience in the corporate, government, or military sectors? Is experiential learning something to value and incorporate into the respective curriculum? At this point, the answers seem unclear.

Incorporating business and instructional technology design curriculums enhances the ability to create effective and robust learning environments. Instructional designers can benefit from the business school curriculum, HPT’s systematic approach to identifying learning and performance gaps, and designing educational and impactful organizational interventions. The dual focus on instructional design and business acumen ensures educational interventions are pedagogically sound and aligned with organizational goals and performance metrics.

Integrating education and business disciplines within HPT creates a synergistic effect that enhances the overall effectiveness of PI initiatives. Dessinger, et al. (2012) argue that “the interdisciplinary approach of HPT leverages the analytical rigor of business disciplines and the pedagogical expertise of education to create interventions that are both effective and sustainable” (p. 33). By combining the strengths of both fields, HPT practitioners can develop comprehensive solutions that address the multifaceted nature of performance issues.

One key benefit of this interdisciplinary integration is the ability to address performance issues at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Educational principles ensure that individuals receive the training and support they need to improve their skills, while business principles ensure that these improvements align with the organization's strategic goals. PI can be utilized in other ways than human performance. Van Tiem and Burns (2020) described a Chinese case study in which ISPI’s 10 Performance Improvement Standards were employed to develop a marketing management PI strategy. This interesting notion suggests further uses of PI standards to expand the reach of the tool.

Another synergistic benefit of the alignment of the business school and education’s instructional systems curriculum is that it provides a holistic approach to problem-solving. Students engaged in coursework from both disciplines develop a comprehensive skill set that combines business acumen with educational expertise, fostering innovative solutions to organizational performance challenges (Kaufman, 2006). According to Rothwell (2020), another benefit of coupling the business school and instructional systems curriculum is that the graduate is equipped with knowledge in PI, business concepts, and instructional design. These skills appeal to employers from corporate, government, and higher education institutions. Lastly, interdisciplinary cross-pollination can drive research and development that advances HPT. This can lead to new methodologies, evaluation tools, and technology that benefit both the business and education sectors.

The interdisciplinary integration of education and business disciplines within HPT offers significant benefits for organizations seeking to improve performance. Educational principles provide a foundation for effective learning and development, while business disciplines offer tools and frameworks for optimizing organizational processes. However, further research is warranted to fully understand the PI program curriculum of universities. Reviewing university program course offerings, experiential learning opportunities, and curriculum and faculty sharing between business and education programs would reveal answers to the questions.

Darryl (Deri) Draper-Amason has been involved with PI across corporate, government, military, and higher education sectors. Currently, Deri is a research assistant professor at Old Dominion University’s Virginia Digital Maritime Center. Deri can be reached at ddraper@odu.edu.

Name: Dr. Holley Handley

Affiliation: University of West Florida

Department: Instructional Design and Technology

Perspective:

The University of West Florida’s (UWF) Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) program is housed in the School of Education. The IDT department provides undergraduate and graduate degree programs in Instructional Design and Performance Technology (IDPT). The Bachelor of Science in IDT, Master of Education in IDPT, and Doctor of Education in Instructional and Performance Technology (IPT) are among the degrees offered. Graduates from these programs are equipped to identify organizational performance deficiencies, devise solutions, and implement and evaluate those solutions. The programs prepare graduates for various roles in various sectors, including healthcare, government, U.S. military, business, corporate positions, K-12 and higher education, and other organizations that aim to improve performance and integrate technology in the workplace.

Currently, the IDT department is part of the School of Education. The IDT students are from many different workforce disciplines and are not limited to K-20. The students who enter our programs subsequently work in varied settings. One of the challenges faced at UWF is determining the appropriate location for the IDT department. The School of Education might not be a suitable fit for IDT, given that the primary stakeholders in the School of Education are focused on the K-20 sector.

This history of the IDT program and department provides context as to the current location of the department and the degree program. Degrees in IDT were first introduced as specializations under master’s level programs in the Applied Science, Technology, and Administration (ASTA) Department, housed in the College of Professional Studies (N. Hastings, personal communication, June 27, 2024). The ASTA department originally had only one degree program, the Educational Technology (ET), and included three specializations: Manufacturing, Building Construction, and Electrical. As ASTA expanded, the Engineering Technology and Management Systems (ETMS) program was added to the department. It initially included specializations in Education Leadership and Instructional Technology but later expanded to include an additional specialization in HPT. The MEd in Instructional Technology program and the Instructional Technology specialization within the EdD program were later added as part of the expansion of the ETMS program. While ASTA housed a wide variety of specializations within the programs, the over-arching mission of the department remained the same: to equip students with the necessary skills to enter the workforce with increased levels of responsibility. The curriculum focused on interdisciplinary education and practical, industry-relevant training.

