Key Concepts

Document Actions

Key Concepts of Electronic Performance Support Systems

Key Concepts of Electronic Performance Support Systems

What is an Electronic Performance Support System?

Two Flavors of EPSS

Attributes and Behavior of Performance Centered Sytems

EPSS: Unlocking Its Potential in Your Organization

What Drives Software Development?

Training when you need it

Communicating Your Way to an EPSS

Driving the Design of EPSS with an Integrated Skills Management System

Breakthrough Thinking on EPSS Teams

Traditional vs. Performance Centered Design

Supporting Human Performance Across Disciplines: A Converging of Roles and Tools

The role of technology in improving performance

What is an Electronic Performance Support System?

By Barry Raybould

Reprinted from Technical & Skills Training February/March 1996

What is an Electronic Performance Support System?

EPSS (Electronic Performance Support Systems) are systems that provide employees with the information, advice and learning experiences they need to get up to speed as quickly as possible and with the minimum of support from other people.

An EPSS also provides the electronic infrastructure that captures, stores and distributes knowledge throughout an organization to enable it to learn faster than its competitors.

The performance support approach is rapidly spreading throughout the professional training community as a alternative approach to training, and is offering a new set of interface design principles for professionals in the human computer interface design community.

Two Flavors of EPSS

By Barry Raybould

Reprinted from Technical & Skills Training February/March 1996

There are two types of EPSS:

Stand alone

Stand alone systems are independent of larger databases or networks of computers that that exist in an organization, but provide workers with information they need to do specific tasks. Some examples:

a trouble shooting EPSS that helps service technicians identify and repair equipment

a human resources EPSS that provides information and advice needed to ensure HR policies comply with applicable laws

an operations EPSS that helps machine operators set up equipment on the factory floor for optimum working conditions

Embedded

In an embedded EPSS, a software application becomes the EPSS. There is no distinction between the performance support system and the software application. The software interface is designed in such a way that it provides the necessary guidance through the work tasks and delivers the appropriate information and advice when, where, and how the worker needs it. In this type of EPSS, the EPSS designer (performance support engineer) and the software developer work closely together to design the software interface. Some examples are:

a system used by customer support representatives that helps them take and track customer orders. The software supports the process by providing a road map of the key steps, with relevant advice and guidance for each step, and provides assistance with searching for answers to questions commonly asked by customers.

a production management manufacturing system to help manufacturing engineers plan and schedule production. The system structures the planning system, providing background conceptual knowledge on key planning concepts integrated with step - by - step instructions for creating a manufacturing schedule.

Attributes and Behavior of Performance Centered Sytems

by Gloria Gery

The Need:

Describing, defining and specifying performance centered systems requires precise language. Evaluating software to determine how performance focused it is requires specific criteria against which to compare the software in question.

The Chart:

This chart, Attributes and Behavior of Performance Centered Systems, summarizes the characteristics of performance centered systems and provides descriptive criteria against which to either specify or evaluate requirements. The attributes themselves are listed in the first column. The 1, 3 and 5 point scale indicates the degree to which these attributes are required or implemented. Level 1 indicates a low level of implementation or representation of the attribute; Level 3 an intermediate degree; and Level 5 a high level of implementation.

Rule of Thumb:

The more of these attributes evidenced by the software and the higher the level of representation of the attribute, the more powerful the software in generating performance.

Using the Chart:

Specification: List the required attributes and the degree to which the attribute should be implemented. When possible use examples from other software to illustrate the characteristics and behavior. Institutionalize the requirements into functional specifications.

Evaluation: Construct a grid listing the attributes and include empty cells for the degree of implementation. Observe the software and how it does or does not reflect the terms in the master chart. Put a rating for the attribute (i.e. 1, 3 or 5). Construct a mathematical average and obtain a quantitative assessment of how performance centered the software is. Add descriptive sentences within the cells to describe the implementation. Cite specific displays, dialogs, systems messages and support resources.

Attribute or Behavior	Low Representation 1	Intermediate Representation 3	High Representation 5
Creates a "big picture". Provides an overall context for the process, work or activity.	Provides little or no visual, graphic, animated or narrative representation of the overall process, deliverables or outcomes. Performer must maintain understanding of context, process and their point in process.	Provides access to extrinsic information about overall process, but maintains little or no context within the interface itself. No context sensitive information about point in process (e.g. "you are here") or summary of prior choices. Performer must maintain process orientation in their head. May employ visual process maps, diagrams, maps, graphs, flowcharts, etc., but no as the primary workspace. Performer must reference these resources as opposed to work in these processes.	Includes explicit and complete representation of the context (e.g. process, equipment, facility) and what will be necessary to complete it within or immediately accessible from primary displays. Rich representation of the work context or process, possibly including multi-media representations. Summarizes previous choices. Includes significant advance organization of expectations, steps, deliverables. In 3-D or virtual representations of the task, equipment, or workspace, performers work within the context.
Establish and maintain a work context.	Not task oriented. Presents itself as "software". Employs technical rather than work language. No task orientation, cueing or structuring. Requires performer to make mental connections between the software and the work context, task or deliverables.	Employs some task language or representative metaphors to establish work context. Low to moderate fidelity to actual work context. May employ some multimedia in metaphors and objects.	Task centered. Employs task language and metaphors to establish a psychological work context. Results in perception or feeling of "doing work" rather than being in "software.
Aid goal establishment.	Performer must generate goals prior to interacting with software; must know options and the relationship between options and goals and where and when to execute them.	Presents either some specific or general goals to stimulate performer interaction from within the interface. May provide detailed information about goals within extrinsic support researches such as manuals, instruction, Help. Goal states may be presented in multimedia objects or models to serve as points of comparison for the performer.	Presents explicit goal options from within primary displays. Employs dialogs (e.g. "What do you want to do...) and presents initial and progressive options for selection Both overall and context specific goal establishment are supported. May provides intrinsic or extrinsic resource to help performer compare and contrast goal options and/or consequences. In rich 3-D or virtual environments, goals and models of desired outcomes might be represented.
Structure work process	Provides little or no overall summary of recommended or possible work process. Any work process information resides in extrinsic or external resource. Performer must initiate all process orientation.	Provides overall and detailed process information in extrinsic or external resources. May summarize results to date in visual or text summary form. May employ some multimedia	Establishes and maintains overall process definition within or immediately accessible from interface. May employee process maps as primary task orientation using button bars, process maps, etc. Cues performer to position in and/or completion of process steps or milestones via differentiating factors such as color. In rich 3-D or virtual environments, performers may be led to the space and images that represent the conditions, problems, requirements, models or examples or demonstrations of best practice.
Structure progression through tasks and logic	Depends on performer to generate and structure task requirements and progression through proper task sequence. No system initiated task sequencing or presentation of relevant data or tools. Rules and relationships reside in performer memory or must be accessed from extrinsic or external resource before and during task progression.	Provides some task structuring -- most often in the form of information contained in extrinsic resources (e.g. procedures, demonstrations, process maps). Employs menu structures for task structuring, but performer must generate sequence. Irrelevant options may be dimmed on menus, lists, etc. May actively present guidance or suggestions. May employ some multimedia.	Following goal establishment the system structures task requirements in proper or best known task or process sequence from within the interface. Guides performer through appropriate options, choices, inputs. Filters irrelevant steps or options out. Via edits, models and examples observation and advice, does not permit wasted activities or inappropriate sequencing that will result in cycle repetition or dead ends. Presents relevant data and powerful representations of data, conditions, equipment, etc. at appropriate times during task sequence. Performer led to successful task completion or deliverable creation. All aspects of work are supported including job task, system interaction, cognitive and verbal tasks are supported. Provides on-demand access to overall process or sequence information within extrinsic resources (e.g. procedures, process maps, coaches or demos) In rich 3-D or virtual environments, performers are presented with more robust representations of the data, conditions, examples,. or external knowledge resources.
Reinforce and link activity to business strategy	No implicit or explicit content, functionality, advice or process reinforces or links to organizational strategy. Any relationship between behavior and strategy must be constructed by the performer.	Loose or indirect reference to strategy is based in optional activities or is referred to in extrinsic support system content. Business rules into system logic relate primarily to data manipulation, transformation and representation -- not business practice or standard operating policy. When business strategy is incorporated into system logic it remains stable between major system releases.	Business or organizational strategy and goals are reinforced through advice, options, or underlying logic which incorporates business rules expected to produce strategic results. Responsible parties alter system logic to reflect new strategy or business goals as it is changed. Strategic information is available within extrinsic resources.
Institutionalize current best approach.	Interaction and process are data driven. If tasks are supported from within the display or described in extrinsic resource, the approach is frozen in time as of the construction date. No changes are made other than during major release changes or revisions. Content may be very discrepant with current known information or process.	Business task, content, data, process or rule changes are distributed to performers in analog or electronic announcements, meetings, and informally. Changes are not institutionalized within the applications, except via major system version changes. Time lags exist between surfacing of change needs and performers incorporating those changes into their behavior. Individual performance changes are a function of the performer receiving and incorporating the changes into their behavior without structure or guidance from the application.	Support for task progression or cognitive processing reflects most current and best known approach or content. Task sequence, content, data, rules and tools are continuously updated and dynamic. Individual learning systematically feeds the system to translate current experience and learnings into organizational practice. Responsible parties alter system logic to reflect new knowledge. Performers have ongoing interaction with experts via Groupware, forums, or bulletin boards. Computer supported collaborative work is actively employed and encouraged or required via context sensitive links and communications to appropriate people when limited resource o content is available to support processing, creative or knowledge development. In rich multimedia, 3-D or virtual environments progression is through more realistic space with powerful models and examples, etc.
Reflect natural work situations.	Interface language, metaphors, behaviors or options bear little or no relationship to the real work, world or performer expectations or experience. Performers must adjust the way they think, interact and behave to system requirements. How to approach work requirements is not immediately obvious from within the interface.	Partial match between interface and natural work situations. Gaps exist in language, appropriateness of the metaphors to situation or task, sequence or other elements. May employ some multimedia.	Language, metaphors, behaviors, options, process, sequences and deliverables conform to the way people communicate, interact, observe and behave. Reality is modeled with multimedia, 3-D or virtual representations of space, equipment, conditions and data. Communication and interaction is concrete, colloquial, obvious and natural. The match between work and the system is very close and approach and options are obvious.
Use metaphors and direct manipulation of variables to capitalize on prior learning and physical reality.	Displays and content are data driven and use little or no visual representation or metaphors. Performers must transform requirements into system terms employing abstractions, codes or commands.	Some use of metaphors, visualization or direct manipulation. Metaphorical or visual content more likely to be resident in extrinsic resources rather than in primary displays. May employ some multimedia.	Extensive use of metaphors and visual representation to construct familiar realities and capitalize on prior learning. Direct manipulation of objects employed to where physical movement of data, visual structures, etc. match real-world tasks. Performers feel they are working in "real" vs. abstracted space. The most advanced environments employ multimedia, 3-D or virtual metaphorical space, objects and permit direct and powerful manipulation of situational variables.
Provide alternative views of the application interface	One size fits all interface. No options for more or less structure, alternative mode, interaction type, or navigation. Performer diversity results in some feeling inadequate and others feeling patronized or spoon fed (i.e. little or too much structure).	Alternative interface possible for some or all tasks or for limited differences in amount of structure (e.g. some use of Wizards or Helpers vs. command or menu-based interaction; or primary use of Wizard structure with some key stroke bypass options. May employ animations or sound.	Two or more alternative interfaces presenting broad range of structure and freedom. Alternatives may be based on different interaction modes (e.g. blank page vs. templates vs. wizards/assistants), customization options or expanded or collapsed view of the interface controlled by performer. Alternate interfaces may include alternative media representations (e.g. visual, 3-D or virtual versions of the workspace, objects, data, etc.
Provide alternative views of the support resources	Support resources represented primarily in text mode with limited or no use of other media, content organization or knowledge representation.	Some use of alternative knowledge representation within extrinsic support resources or in primary displays. May employ some media beyond text and simple visual objects or animations.	Rich and varied views of content and knowledge. Use of multiple knowledge representation (e.g. textual procedure and demonstration and voice-narrated demonstration). Advanced applications employ multimedia, 3-D and/or virtual knowledge representation within the interface to represent conditions, options, etc. -- or within the extrinsic or external support resources.
Observe performer actions and data.	Observation of performer actions limited to edits of entered data.	Systems sense some performer, data, physical, environmental, equipment or system states and provides context-sensitive information. The more "sensitive" the system, the more powerful the support.	Observes and notes performer context, prior decisions, physical interaction with system (e.g. mouse position, time delays, previous choices). Observes relationships between performer, context, task, data and goals. May employ visual, 3-D or virtual representations of resources tightly linked to state, data or user conditions or preferences.
Provide contextual feedback.	Feedback is either generic, vague or non-existent; not linked to context, performer actions, system behavior or data.	Feedback may be linked to one or more elements (e.g. data, point in process.)	Rich, varied, explicit and continuous feedback related to performer actions, data, task requirements, performer attributes. Anticipates performer requirements and communicates actively about states, conditions, results, requirements or options. May appear "intelligent". Feedback may employ rich visual, auditory, 3-D or virtual feedback about conditions, data, alternatives, etc.
Advise.	Provides no task or conditional advice in either primary displays or extrinsic resource.	May provide advice through extrinsic support resource or through Advisor components invoked by the performer. Advisors may employ media beyond text.	Ongoing, dynamic, rich and explicit system or performer -initiated advice. Observes and monitors data, time, options or performer behavior and provides conditional, rule-based or "learned" advice. Advice may be information or directive. Advice may include multimedia representations, examples, guidance, demonstrations, practice exercises, etc.
Shows evidence of work progression	Performer must maintain conscious understanding of what has been done, choices made and consequences and relationships.	System presents some evidence on all task progression or conditions or limited/in-depth evidence (e.g. images, time bars, narrative descriptions) of accumulated choices and system-generated outcomes. Some multimedia may be employed.	System presents rich, continuous and in-depth evidence on all task progression or conditions or limited/in-depth evidence (e.g. images, time bars, narrative descriptions) of accumulated choices and system-generated outcomes. Task progression may be represented with multimedia, 3-D or virtual representations to provide clear understanding of rules, relationships, conditions, outcomes, deliverables, etc.
Provide support resources without breaking the task context.	Support resources are external to the system and require a complete context change (e.g. signing off system and accessing on-line resource -- or suspending interaction with the system to access manuals, training or peer resource. Accessing support resource requires significant effort and/or time away from task. Often, the effort required is greater than the payoff due to gaps between resource content and performer needs.	Support resources within HELP or Searchable Reference, but may not be context-sensitive in any or all cases. Performers are clearly in another space when working with support resources (e.g. they are "in a training module). Accessing resource often breaks the task or thought context. Knowledge may be represented in limited ways that are not faithful to the task of physical workspace or equipment. Consequently, performers must reconceptualize, transform or cognitively manipulate the content due to low fidelity content representation, thereby breaking their task context.	Context-sensitive access to support resources. Support is organized in granular structures or is written and displayed to conform to other system display conventions. Sufficient support is embedded within or immediately accessible from primary displays. Resources overlay the application or can be sized or minimized. While momentary shifts between task performance and use of extrinsic resources, context breaks are minor . Rich multimedia, multi-sensory, 3-D or virtual representations of knowledge are available as primary or alternative resources. Representation permit maintenance of task context because of high fidelity knowledge representation.
Contain embedded knowledge in the interface	Any available knowledge resides in extrinsic resources.	Some directions, explanations or visualizations are in primary displays. Rich and complete knowledge is included in extrinsic resources. Some multimedia may be employed.	Extensive and rich knowledge is contained in primary displays. Next steps are expressed or demonstrated. Content may be displayed in multiple forms (e.g. words and images). Examples, instructions and guidance may be represented with multimedia, 3-D or virtual reality.
Business knowledge available in support resources and system logic.	Business knowledge is entirely external to the system and/or must be known by the performer prior to interacting with the software.	Business knowledge resides primarily in extrinsic resources. May or may not be rich knowledge representation. Business knowledge typically must be learned by the performer in advance (possibly just in time ) and then applied to the task at hand. Some multimedia may be employed.	Business knowledge and rules incorporated into embedded knowledge in displays or underlying system or programming logic. Rules and relationships between data, tasks, goals, rules, concepts, requirements, etc. are tightly coupled and explicit. Learning about the work or process is tightly coupled with doing and is often a consequence rather than a pre-condition of performance. Rules and relationships and data may employ multimedia , 3-D or virtual representations.
System information contained in support resources	Help or other extrinsic resource is either limited in content or of inadequate quality.	Information about procedures, system structure and mental models, requirements, options, etc. contained in support resources. Typically organized in hierarchical structure. Not context sensitive. Must be invoked by performer (who must know that they need help, how to phrase their request, and how to execute their request). Some multimedia may be employed.	Information on the system, procedures, etc. tightly coupled to task context and available for context-sensitive access. Knowledge representation is rich and complete and may employ multimedia, 3-D or virtual representations.
Provide alternative knowledge search and navigation mechanisms.	One size fits all navigation (e.g. index or table of contents access; keyword search access).	More than one search and navigation mechanism provided. May include context sensitive access to some resources.	Numerous search and navigation options available including hypertext, indexing, keyword search, context sensitive links, "sounds like" queries, browsing, VRML etc. Users may "browse", be guided, or directed through the content, data, space or objects. May employ agents for searching, coaching, assessing, etc.
Layered.	Single view of interface, content or information. What you see is what you get...	May provide layering via hypertext or hypermedia links within extrinsic resources.	Multiple levels of content, forms, interaction methods, feedback, advice, etc. provided to accommodate performer diversity in prior knowledge, goals, motivation, available time, and style.
Provide access to underlying logic.	The system presents its advice or executes tasks in response to tasks.	May provide explanations of logic, rules or representation of decision tree structure when requested by the performer. Content most probably static and in extrinsic resources. Some multimedia may be employed.	Rich, dynamic and context sensitive access to system and/or business logic and rationale.. May be presented by the system (e.g. Here is the thinking behind my recommendation...) or invoked. The "thinking" may be presented via multimedia agents, including video and sound images presenting content, advice or experience of high level performers. May provide direct interaction with expert resource via videoconferencing, audio conferencing, chat lines, Groupware, etc.
Automates tasks.	Most tasks must be structured by the performer. Proper sequence must be established and implemented. Some tasks must be performed externally to the software (e.g. data access, calculations, data manipulation, etc.)	Some tasks are automated or the performer can automate them via macros. Most task automation relates to data access, transformation and representation, rather than supporting workflow, thinking and/or human interaction.	High task automation including data, cognitive and judgment tasks. Processing may be rule or case-based. Performer needs are anticipated and automatically presented for acceptance or dismissal or are executed.
Allow customization	One size fits all displays, interaction modes, task sequence progression established by system designers. Little or no performer control.	Some customization options, primarily around display settings, keyboard, menu labels or lower level interaction behavior (e.g. "confirm changes" before executing).	Significant customization options around displays, task sequences, language and system behavior. Alternative settings are available from multiple contexts (e.g. options displays, check boxes within dialog boxes, layered buttons on displays). Performers can change options for the task or document or establish as new defaults. Settings and options summaries can be accessed for evaluation and change. Explanations, illustrations or demonstrations of consequences of alternative summaries are presented as options are explored. Performers may select among media representations, if available.
Provide obvious options, next steps, and resources.	Performers must know options, steps and resources in advance or access them from extrinsic resources prior to task performance.	Some options, next steps or resources are displayed in obvious ways within the interface or via buttons with clear labels. Some multimedia may be employed.	What to do next or available resources are always prominently displayed and are clear (e.g. Show me or Tell me about or Do it... buttons)
Employ consistent use of visual conventions, language, visual positioning, navigation and other system behavior.	Labels, display attributes, positioning or navigation conventions are inconsistent and possibly in conflict. Expectations cannot be established based on prior displays/system behavior.	Gaps may exist is language, positioning or behavior. System displays conform largely to platform standards.	Once established, language, navigation, displays, interaction methods and system behavior are consistent. Performers experience in one context establishes expectations that are always met in other displays, tasks or contexts.