The IDT department became a standalone entity in 2012 as the university underwent reorganization and program additions. The restructuring placed the department within the College of Professional Studies, which later transitioned into the College of Education and Professional Studies (CEPS), adding a heightened focus on educational degrees. The IDT department remained within CEPS until the recent reorganization in 2023 when the university disbanded CEPS and established the School of Education. The new school encompasses K-20 educational programs and the IDT department. The administration and faculty are currently considering where the IDT department and its various programs and certificates should be situated. Even though the program has undergone significant changes, its location within the university has remained static. The IDT department, comprising various stakeholder groups, has been situated within the School of Education, concentrating on K-20 educational initiatives. One of the concerns associated with being in the School of Education is the visibility of the department’s offerings to potential students from disciplines beyond K-20, which includes the corporate sector. The question remains: Will individuals from fields outside of K-20 find our programs and degrees?

Another consideration in determining the location of the IDT department is that we have added the Doctor of Education (EDD) in IPT. The program was approved by the Florida BOE in 2019, and the first cohort of students enrolled in 2020. The EdD program in IPT emerged from the well-established specialization in IDT within an EdD in Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) program. The C&I program adhered to the conventional PhD format, emphasizing scholarly research and requiring students to conduct empirical research and present their findings in a traditional five-chapter dissertation. However, over time, it became evident that this structure was not meeting the needs of the students pursuing the IDT specialization.

The first challenge was that many of these students were employed in non-traditional educational (or corporate) settings, where a C&I degree was not highly valued. This challenge is also the primary consideration when deciding which college should oversee the IDT department. The second challenge was that the program's coursework was heavily focused on the C&I component, allotting only 18 credit hours for academic preparation related to the specialization. This was equivalent to roughly half of a Master’s degree, which was insufficient for the level of education we believed was necessary for doctoral students. Lastly, because our students intended to continue working in their respective fields after graduation, we felt it was essential to move away from the traditional requirements of comprehensive exams and five-chapter, research-based dissertations. Instead, we sought to provide students with opportunities to engage in the type of research they would be expected to conduct in their organizations after graduation.

To address the above-noted challenges, the university sought and obtained membership in the Carnegie Project for the Education Doctorate (CPED) in 2018 and developed a standalone EdD in IPT, which the Board approved of Governors in June 2019, and enrolled its first cohort of students in Fall 2020. This new program was designed based on the CPED principles and framework, which are focused on transforming the educational doctorate to a more professional practice doctoral degree, preparing students to serve as leaders, solving organizational performance problems, and facilitating change in their areas of expertise (CPED, 2022).

Many CPED member institutions offer EdD degrees focused on Educational Leadership, Higher Education Administration, and/or Curriculum and Instruction (CPED, 2022). The UWF EdD is unique because it leads to a degree in IPT, which is a multi-faceted field relevant for professionals in any organization that has an interest in improving performance, integrating technology, and designing and delivering well-designed instruction for training and development purposes (University of West Florida, 2022). Due to the unique nature of our field, our program redesign presented some challenges that stretched beyond those faced by most CPED institutions and other EdD programs that primarily serve students working in the K-20 world. We identified the ISPI HPT model (Van Tiem et al., 2012) as the guiding framework that would allow students to envision the entire PI process, align the program deliverables within that framework, and design the research methods portion of the curriculum to align with the data collection and analysis activities associated with the PI framework (Handley & Hastings, 2023).

The ongoing question of where the IDT department should be situated has yet to be resolved. Other colleges considered for IDT include the Hal Marcus College of Engineering and the Lewis Bear College of Business (COB). However, one of the concerns with the latter is that we have the EdD program, which is not included in terminal degrees offered by the COB. The EdD makes logical sense for our program as it allows students to progress from a BS to an MS and then to the ED. Additionally, the College of Business accreditation is also a factor to consider, as the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business accredits it, and what the implications would be of adding another department and program to the college. It has been determined that the department could be added to the College of Business without being subject to the College’s accreditation.

When considering the Hal Marcus College of Engineering, it is appropriate to consider the roots of our field and discipline (Gilbert, 1978). IDT includes technology integration, performance engineering, and innovation in education technology. The IDT program focuses on developing technological solutions for educational challenges, which involves a strong understanding of various technologies, software, and systems—skills integral to engineering disciplines. Modern instructional design often requires collaboration with computer science, information technology, and systems engineering to create and implement effective learning technologies. Housing the IDT program in the College of Engineering could foster these interdisciplinary collaborations.