EPSS: Unlocking Its Potential in Your Organization

Barry Raybould

Ariel Performance Support Engineering, Inc.

Reprinted From Technical & Skills Training February/ March 1996

E lectronic P erformance S upport S ystems are making inroads into office and manufacturing environments - hot on the heels of the computer revolution. The author's bullet-by-bullet account explains how electronic performance support can fulfill essential computer training needs.

Recent years have seen an accelerating interest in performance support as an alternative to traditional training in technical environments. Not surprisingly, the range of electronic performance support technologies is broadening in line with the increasing use of computers at home and work. This article takes a look at the major technologies you should consider now before embarking on a performance support project, as well as some examples of these technologies in action.

There are a number of good reasons why a performance support approach is becoming increasingly attractive. To name a few:

The American work force is suffering from information overload. Indeed, the total volume of business information, said to be doubling every two to three years, is growing exponentially.

The traditional training approach is not working for many organizations. Some industry pundits estimate that as much as half of the $50 billion that American corporations spend on formal training is wasted. A growing body of educational research concludes that learning is far more effective when it takes place in context of work. And many organizations report that only 10 to 15 percent of what employees know was learned in formal training.

Business change is accelerating as business process reengineering and the resulting job redesigns are becoming a regular part of business life.

How can electronic performance support technologies aid in countering these prevailing trends? Teamed with the now ubiquitous personal computer, performance support can do the following:

Reduce information overload by relying less on long -term memory and more on-the-job support in the form of tools that help structure the work and integrate the necessary reference materials. These tools could be linked to software at a desktop or workstation computer, or be conveyed by mobile hand-held electronic devices to shop floor workers.

Provide on-the-job learning experiences using software. By embedding presentations of key concepts into frequently used software, EPSS can create a seamless mix of learning and performance.

Increase organizational learning by providing a mechanism for capturing and disseminating organizational knowledge. For example, you can create a database of problems and the resulting solutions developed by technical support personal or technicians, and use it to spread troubleshooting expertise throughout the organization.

"Enabling" Technologies

Several technology trends are making the shift toward performance support easier to implement. Here are some of the key enabling technologies:

Hypertext: This technology provides for the electronic linking of information that provides a flexible approach to disseminating large volumes of cross-reference material - often called an "information base" in EPSS terminology. It is particularly useful when combined with such text retrieval technologies as "key-word" searches (i.e., the author links important words that the worker may want to use to retrieve some small chunk of knowledge), or full-text searches (i.e., the EPSS searches4very word in its information base to match a word typed by the worker). The new version of Windows '95 integrates both of these technologies into its help systems. These tools are available to software developers in order to help build the information bases of an EPSS. There is also a wide range of other software tools on the market that provide this capability.

The Internet: The Internet as a whole and the World Wide Web in particular are opening up new EPSS opportunities, especially for distribution organizations made up of field service technicians and company sales forces. The Web, for all its hype, is not much more than a large information base, where chunks of information are distributed across thousands of computers across the world and are available to anyone with a computer, modem, and an on-line account.

It is possible, however, to create private information bases that restrict access to members and customers of your organization, using the same publishing technologies. Internet publishing is based around a standard called HTML (hypertext markup language). By using this standard, organizations can harness electronic data exchange to more easily distribute an EPSS directly to their customer base. Doing so could, for example, allow customers to do their own troubleshooting before calling a service representative.

CD-ROM: Another way of distributing an EPSS, CD-ROM can be used either as an alternative to, or in conjunction with, the World Wide Web. CD-ROM becomes a desirable option when workers don't have access to an Internet connection or when the information base contains a large amount of graphics, sound, or video.

Portable Devices: A steady drop in prices is making portable devices increasingly affordable. These include laptop and notepad computers as well as hand-held devices like the Apple Newton. Some of these hand-helds now have built in CD-ROM with sound - making them an excellent delivery vehicle for an "on - the - go" EPSS. If you're designing a system now, the cost of these devices is sure to come down by the time you are ready to deploy the system, based on the history of price reduction in these devices.

Intelligent Technologies

An essential attribute of an EPSS is to augment the human problem-solving process by automating some of the more routine reasoning processes. Here are some technologies being used In performance support applications:

Visual programming languages: Visual programming languages have made considerable strides over the past few years. These languages let you build an EPSS using an approach called "rapid prototyping" in which you iteratively develop the EPSS to meet workers needs.

Object-oriented languages: Object-oriented program languages let you build software that behaves more intelligently.

Rule-based knowledge systems: This technology lets you present knowledge as a series of "if then" rules, which the computer will use to help recommend decisions or make selections. This technology, also known as an "expert system", has been heavily refined over the past two decades, and there are established methodologies or building these rule bases.

Case-based reasoning: This approach involves creating a database of case studies or examples of problems and their associated solutions. It also provides tools to search the database to match a current problem with a previous example. In this way, past history and the accumulated expertise of others in an organization can be preserved and retrieved to help solve new problems as they arise.

Neural networks: This technology helps you analyze patterns in data, and use these patterns to predict future behavior.

Model-based systems: These tools let you build a model of a physical system, then use the model to simulate various scenarios and diagnose problems.

Emerging Methodology

A recent trend is the establishment of cross-functional groups within companies to develop performance support systems. Accompanying this move is a merging of professional disciplines. Among the new titles appearing on business cards are "performance support specialist", "performance support developer" and "performance support manager" - terms that are replacing "instructional designer" or "training manager."

What does this signify? An emerging new discipline which I call "performance support engineering." Here are some of the key characteristics of this new discipline:

Hybrid Methodology: Because the scope of performance support is broad, The methodology for its development is broader than for many existing disciplines. Performance support engineering is in fact a hybrid approach that includes elements of information and systems engineering, computer / human interaction and interface design, business process reengineering, instructional systems development, computer based training, human performance technology, organizational design, knowledge engineering, and technical writing.

Systems approach: Just as in software engineering, all parts of the EPSS have to be designed to work as an integrated whole. These parts include not only the interface of the EPSS but also the accompanying human performance system. Indeed, one of the most important steps in designing an EPSS is to build a systems model of the business from a human performance perspective.

Iterative software development: Building an EPSS often calls for writing custom software - except in the simplest systems where an off-the-shelf "shell" will suffice. The best software development approach is an iterative one that starts with a prototype and is continually refined to achieve a final systems design - preferably with in put from the workers who will eventually use the system.

Knowledge focus: Traditional software engineering has a strong data focus. Much of the power of performance support arises from its focus on knowledge. Key components of a performance support system, therefore, are a system and set of processes to manage the capture and dissemination of knowledge - often referred to as a knowledge management system.

Identifying Opportunities

How do you identify opportunities in your organization for electronic performance support? Here are four things to look for, each of which presents a major opportunity for EPSS:

Performance Problem: Is there a performance problem in your organization? Is there a gap between the best and worst job performers? Do employees at different locations have different degrees of access to knowledge? Are training courses and documentation not improving performance enough? Are employees suffering from information overload? Are employee turnover or fast changing job requirements resulting in inadequate performance levels? A "yes"" to any of these would indicate an opportunity for EPSS to help improve performance.

Business reengineering project: Is your company involved in a business reengineering project? If so, and you're not already designing performance support into your new business processes, you risk losing a major competitive advantage. Get a performance support engineer involved in the reengineering team, identify key knowledge assets in the business, and engineer the business processes to leverage those knowledge assets using a performance-centered design approach.

Computer - based training project: Are you building computer - based training (CBT) or multimedia - based training? If you are, have you considered the benefits of integrating the CBT into a performance support framework? Doing so gives you a double benefit: You can use the training modules you build both as a learning tool and as a reference tool.

On - line documentation / CD-ROM: Are you putting documentation on-line (e.g., on the Web) or planning to distribute it on CD-ROM? If you are, consider restructuring the documentation in the form of a performance support system. Reading documentation on-line is 30 percent slower than on paper, so if you don't tailor it to electronic media you risk making the performance problem worse, not better. Using hypertext, intelligent technologies, and visual programming language, you can turn your documentation into a much more powerful performance support system.

What Drives Software Development?

by Gloria Gery

A Comparison of Large Scale Systems and Consumer Software Development

The Need:

The assumptions underlying large scale software development are implicit and are rarely questioned. Those underlying assumptions drive development and design, including definition of the performer population and description of their work context. The assumptions must be made explicit so they can be discussed and either validated or changed.

The Chart:

The assumptions underlying consumer software development are quite different. And because those assumptions are so different, they drive a different design and development process. What Drives Software Development? A Comparison of Consumer vs. Large Scale Systems Development is designed to make these two differing sets of assumptions explicit so they can be compared and contrasted as part of the specification development process. The drivers for consumer software need to be adopted by large scale systems developers to improve the quality and power of software developed for organizational use.

Using the Chart:

Use the chart or components in proposals, functional specifications and presentations advocating performance centered design. Force open discussion about the design assumptions.

Rule of Thumb:

Developers and sponsors of new systems development have given little thought to these underlying assumptions and thinking in new ways must be facilitated.

Points of Comparison	Large Scale Systems	Consumer Software
Assumptions about users' and workplace knowledge:	Users will know the work and related concepts the software will be part of or support Knowledgeable people will be available Users will be trained prior to software use	Users will know limited interface conventions (e.g. use of buttons) Users will not know content or task Knowledgeable people unavailable Training is unlikely
Development priorities:	Bug free code. High integrity data Accurate data transformation Machine performance. Matched to contracted client specifications (i.e. the client who pays the development or acquisition bills). Architectural compatibility. Operational performance. On-time delivery. Delivery within budget System maintainability	Impact on task performance: making work easier, faster, better Market acceptability Great word of mouth Glowing product reviews by press No implementation and training costs: Day One Performance Negligible support requirements Time to market Bug free code Reuse of code Executable on installed hardware base or demonstrate such value that people will upgrade hardware to run software. Maintainability
Implementation times Performance expectations	Short to moderate for initial implementation Gradual utilization over time	Immediate implementation Immediate performance outcomes
Assumed User Characteristics	Compliant to management directives Captive. Cannot reject the software for an alternative Resigned to difficult systems environments. Grateful for any improvements Prefer on-time availability to usability and performance impact Data driven Willing and able to invest in learning Not influential in the marketplace Long term job tenure (past and future)	Time urgent Impatient Results oriented Can reject software for marketplace alternatives or can return to non-automated task performance Influential in the marketplace Who will use the software will change over time; high user turnover or new user populations emerging
Design Goals	Conform to known standards (e.g. Windows-compliant) Reflect current work processes Similar to current systems and work requirements requiring only incremental change. Very different from the present is not a good thing.	Killer application with unique attributes and behavior. Fundamentally alters how work is done. High payoff Day One Performance by novice workers Seductive and compelling to users. Create energy. Demand pull.
Measurements and Rewards based on:	On-time delivery Development costs Functionality meeting expressed customer requirements. Technological superiority System response time	Consumer (i.e. performer) acceptability and mindshare Innovation Impact on efficiency, effectiveness, value-added or business strategy Profitability
Not accountable for:	Costs of implementation and ongoing support Impact on results or business strategy User satisfaction.	Open marketplace makes vendors accountable for all consequences

Training when you need it

Once the domain of commercial apps, performance-centered design is starting to have a positive impact on system training

By Ed Foster

I nstead of struggling to train your corporate staff to use your mission-critical applications, why not have the application help teach the users to perform their jobs?

That is the idea behind performance-centered design, an approach many corporations are adopting for their in-house application development. Performance-centered design and the related term of Electronic Performance Support Systems (EPSS) for the applications themselves are concepts that have come out of the training community in response to the frustration many users and managers feel over traditional computer training.

Performance-centered design and EPSS try to build enough knowledge resources and intelligence into the interface and basic structure of an application to make it possible for users to teach themselves.

"Performance-centered design is basically an evolution from user-centered design, making software easier to use," says Barry Raybould, president of Ariel Performance Centered Systems, in Irving, Texas, and one of the pioneers of performance-centered design. "It focuses on helping users do the work by embedding knowledge as well as a variety of software tools into a single-user interface."

That, of course, is easier said than done. But the potential business benefits of successfully implementing even one fairly minor task are enough to attract a lot of corporate interest.

"We initially looked at a few tasks such as setting up a bank authorization for a regular withdrawal from a customer's bank account," says Betty Mackay, training director for American Express Financial Advisers Division, in Minneapolis. "That's a task that would normally take an experienced user from 3 to 6 minutes to complete, but it's one that would take 9 to 12 hours of training to teach. And then it takes months of practice time before the user is reasonably competent to do it on their own. Replicate that over a number of different tasks, and it's not just a training problem, it's a significant business problem."

Mackay and her colleagues developed pilot applications for several of her division's call-center functions, including the bank authorization task, testing them with both experienced and inexperienced users.

"Previously, using our existing mainframe system, new employees could complete the bank authorization in an average of 17.1 minutes after 12 hours of training," Mackay says. "After 2 hours of training with the pilot application, they could do it in 3.9 minutes. Experienced users got better as well, improving from an average 4.8 to 3.2 minutes."

ROOTS IN COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE . Although this may sound like magic, the interface tools employed by performance-centered design are actually quite familiar to users of modern GUI-based commercial applications. In fact, commercial applications that would qualify as EPSS applications existed before the term.

"Developers in the consumer market have long been driven by performance-oriented thinking, because they can't presume that a discretionary user is going to have been trained to use their product," says Gloria Gery, a corporate consultant in Tolland, Mass., and the person who gets credit for coining the EPSS term with her 1991 book Electronic Performance Support Systems. "A discretionary user just won't buy your product if it requires training -- it's only in the corporate environment, with the history of IS departments in the mainframe days thinking of their users as captive, that you get the assumption of mandatory training."

Gery points to Intuit's Quicken and TurboTax as applications that have long incorporated the basic principles of an EPSS.

"For example, as TurboTax works you through an activity, you can work in the forms themselves or in an interview mode that mimics an interview with a tax accountant," Gery says. "If you come to something you are not familiar with -- depreciation, say -- you'll have some content links such as clicking on a word to get a definition, a button to pull up the relevant IRS rules, or a depreciation calculator."

Recent interface innovations in productivity applications such as wizards, coaches, and cue cards are also part of the performance-centered design toolbox. Some of these innovations are the direct result of ideas that Gery and others in the performance-support movement have been promoting.

"What's really been happening is that a group of people put a name to something that was already happening in the industry," Raybould says. "A number of developers have been using the principles without actually being conscious of it, but many others were consciously adopting the concepts being discussed in the performance-support community."

PUTTING HELP IN THE RIGHT CONTEXT . Performance-centered design means more than using wizards, though. The real trick is to integrate the help systems into the basic structure of the application so that users can readily find the help they need in context.

"We've always had these intervention strategies, like online help or tutorials, and those intervention strategies now include things like wizards and coaches," says Richard Horn, CEO of Comware, in Cincinnati, who helped design some of the first EPSS implementations. "Where the user previously had to make a decision to leave the program and choose which of these tools might help, now we're trying to put together all these intervention strategies to help guide the user to the right answer."

One key to properly integrating the tools and content of EPSS is to provide a visual metaphor for the task that the user understands. Quicken's check-register view is the classic example of a visual metaphor that gives the user an intuitive grasp of how to connect with the application, and finding the right metaphor or group of metaphors to represent a job is a central part of the design process.

"What you have to try to do is to capture the conceptual model that people use as they do the work," says Burt Huber, senior program manager for NCR, in Dayton, Ohio. "So we have metaphor-development sessions where we sit down with the subject-matter experts and find out how they solve problems and how they think about what they're doing."

Huber helped Apollo Travel Services with its Millennium 3 project for travel agents, where the metaphor-development sessions with travel agents led to such visual cues as a customer-itinerary view, calendar view, and airline-ticket view.

"We were just taking down what they were telling us, even having the agents draw pictures to show what they're seeing in their head when they're working," Huber says.

Obviously, developing a performance-oriented system on which to run your company's business is a major re-engineering task, and just the up-front research can take some time.

"To start with, we established a user-interface team of selected hotel staff and general managers from different properties, and that process itself continued for about 18 months," says Mike Mallott, director of training and communications for Promus Hotels, in Memphis, Tenn., the parent company for such hotel chains as Embassy Suites and Hampton Inn. "While we were coming from some pretty old character-based technology, we still wanted to move beyond just clicking buttons, so we tried to come up with visual representations of what we're doing so it's easy for someone who hasn't worked in the industry for 10 years to understand."

Promus Hotels' project is particularly ambitious in that it aims to meld two disparate systems the hotel has been using into one system that will serve everyone on the hotel staff, from general managers to reservation clerks.

"It used to take weeks to become comfortable doing a particular job on the old system, and that was on-the-job training since there was no knowledge built into the system, so somebody with experience had to take time out to help you," Mallott says. "Now, for example, you go through a sample check-in, and it guides you step by step, then there are more examples without the steps, and periodically there are quizzes. You can go at your own pace, and the system tracks what you've done so we can certify it. A [new] front-desk clerk in four or five days can very easily learn front-desk and reservation operations, and they don't need somebody standing there at their elbow."

Mallott expects to roll out the system at some new hotels opening in March and to complete converting older hotels by early next year. In that, he's well ahead of many who have taken the performance-centered design approach -- many of them have a tendency to be in eternal pilot mode.

Mackay, for example, did the first pilots for American Express back in 1992, but it was only last year that the company began a full-fledged implementation for the call-center application.

"There were some changes in leadership, and we also had to change from the Macintosh, on which we'd done our original tests, to Windows," Mackay says. "Basically, the pain wasn't bad enough."

"It is absolutely true that there's been a problem with these systems remaining in pilot mode," Comware's Horn says. "Part of it is just that [they] suffer from the same problems as any major development project, and the statistics show that a lot of projects ultimately are not implemented. But there's also a lot of mistakes being made."

INTRANETS TO THE RESCUE . Because the impetus for performance-centered design so far has generally come from the training professionals rather than the systems professionals, Horn feels that plans often fail to accommodate the need for changes to be made during the development cycle. But he and many others believe that performance-centered design is now being made considerably easier by using corporate intranets as the delivery vehicle.

"In a performance-based intranet, I can put together whatever tools I think we need, put it up, and start getting immediate feedback from users and actually measure what's being used," Horn says. "And with collaborative software, you can harvest that information and include it in the knowledge you're providing to users, as well. It's a very powerful model, because it's like the effect you might see on TV programming if Nielson was in the cable business and was getting instant feedback from all subscribers rather than just a sample."

Whether or not intranets actually solve the development logjam, there's little question that the need for more performance-oriented applications will continue to drive more companies to embrace the concept.

"I think of myself as a victim's advocate, and right now it's the users who are the victims," Gery says. "Right now we have a situation where training is really being used as a compensatory mechanism for badly designed systems, documentation is being used as compensatory for inadequate training, and help desks are being used to compensate for all of it. The only way we're going to solve it is to reconceptualize how software works to help the user perform."

Communicating Your Way to an EPSS

by Jenifer Lippincott

If you've ever bought a house, you've probably heard the real estate adage regarding the top three criteria to look for when buying property: location, location, location. Similarly, there are three major criteria for ensuring a successful EPSS project: communication, communication, communication. Because an EPSS approach is not well understood in many organizations, and because the development effort requires participation from a variety of groups, the need for clear, effective communication is critical. Let's identify the audiences who must be convinced. First, there's senior management. The picture painted for them must show the pain (the more the better), the (EPSS) cure, the linkage of the cure to the general health of the organization, and why pain relief is worth the price of an EPSS solution. Effective delivery of these messages requires artful communication with a large dose of return on investment reasoning.

The second group to focus communication efforts on is the stakeholders. These are the people, or groups of people, who control the resources needed to make an EPSS solution happen. Communication with the different stakeholders often requires the gift of tongues.

Third, you must ensure that the solution can speak for itself and that means having the mechanisms in place to measure its impact and success.

Let's examine each type of communication more closely.