Conclusion

The UWF’s IDT program has a rich history of adapting to meet the evolving needs of its students and the broader educational landscape. Initially part of the ASTA Department within the College of Professional Studies, the IDT program has undergone numerous modifications, leading to its current placement in the School of Education. However, this location has raised questions about the program's alignment with the school's primarily K-20 focus.

The development of the Doctor of Education (EdD) in IPT program, designed to cater to professionals working in diverse organizational settings, underscores the unique nature of the IDT department. The challenges in aligning this program with traditional education-focused departments highlight the need for a more suitable home to support the program’s broad and interdisciplinary focus.

Given its strong emphasis on technology integration, performance engineering, and educational innovation, the IDT program could thrive within the Hal Marcus College of Engineering. This move would foster interdisciplinary collaboration, align the program with its technological roots, and better serve the diverse career aspirations of its students. Alternatively, while the Lewis Bear College of Business presents particular challenges, it also offers growth opportunities, particularly for students aiming to advance into leadership roles within corporate settings.

As UWF continues to explore the best fit for the IDT department, it is crucial to consider the program’s historical context and future aspirations. Ensuring that the IDT department is situated within a college that supports its interdisciplinary nature and diverse stakeholder needs will be key to its continued success and preparing graduates who can effectively address performance and technology challenges across various sectors.

Holley is currently an Assistant Professor at UWF and can be reached at hhandley@uwf.edu.

Name: Dr. Ria Roy

Affiliation: Boise State University

Department: Organizational Performance and Workplace Learning

College: Engineering

Perspective:

Before I offer my perspective on where I think the PI should be housed within higher education, it is important to describe to the uninitiated about the fundamental tenets of our field. The field of HPT also known as PI at its core is a suspension of an ideological preference. The fundamental and unique characteristics of the field of PI, which sets it apart when compared to other bodies of knowledge, is its integrated nature and solution agnosticism. And, this surfaces within our literature that suggests a practitioner of PI be an expert in 15 to 25 tactics and possess a working knowledge of 45 to 75 tactics. Cumulatively, these characteristics make this field incredibly vast and complex.

The goal of our practice is simply to improve upon organizational performance. It could be across levels within an organization, namely, work, worker, workplace. And, while doing so, practitioners relinquish a functional predisposition and we strive to work across silos within an organization.

Yet within higher education, academic programs offering HPT/PI are often housed within the college of education and within departments that offer instructional technology (IT), instructional systems technology (IST), or educational technology (ET). Often housed in another college that has no tangible ties to why a department offering a lesser-known field such as HPT/PI should be housed within their graduate school, it is often confronted with questions such as “what is it?” and “what are they doing here?”.

Some of the earlier work by Skinnerians “applied behavioral psychology to education and training to create outcome-based instruction in an attempt to increase productivity at the individual level” (Roy & Pershing, 2012, p. 81). However, in settings outside of the school environment, there are a plethora of variables other than instruction that influenced productivity (ibid). One can infer that the early beginnings of the field is primarily the reason HPT/PI programs are housed within schools of education and within departments that offer IT/IST/ET.

However, this structural and programmatic positioning of HPT/PI programs offers a disconnect among other stakeholders within the department and/or within the graduate school. The lack of formalized acceptance, and an incomplete and at times an inaccurate understanding of the field due to its inherent complexity, only serves to exacerbate the confusion about the identity and belonging within academic settings.

Next, IST/IT is simply one of the many areas that PI practitioners may specialize in. Not all PI practitioners come from a background in IST/IT. It is important to underline that an instructional designer is not equal to an HPT practitioner. If one has an educational training and professional background in IST/IT then one is a subject matter expert (SME) in instructional design. And, it is similar to any other specialization be it business process engineering, finance, or marketing. When one is a SME in a particular domain, their lens towards performance discrepancies is shaped by their specialized understanding of that specific body of knowledge. Yes, it contributes to workplace performance but it does not eschew functional leaning. Unlike a SME, an HPT/PI practitioner will seldom rely on a specific function or a singular body of knowledge across all their PI engagements. And, it is one of the reasons why HPT/PI practitioners are tasked to be experts across multiple domains.

Thus, given my experiences and view of the field, programs offering HPT/PI are best suited within schools of business. Our studies, emphasis, language, and concerns will be relatable to those who share a similar focus and target audience. Our challenge as academics is to convince our counterparts within business schools our value proposition.

Ria has worked extensively with organization-wide performance projects. She is currently a Clinical Assistant Professor and can be reached at riaroy@boisestate.edu.