Communicating about EPSS to senior management. At last November's RMR Conference, Performance Support '97, I moderated a panel on Building the Business Case for an EPSS. Eric Brickman from Prudential Insurance, Michelle Venturini from TDS TELECOM, Betty Mackay from American Express Financial Advisors, and Joanna Young from Liberty Mutual all agreed that the first step in building a case for an EPSS project was to identify the right "players" in senior management. Once identified, a distinct rationale had to be tailored and presented to each. The ultimate goal of the initial communication effort is to recruit a sponsor who will carry the communication torch particularly through the senior management ranks. One example of a tailored case was establishing a productivity improvement/investment ratio (for the business folks). Another popular case dealt with the impact (or lack thereof) of the EPSS effort on the critical path of the system development effort (for the technology management). Of course, making the case and proving it are two different beasts. But there's an art to that communication, too.

Regardless of whom the communication focused on, the panelists highlighted the importance of doing the necessary homework to come across informed and prepared. They also stressed that securing the money was only part of the challenge. Just as critical is building the necessary conceptual buy-in and support to sustain the EPSS development effort. This meant identifying the skeptics, anticipating their objections, and presenting the appropriate rationales and justifications.

Communicating with the Stakeholders. In general, the stakeholders in an EPSS development effort represent three primary areas of the organization: business, IS/technology, and those responsible for ensuring that performers have the knowledge and skills needed to be productive. (This constituency, which I'll refer to as the knowledge developers, could be a separate Training or HR function, or a function within the IS or Business groups). The biggest communication chasm probably resides between those building a new system that needs to be incorporated into the job, and those responsible for making sure performers can use it. There are many reasons for the lack of communication among these different stakeholders. Too often, those who determine what information a system will provide, and how it will provide that information, live in a different department, both literally and figuratively, than those who understand how to structure that information into useable knowledge. As a result, the knowledge developer types are often excluded from the critical discussions regarding interface design, functionality, schedules, iterations, and changes.

A second reason for the lack of communication among stakeholders is that the different constituencies often speak different languages. Take the simple task of developing online help. Often, system developers consider online help as part of their charter. And they create it. Enter the knowledge developer who wants to integrate the online help into the performance support environment, only to find technical documentation dressed in help's clothing. Or, try asking an IS person to define the term performance. They would probably say it had something to do with measuring the efficiency with which a system is running. Then ask a person concerned with knowledge development. That answer will probably focus on how well an employee is completing job tasks.

So how do you bridge these potentially crippling communication gaps? Often, the first step requires learning one or more new languages. To communicate effectively with the IS person, you had better know how to talk bits, bytes and bauds, or the conversation won't get beyond the weather. Similarly, the 'P' words like productivity, performance, and process improvement have always caught the attention of decision makers.

The second step to ensuring effective communication with your stakeholders involves earning the respect, and sometimes even friendship, of people with whom you may have felt incompatible. This may mean confronting differences and issues head on. It may mean taking those people to lunch, or a drink after work. Just to get to know them. The goal is to demonstrate willingness to recognize different points of view and find a mutually agreeable solution.

Certainly, the more exposure that different groups get to each other, the more they will understand other domains, and the greater the opportunity for communication. Attending each others' team meetings, being on the mailing lists for communiqués, and generally being kept in the loop regarding changes, will engender the spirit of cooperation.

Sometimes, there is a need for a translator role as well. This person usually emerges as the most effective communicator among the various stakeholder groups. The only requirement for this role is that the person be willing to let go of his or her traditional role and focus on opening up lines of communication.

Communicating Results. If you know where you want to end up, it's much easier to map your way there. If you know the performance results you need to achieve, then you can set your sites on achieving them and setting the right along the way. Betty Mackay, of American Express Financial Advisors, talks about starting with a small, manageable project. She used the results of a prototype to communicate her way to a much larger mandate (and budget) for an EPSS. Joanna Young, of Liberty Mutual, advocates communicating the costs of not taking an EPSS approach, and opting for the much more expensive, and less effective, traditional approaches. Eric Brickman, of Prudential Insurance, hired an outside consultant to develop an in depth evaluation of the use and acceptance of the EPSS and the system it supported. In each case, the EPSS implementers chose the most appropriate vehicle to communicate the results to their organization.

There is no one way to communicate. And there is no secret key that unlocks the floodgates of support for EPSS. But by doing your homework, building your case and presenting it effectively - along with a dash of luck - you can make it happen.

Driving the Design of EPSS with an Integrated Skills Management System

by Patrick Dillon, PhD, IBM

The Current Environment for SMS/EPSS

Change is now the most visible constant in the many and varied forces impacting corporate America in the 90's. This suddenly persistent presence of tumultuous change, driven mostly by the far-reaching business transformations being hastily executed in just about every major industry today, has created an enormous need for systems that help promote positive organizational outcomes.

Viewed collectively, the corporate responses to deep organizational change are referred to as "change management." Evidence that this relatively recent discipline is still in its infancy can be found in the fact that many of the creative solutions that have been proposed for managing large-scale corporate change have proven untenable for lack of an adequate "organizational infrastructure."

For example, solutions such as competency-based management, knowledge management and electronic performance support (EPSS) have received enthusiastic reactions for their conceptual appeal, but have been very difficult to implement in any systemic, or enterprise-level way.

In the meantime, KISS-solutions such as downsizing, outsourcing and other headcount reducing strategies are proving to be shortsighted, particularly at a time when there are now critical shortages of technical talent needed to drive technology-oriented change. The challenge, then, is to find the right people management strategies for coping with BIG change.

It is becoming increasingly clear that a critical part of the organizational infrastructure needed to implement some of the more creative approaches to change management lies in the area of professional development, more traditionally referred to as corporate training. Unfortunately, training as a corporate function is not presently equipped to answer the bell at this moment of need and opportunity.

Most training departments have not responded to the challenges of rapid and dramatic change. Today's corporate training solutions possess several serious shortcomings.

1) They are still predominantly tied to instructor led training (ILT), which is increasingly being viewed as an inefficient and ineffective training vehicle.

2) Most requests for training solutions are made under duress of both short timeframes and limited budgets. Consequently, most solutions are conceived, not in the context of anything close to a systemic, enterprise-level analysis. Rather, for the most part they are designed as "point solutions."

3) While there has been some growth in the use of instructional technology (e.g., CBT, EPSS, etc.), the training organizations that design and build our training solutions have not, to date, been active participants in the enterprise-level I/T solutions that have become such a dominant player in corporate change.

But there is hope. The type of executive support needed to overcome these shortcomings may be at hand, as the awareness of constant, I\T-driven change has elevated the attention being given to competency-based approaches to change management. The nugget of hope lies in the dawning realization that any sustainable or systemic solution to competency-based management must rely upon an enterprise-level implementation of instructional technology.

The key technologies for this solution appear to be threefold:

1) Electronic training interventions, both to be used as in-advance training (CBT), and as just-in-time training (EPSS);

2) Skills management systems (SMS), which provide the data foundations for competency-based management; and,

3) An Enterprise Server function, which provides both a repository and distribution mechanism for managing the "knowledge assets" of the organization.

What we will argue in this brief article is that these solutions are complementary to the point that it is no longer advisable -- indeed, it is no longer acceptable -- to think of them, or to try to implement them in isolation of one another.

Emerging Opportunities for the Performance Support Model

Owing to the unique business climate today, corporate training has an unprecedented opportunity to break from its under-capitalized history and become a major player in the visioning and implementation of enterprise level I/T solutions. As an outcome of the critical need to manage change, corporate management finds themselves compelled to pursue ways to develop an I/T-driven performance improvement system -- and it must be one that delivers some type of systemic solution to their employee performance problems.

HR executives, in particular, are looking for ways to pinpoint, and then close employee skill gaps, both with accuracy and timeliness. For HR, too, the performance management movement is an opportunity to move more squarely into the arena of business strategy formulation. Serendipitously, their newly urgent business goals coincide with the convergent evolution of the four instructional technologies described earlier: courseware development, skills management and, of recent appearance, EPSS and web enablement. For corporate training, the time is here to become a force in the powerful business transformation game. Will they seize the moment?

The Performance Support Model

The key conceptual player in this field of opportunity is Performance Support. The core design of EPSS is extremely powerful, and holds the potential for being the key design driver for the entire performance management movement. The concept of providing the learner with just the right information or training at just the moment of need is type of value proposition that overwhelms any possible source of objection. Problem is: EPSS is more easily conceived than built.

Like any of the grand I/T propositions which have preceded it -- take, for example, the original proposition that founded the field of artificial intelligence -- the performance support model has some very challenging obstacles with which it must contend. If one takes the value proposition of EPSS at face value -- as it has been stated in so many journal articles, and now marketing brochures -- a fully functional EPSS must possess the following:

1) A Broad Repository of Electronic Interventions : The Performance Support Model presumes the availability of a very broad range of training (and other types) of interventions, encompassing essentially everything that the worker needs to know. At present, most corporate training departments are barely capable of producing electronic training assets (in CBT format) that address anything more than just a few critical job performance problems.

2) A Navigable Range of Interventions : Assuming, for the moment, that a training organization were able to deliver on the EPSS promise of providing everything that a given worker needs to know, it will then encounter another significant obstacle. Of course, they will then be in good company, as it is the same problem that plagues the entire information industry in general -- and particularly the Internet. It is the problem of Information Overload.

Once a large repository of any type of business knowledge asset is created, the design problem that is immediately created is that of how to make that huge repository navigable to the point where it can deliver on the value proposition of just-in-time delivery. In general, most of the large repositories available in the workplace environment today transfer a sizeable, and typically time-consuming search burden onto the user. If a worker spends five minutes searching in order to find the information needed to perform a specific business process, then the JIT proposition has hardly been fulfilled.

Ergo, proponents of the Performance Support Model must find machine-enabled ways to automatically filter the repository of interventions that is created when a sizeable range of business expertise has been transformed into an EPSS.

3) An Enterprise-level Deployment System : Now, let's make the heroic assumption that the first two obstacles are overcome...mass production and navigability. The next challenge that muscles its way onto the center of our radar is that of deployment. Because the most effective electronic interventions are those that communicate through the power of rich media (e.g., digital image, audio and video), and because, as we have already documented, most useful performance support systems will consist of large repositories, the deployment problem is the now-familiar one of storing and delivering large stores of multimedia content to a geographically dispersed and culturally diverse workforce.

4) The Incentive System : Even if all of the aforementioned obstacles are overcome -- mass production, navigability and data-sensible storage -- there is yet one more hurdle that must be vaulted: the employees themselves. How do you guarantee that your considerable investment in knowledge assets (performance support interventions) will be used in conformity with the just-in-time value proposition? In brief, the organization must consider how to properly incent their people to learn what the organization needs them to know.

Successful Implementation of the Performance Support Model

If the corporate training community is to seize the opportunity made possible by today's confluence of organizational and technological events, then it must begin to address, not just two or three, but all four of the obstacles that are currently impeding achievement of the performance support value proposition. The history of information technology is strewn with the debris of promising technologies that have fallen from grace for lack of follow-through.

The IBM Enterprise Knowledge Solutions (EKS) consulting practice has launched technology-investment initiatives in all four of the Performance Support problem areas.

1) Mass production of training and performance support interventions : IBM has created a template-centric system for the authoring courseware that dramatically acclerates the speed, and reduces the cost of courseware development. This asset is called the IBM Knowledge Frameworks. To accelerate the process of developing electronic training interventions, this system enables:

rapid prototype development;

the direct input of key design elements directly into scripting;

the input of many storyboard elements created in the scriptwriting phase directly into the mutlimedia assembly process;

the automated programming of most navigational features; and,

an object-oriented design that emphasizes reuse of multimedia-knowledge assets.

2) Creating a navigable infobase (knowledge asset repository): Primarily used in conjunction with business application training, IBM has created an asset that provides hyper-context-sensitivity for large libraries of performance support interventions and JIT training nuggets. The asset is called IBM Knowledge Path . To provide for a more useable -- because more navigable -- repository of interventions, this technology enables:

the indexing, and databasing of performance support and training interventions;

the just-in-time launching of interventions from within business applications;

the extraction of detailed context information from business applications for use as a filtering mechanism against the database of interventions; and,

a methodology that promotes side-by-side development of business applications and the knowledge assets which facilitate their intelligent use.

3) An enterprise-level deployment system : To provide the infrastructure necessary to enable the storage and delivery of large repositories of performance support and training content, IBM has engineered two key assets. The first is IBM Knowledge Library , a multimedia object management system capable of storing a broad range of rich media types. The second is IBM Global Campus, an Internet-enabled repository designed for hosting the administrative and data access elements associated with enterprise-wide delivery of electronic instructional assets.

Taken together, Knowledge Library and Global Campus facilitate the following:

Data-sensible storage of rich media assets;

Automated decomposition and assembly of performance support, courseware and other forms of electronic training interventions;

An intelligent browsing interface to a wide variety of rich media objects;

A broad scope of training administration functions, ranging from course enrollment to performance tracking; and,

A web architecture designed to accommodate the bulk of the delivery options called for by the Performance Support Model.

4) An incentive system that promotes the tenets of Organizational Learning : To incentivize the workforce to obtain the knowledge they need, when they need it, IBM EKS has developed a methodology that integrates the technology and structure of skills management with the motivating force of automated credentialing and certification. This methodology provides for the full integration of EPSS with SMS (skills management system) by specifying the design requirements for:

A class hierarchy of job skills based on a foundation class of broadly transferable business competencies;

The use of these skills to define, on the one hand, sets of corresponding validation instruments (e.g., test item banks); and, on the other, sets of correlated instructional materials (e.g., prescriptive CBT);

Dynamic strand management, a design model under which training interventions can be constructed on the fly from more granular electronic learning elements; and,

A layering of instructional elements punctuated by competency levels and certification events (closely related to the design architecture known as the "ladder of challenge").

Summary Remarks

When contemplated in their full measure, the goals of the Performance Support Model are extremely ambitious. Fortunately, the time appears to be right for the corporate training community to attract the level of stature and investment needed to make a legitimate run at obtaining the essence of these goals. In view of the contemporary business landscape, with its apparently insatiable appetite for I/T-enabled change, the value proposition of performance support is no longer just a dream worth considering -- it is a mission worth pursuing.

But the opportunity will be lost if the corporate training community does not address all four of the obstacles now confronting the performance support enterprise. It must integrate skills management with EPSS, it must find ways to efficiently produce large volumes of high-quality electronic content, and it must put in place an incentive system that energizes the entire organization to become deeply engaged in the learning process.

Breakthrough Thinking on EPSS Teams

by Barbara Cowley-Durst

Today, in many corporate training departments and product development groups, various disciplines are converging to provide the very best in interfaces, modeling, design, and support of large-scale software systems. We have discovered that many disciplines are required for the development of successful performance-centered systems, something many sectors of the commercial software world have known for awhile but that many of the rest of us have missed (I think we were too busy surviving downsizing). How many corporate product development groups have training specialists or instructional designers on their team, not on an ad hoc basis but as a full team member? And not just to "listen and absorb," as one training developer put it to me, but to provide input and influence?

Yet compare that to commercial software development teams, who know , because their jobs depend on it, that the applications they produce must have a minimal amount of ramp time and that training and support must be embedded. Hey, some of these teams even employ philosophers, perhaps to remind object-oriented proponents that the reality of "objects" is debatable. But that's another story….

We also all know now that team members must include users. Do you wonder why? The reason is rooted in business economics: software products cannot be predictably successful in the market without continual feedback from the market, the customers, and the users … before, during and after development. As technology has improved, becoming both cheaper and more robust, the reasons for poor response to our software has changed. When software that by all traditional standards (for example, Windows compliant, GUI, complete and accurate documentation) should have been a hit is received poorly by our customers it is more than likely a result of the software's failure to communicate (the Cool Hand Luke response). It is generally not the result of stupid users, which is what we used to call them in the old days, right? So it's no wonder that training doesn't fix the problem, and no surprise that our customers (internal and external) are tired of paying out the nose for training that should not have been required in the first place. The smart thing to do then is to get users on the team and find out what they need, how they do their work, and the conceptual models they use.

What is exciting about an EPSS initiative is that it can be the catalyst for the convergence of many interesting disciplines (human-computer interaction, cognitive psychology, systems design, user interface design, data modeling, graphics design, performance technologist, trainers, subject-matter experts, users, etc.). What is daunting, however, is how the heck we are going to work together after all these years of being in our separate silos.

When starting an EPSS initiative, team leaders and sponsors, in order not to have unrealistic expectations, would do well to realize that "abrasion" among departments and team members will occur. This abrasion, however, can be welcomed and transformed into "creative abrasion." [Dorothy Leonard-Barton, Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation , Harvard Business School Press]

Why welcome abrasion? Pure and simple, it is through conflict that new paradigms emerge. For many of us working to develop electronic performance support systems (whether we can articulate it or not), we get our sense of excitement from the emergence of this new paradigm of systems and support building. And we get our motivation to face the ensuing turf and conceptual "wars" by the potential that we see in the performance perspective and its outcomes (EPSS is both a perspective and an outcome).

Many trainers, and training and support developers, are "fixed in a mindset" that holds them back from helping with the business problems facing their organizations and their customers' organizations. (Bob Brinkerhoff and Jim Pepitone have been giving us trainers a wake-up call on this for some time.) The same can be said of systems designers and programmers. (Alan Cooper, father of Visual Basic is calling them to task.) I suppose, too, we could say the same of marketing and communication specialists, subject-matter experts, and certainly management. But why is being fixed in a mindset "bad?" Well, it has to do with change. Most of our mindsets are rooted in another age, the age of industrialism, not the information age. Because of this, our mindsets don't help us help the knowledge-based worker for whom we are developing the software.

So, we are now called upon to find a way to transcend the 80-year-old traditions of training, manufacturing, and the somewhat younger traditions of systems design. Knowledge and service work, not manufacturing, now accounts for 80% of the work in most organizations. This work, being different in nature from manufacturing work, requires a different perspective and different solutions because its principles are by nature different. So powerful is the change in the nature of our work that it is even affecting principles of economics, which means even our chief financial officers must rethink long-held principles of their domain. (W. Brian Arthur, "Increasing Returns and the New World of Business," in Harvard Business Review, July-August 1996).

What do we do, as trainers, documentation specialists, application developers, and business leaders in the face of such changing conditions? How do we deliver "the goods" that are needed, goods that solve business problems not merely training or information problems? The answer has multiple parts. To me, the most important parts are:

changing our mindset, busting our paradigms

developing new and very specific knowledge and performance support development methodologies

The first call to action, to change our mindset, is not at all easy, but it can be a great deal of fun. It is what I will address in the remainder of this article. The second I will address in a later article.

"Busting our paradigms" implies reexamining our assumptions, conscious or unconscious, about "good" systems design and "good" training/support as well as our assumptions about how our various specialties and disciplines should relate. To change a paradigm (a mental model, a mindset), various techniques and tools can be used, generally under the guidance of a good facilitator. These sessions, held early in the initiative and as needed throughout the development process, can make use of many of the techniques we have learned in team-building sessions. The difference is that these techniques are not "taught" or used one day, apart from our work as developers, designers, and trainers. Nor should they be held on to once they are superfluous and trite (what is no longer working should be thrown away). The ability to question paradigms must be built into the very fabric of the working team, so that flexibility is achieved over the long-term. To do this, we need to:

provide a new context, a new frame, for working together and for the outcomes of our work

enable the recognition of dominant ideas that polarize our perceptions

encourage relaxation of rigid control over our thinking, a common barrier to creativity and a common cause of unhealthy abrasion

foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas

establish the practice of systems thinking (in Peter Senge's sense of the term)

promote experimentation

Why put so much emphasis on our mental mindsets or models? Mental models, as Senge, Steven Covey, and others have said, affect what we see and hence affect what we do . Einstein knew this years ago and lived by a principle that yielded incredible results for him, and the field of science: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."

Perhaps a story will illustrate what Senge, Covey, and Einstein mean. I'll use a story neutral to this issue, so as not to point out a log in any of our own eyes.

A scientist wanted to find out whether fleas heard sounds and if so through what part of their body. This scientist began by training the flea to jump every time a bell was rung. Reasonably certain that the flea could hear and that it was "trained to jump" at the sound of the bell, the scientist proceeded to perform some experiments designed to pinpoint the organ of hearing. First, the scientist cut off one of the flea's legs, then rang the bell. The flea jumped. The scientist cut off a second leg and rang the bell again. The flea jumped again. The scientist continued cutting off the flea's legs, one by one, each time ringing the bell. And each time the flea gave the same response: it jumped. Finally, the scientist removed the flea's last leg and rang the bell. The flea did not jump. The scientist concluded that fleas hear through their legs.

Couple the moral of this story, that we only see what our mental models allow us to see, with a constructivist theory of knowledge and what emerges are some very powerful reasons for relaxing the control our paradigms have over us.

Constructivists argue that knowledge is constructed, like the pyramids, not discovered, like gold. Though one step in knowledge creation is discovery, they argue that this is only one small step in a much more complicated process. It might be interesting to those of you with a philosophical bent to know that some members of the biological and cognitive sciences are taking this constructivist view even further, pointing to biological evidence for a "non-representational" view of reality. To some, this biological evidence "compels us to realize that certainty is not a proof of truth. It compels us to realize that the world everyone sees is not the world but a world which we bring forth with others." [Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding , Shambhala Publications Inc.]

But back to my main point. Each of us has a role to play in the development of the new performance-centered systems, as they are called by EPSS gurus. Each of us also comes with our own mental models of good design and good software, as well as a belief that we must defend our turf (biology again?). So I would argue strongly that any EPSS initiative worth the effort is worth investing some quality time into team-building and, more importantly, paradigm busting.

One other thing: Let's not spend too much time arguing over what discipline or economic world first conceived of good design or where the conceptual model for performance-centered design came from. Let's just say that the development of performance-centered systems or applications and intrinsic EPSS was a miraculous twin birth: one twin was born in the corporate training and support world; the other, though not identical, was born in the commercial software development world. ( See Figure 1 ). The two siblings are coming together to share and transfer knowledge, which is as it should be.

Figure 1. Birth and Convergence

So, the best thing you can do for yourself and your EPSS or PCA team, a team that ought to be composed of people from a wide range of disciplines, is set the stage for breakthrough products by engaging in breakthrough thinking. Welcome the creative abrasion, foster new thinking, and above all ask yourself and others, "What would be impossible to do, but if we could do it, would fundamentally change our system for the better from our customers and our users' perspective?"

Traditional vs. Performance Centered Design

by Gloria Gery

The Need:

Differentiating performance centered from traditional software is necessary for sponsors and developers to understand what additional activities, processes, and criteria must be built into software specifications.

The Chart:

The Traditional vs. Performance Centered Systems chart is designed to aid in comparing and contrasting these two types of systems. Advocates must be clear on how these systems are different and what's different about the processes associated with their development to gain sufficient sponsorship to proceed and to create understanding within the IS community about what must be done differently.

Using the Chart:

Copy and distribute the chart as part of your proposals or presentations. Develop a deep understanding of the differences in both design and development in order to address one of the major bases of resistance: we're already doing this.

Rule of Thumb:

Most large scale systems development groups have a long and deep data centric history that has evolved from the heritage of developing transaction systems. Developers must be convinced that they are now creating computer mediated work environments which must support tasks, thinking and communications. These requirements must be built into methodology and specifications.

ACTIVITY	TRADITIONAL DESIGN	PERFORMANCE CENTERED DESIGN
Task Analysis	Focus on tasks related to data input, manipulation, retrieval and reporting. Conducted by systems analysts	Focus on traditional data tasks plus cognitive, verbal interaction and other tasks currently performed manually Conducted by systems analysis, UI and IPS team members
Contextual Inquiry	Not done. Site visits rarely conducted.	Analysis of entire work context: where work is performed, working conditions, all participants, time requirements, competing and/or interrupting activities. Conducted via site visits, detailed performer interviews, and shadowing performers at work. Conducted by systems analysis, UI and IPS team members
Expert Resources Involved	Management and software sponsors. Expert performers	Management and software sponsors. Expert performers Novice performers Training staff Documentation staff
User Interface	Focused on screens and GUI controls Screen data requirements structure programming for field and screen logic Direct, one-to-one relationship between UI elements and underlying system logic Must be complete before coding can begin	Focus on structuring work performance and employing optimal visualization and metaphor development GUI controls employed as appropriate Focus on object definition to drive underlying UI and system logic May involve one-to-one relationship between UI elements and underlying system logic and may only require UI logic or UI IPS data base logic. Design parallel to systems development. Task and metaphor changes can occur up to 60% into development. Tweaking of displayscan continue until product release.
Support Resources	Viewed as extrinsic (i.e. accessible from) or external to the system Help system structure developed with system Help and Training developed close to or immediately following project completion	Design goal: 80% of support intrinsic to the application and provided through the UI Extrinsic and external support viewed as residual, rather than primary. Support requirements and links defined during UI design Development of all but software demos and procedural cue cards that refer to the UI can occur parallel to development.
System Functionality	Defined and frozen prior to development Additions treated as a "change" and evaluated based on business impact vs. additional time and development costs	Baseline determined prior to development Evolving based on contextual inquiries and detailed work task analysis Additions treated as a "change" and evaluated based on business and performance development impact vs. additional time and costs Ongoing and active dialog with business management and systems development professionals to assess requirements if previously anticipated or designed objects cannot be utilized
Impact of Object Oriented Design	Decreases time and cost of underlying system logic, but not necessarily UI	Decreases time and cost of underlying system logic Decreases time and cost of UI when metaphorical structures can be reused and/or extended. Goal: purhase externally developed interface "widgets" with accompanying logic Goal: exploit commercially available or previously developed software for underlying UI logic.

Supporting Human Performance Across Disciplines: A Converging of Roles and Tools

Lorraine Sherry (lsherry@carbon.cudenver.edu)

Brent Wilson (bwilson@carbon.cudenver.edu)

University of Colorado at Denver

Campus Box 106 P. O. Box 173364

Denver CO 80217-3364

Full citation: Sherry, L., & Wilson, B. (1996). Supporting Human Performance Across Disciplines: A Converging of Roles and Tools. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9 (4), 19-36.

Abstract

Performance support is close to the center of a host of related fields and specialties, including human performance technology, electronic performance support systems, technical communications, and instructional design. Because of their common interest in performance support, and common external influences such as cognitive psychology and digital technologies, roles and tools within these fields are beginning to converge, resulting in unprecedented overlap. In times of rapid change, related fields have an opportunity to learn from one another, borrowing useful elements and incorporating them into their own practices. The purpose of this paper is to explore the similarities, differences, and emerging trends among some of these fields and to gain insights into how their evolution affects performance support. Across these fields, we find a continuing tension between designed messages and tools allowing users more flexibility and control. The best performance-support systems include both of these components as well as a strong human support component. We also observe a trend toward greater reliance on users and user communities in defining and controlling support systems.

Performance support is closely aligned with a host of related fields and specialties, including human performance technology (HPT), electronic performance support systems (EPSS), computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW), technical communications (TC), electronic publishing, instructional design (ID), and workplace training. In addition to their goal of providing performance support, these fields have more or less interest in two additional concerns:

Instruction and learning.

Creating environments, products, and processes to support new learning is an essential part of cultivating effective performance. The ID and workplace training communities make this their top priority.

Information conveyance.

People can perform well when they have the information they need in a timely and understandable manner. Technical communications, electronic publishing, and informational technologies in general hold this goal as a primary concern.

Because of their common interest in performance support, and common external influences such as cognitive psychology and digital technology, roles and tools within these fields are beginning to converge, resulting in unprecedented overlap in function and products. In times of rapid change, related fields have an opportunity to learn from one another, borrowing useful elements and incorporating them into their own practices. The purpose of this paper is to explore the similarities, differences, ambiguities, and emerging trends among some of these fields and to gain insights into how their evolution affects performance support.

The HPT Viewpoint: Systemic, Systematic Performance Improvement

As a core value, HPT practitioners tend to de-emphasize formal training. HPT is a unique blend of systems theory, behavorism, management theory, and technologies of various kinds. The field has thus far shown a highly pragmatic tendency to appropriate diverse models and incorporate whatever works. HPT is highly participative, systematic, and data-driven. Its aim is the achievement of valued human performance in the workplace. Given a performance problem, HPT practitioners conduct a performance analysis to identify current performance conditions. With input from people with a range of perspectives, they identify the causes of the discrepancy or "gap" between actual and optimum performance levels. They then suggest suitable, cost-effective strategies for closing the performance gap, followed by an assessment of the impact--pro and con--of implementing these interventions.

Typical solutions to performance problems may include:

redesigning the job,

restructuring incentives,

working to change the corporate culture,

introducing feedback systems, or

designing job aids embedded in software systems with easy access to information.

Rossett comments:

We used to be in the training biz...[now] we're talking much more about the performance business, [not the training business] which means you actually have to violate the walls of organizations and work with folks in incentives and recognition programs, selection, and information technologies. (in Geber et al., 1995, p. 62)

In Taylor (1991) former ISPI President Marc Rosenberg predicted the demise of the so-called training department and the emergence of a performance improvement department within the workplace. In Geber at al. (1995), he notes,

The chairman of AT&T is never going to call me up and ask me what I taught today or how much they learned today. He will ask, 'How are you helping the business?' (p. 62)

Rosenberg's message to trainers is clear: They must consider the impact of training and other interventions on results, competitiveness, and productivity. When they use short-term learning assessments exclusively at the expense of measuring impact on performance, their work may be inconsistent with the needs of business. For example, Gery cites an instance of a client who reduced training from 96 hours to less than 30 minutes by simply changing the interface to a system (in Geber et al., 1995, p. 64). This change led to a systemic improvement in organizational practice, not through a skills/knowledge/information intervention, but by changing the demands of the job.

The EPSS viewpoint: Situated, User-defined Support

As new technologies have become available, many organizations have moved toward electronic performance support systems (EPSSs) to replace traditional training programs. An EPSS is a system of online job aids, support tools, and information systems designed to assist users with workplace performance (Stevens & Stevens, 1996). Corporations that utilize online help systems may find that performance is improved, expertise is developed earlier, and the scaffolding or "training wheels" of the EPSS can be removed or ignored whenever learners feel that their performance has become viable on its own.

This points to the strong potential of EPSSs to help people acquire job-related skills. In the EPSS approach, practitioner skills are learned by doing, not by being taught. As a result, the relevance and structure of any support system must be user-defined, and its design must be iterative and flexible. Gery (in Geber et al., 1995) considers theories based on situated cognition (see also Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Suchman, 1987; Streibel, 1991) to be highly relevant to EPSS design. Situated cognition emphasizes the real-life, everyday cognition of workers as they operate a copy machine, use informal math to make estimates, or solve problems collaboratively in workgroups. Developing supports for such everyday performance is a goal of human performance technologists utilizing EPSSs and related tools.

It is important to note that, although EPSSs can be highly effective as a means of providing users timely and relevant information, there is a great challenge in teaching individuals to use these tools effectively. Crook (1994) notes that, in school settings, students tend to turn to their peers for support in computer-based problem solving, and are apparently unwilling to make use of the online help facilities that the instructional programs themselves offer (p. 127). Similarly, in our own evaluation of the Creating Connections Internet training project (Lawyer-Brook & Sherry, 1996), we found that though a substantial majority of newly trained teachers requested online technical support, very few of them actually used it--3 percent used it regularly, 31 percent used it less than five times, and 66 percent never used it at all! Getting people to utilize available resources has become an area of study in its own right (Farquhar & Surry, 1993; Garland, 1995; see also Rogers, 1995) and involves a combination of well-designed tools, supportive environments and culture, motivated individuals, and a sound adoption plan.

Changes in Instructional Design

Instructional designers tend to think first in terms of training solutions to performance problems, although most designers work within an overall framework that includes HPT concepts. Whereas HPT looks at the full range of factors affecting performance in a work setting, ID hones in on helping people acquire the underlying skills and knowledge that lead to expert performance. New knowledge acquisition becomes a primary concern. Until recently, ID textbooks have slighted nontraining solutions to performance problems (Dick, 1996; Seels, 1995). In the last several years, however, the ID community as well as the general workplace training community have become more sensitized to performance-support issues. Periodicals such as Training magazine more regularly include discussions of performance analysis and non-training solutions. Influential authors such as Peter Senge (1990) have encouraged a perspective on organizations that keeps in mind the broad array of factors influencing human performance and the systemic interactions among them. Successful performance technologists are having greater influence within the workplace training community.

For several years now, the ID community has been engaged in the debate generated by the constructivist movement in psychology (e.g., Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1991; Duffy and Jonassen, 1992; Jonassen, 1991; Lebow, 1991; Wilson, Osman-Jouchoux,& Teslow, 1995). Constructivism stresses meaningful learning in authentic settings. Situated cognition does too, although with less emphasis on individual knowledge representation and more on community enculturation (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Streibel, 1991; see also the March 1993 and October 1994 issues of Educational Technology ).

An important part of the discussion about constructivism is the renewed interest in the learning setting . Tessmer and his colleagues have developed a framework for conducting environment analyses (e.g., Tessmer & Harris, 1992), while Winn (1990) has stressed the importance of instructional decisions being made in the immediate learning context. Designers of constructivist learning environments try to model important aspects of natural performance settings (Wilson, Ryder, McCahan, & Sherry, 1996). Thus for reasons perhaps different than those of HPT professionals, instructional designers have come to a similar conclusion about learning settings: They need to be as close to the work setting as possible, in time, place, and spirit.

Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989) feel that the best way to develop expertise is not through ordinary classroom-based teaching or training, but rather through cognitive apprenticeship--a process derived from the traditional apprenticeship model. They emphasize that integrated cognitive and metacognitive processes are more central to expert performance than either low-level skills or decontextualized knowledge. They argue that expert performance can best be taught through authentic problem solving in realistic contexts, by observing expertise-in-use by people who externally model the desired performance, in the authentic problem context, with other participants.

Like their HPT counterparts, instructional designers are heavily dependent upon tools to support thinking, problem representation, and work performance. Researchers at Northwestern University (Edelson, Pea, and Gomez, 1996) use scientific visualization tools in their CoVis project, a networked scientific learning environment that emphasizes open-ended inquiry for secondary students. Such tools enable students to overcome difficulties in understanding the abstractions, formalisms, and quantitative terms of equation-based data representations. Hancock and colleagues (Hancock, Kaput, & Goldsmith, 1992) report similar findings with a computer tool that shows membership groupings and quantitative patterns. Other examples of cognitive tools can be found in Wilson et al. (1996). Thus in several key respects, the fields of ID and HPT are moving along parallel tracks, toward site-based, timely addressing of people's needs, and toward greater reliance on tools and technologies to support learning and performance.

Technical Communication:

Just-in-Time, Just-in-Place Information

The field which we usually refer to as technical communication has now expanded to include all varieties of online information technologies. The new expression, "information technologies," bears little resemblance to the old MIS concept; rather, it emphasizes just-in-time, just-in-place support to complement training and other interventions. Hackos (1995), an Associate Fellow of the Society for Technical Communication (STC), describes the new mandate: to provide specific information and tools to end users just in time, rather than a roomful of manuals shipped when it is convenient for the developers and documentation teams to send them. The trend is toward ever greater interactivity--information is available when and where the customers need it. Hackos emphasizes that technical communicators must move from product- to user-driven information, to text and graphics complemented by multimedia, to intelligent search tools as the knowledge domain becomes more diverse and extensive. A user-driven focus will not be guided by information on how to use a product, but rather by information on how to make a decision, how to act, or how to complete a job. Does this sound familiar? In effect, both the emphasis on just-in-time information and just-in-place support, and the incorporation of training rather than its replacement, are reminiscent again of human performance technology and the design of EPSSs.

Harrell (in Trends in the Information World , 1995) notes that, instead of employees or customers receiving information in a booklet, in a detailed training program, or in traditional job aids, they will increasingly receive online, immediate information at the point they need it. That information will be distributed to them in various interactive modes--possibly via their home television, a hand-held device, an online computer system, a diskette, a CD ROM, perhaps even a cellular device. Or, it will be provided to them by an embedded EPSS so when information is needed, the system will generate that information. Crane (1995) sees online documentation manuals as self-tutorials, self-training tools, and reference guides, all wrapped up into one.

To Harrell, information delivery systems will be designed collaboratively, by a tightly knit team of technical writers, engineers, training specialists, communications specialists, multimedia specialists, graphic designers, and so forth. With the help of powerful online documentation tools, the fields of training, support, and documentation have begun to converge. The new breed of technical communicators will become problem solvers and business thinkers who understand how systems work, how people think, how the business process works, and how to disseminate information to ensure complete performance support. The technical department within each corporation will become more dispersed and less centralized, and will be closely tied to user support groups.

Hackos (1995) also emphasizes the collaborative, concurrent design process. The trends are toward making documentation, training, and support integral to the tools they build, not add-ons to be rushed through at the last minute. To achieve this level of integration, all development groups must work closely together and coordinate all of their activities. Kahn (1995) illustrates this by describing a cooperative authoring project for a complex hypermedia documentation system, in which his independent information design studio was asked to join members of Interleaf's marketing, programming, technical writing, and design staffs. To Horton (cited in Adix, 1995, p. 12), "successful online documents require a team of multitalented individuals who are well motivated and clearly managed"--consisting of writing and illustration specialists, computer specialists, and ergonomics specialists, all led by a "communication designer" with general expertise in team management and group communication. Whereas writers were once individualists, providing documentation as an add-on to a finished product, they are now part of a team effort from the inception of the project to its final implementation and support.

The Vision of Information Technology:

A Merging of Traditional Roles

Many software companies are beginning to see themselves as large-scale providers of information and performance support, rather than simply as producers of underlying code. There is a need to find ways to develop information and training in tandem with interface and product development. Great potential exists for products that will assist people in viewing and controlling information.

Usability testing enables designers and writers to evaluate how people actually interact with the software and documentation they have created, providing feedback that developers can use to improve their products. To Bresnan (1995), this means "not trying to tell them how to design, but bringing them important information to help them to do their jobs better" (p. 16).

To assist with the collaborative design process, more work is beginning to be done in "virtual worlds", in which designers and technical communicators use an electronically shared information space to collaboratively produce software products (see Ishii, Kobayashi, & Arita, 1995). However, this digital revolution does not come without a price--new design and usage challenges abound, as well as new learning needs. In Trends in the Information World (1995), Jeffers presents a vision not unlike that of Negroponte (1995), who states that:

The challenge for the next decade is not just to give people bigger screens, better sound quality, and easier-to-use graphical input devices. It is to make computers that know you, learn about your needs, and understand verbal and nonverbal languages. (p. 92).

Jeffers notes that in the digital world, communicators must gather, develop, and package information in a variety of traditional and new formats. Information delivery tools will go online. Technical support, training, and information management will all begin to blend. A corporation's integrated publishing model may include promotional material, online documentation, Internet support, customer support services and communications, and intelligent search agents. A briefing given by a vice president of publishing and communications for a typical corporation might include the following:

impressive multimedia presentations that can be delivered instantly to any site within the organization;

a database of target customers with a specific direct marketing strategy for each one;

personal e-mail and print letters that introduce your company to prospective customers;

recommended schedules of follow-up calls;

a CBT version of the briefing so the sales staff can learn more and practice sales presentations on their own;

print and online documentation electronically linked to the customer service center of the corporation;

intelligent agents that see product and user problems before they happen and alert the customer on how to avoid them;

links to the customer service center that trigger calls from a support representative, if needed;

interactive tablets for briefing participants to ask questions and then catalog the answers for future training sessions.

In essence, Jeffers' vision does not supplant training with a performance support system; rather, training and EPSSs are integrated into one seamless service environment. Gery refers to this movement as the "re-representation of knowledge" within the organization, and notes:

People are now starting to create knowledge databases that are being made available on demand through various kinds of digital environments...and creating publishing tools for people who are the keepers of knowledge or information. (in Geber et al., 1995, p. 67)

Ironically, Rosenberg sees this trend as an opportunity for trainers to move from performance technology back to informing and educating people. The roles of training and documentation will converge as trainers begin to take a lead in the creation, archiving, and access of information and knowledge. "The world of information is the growth market for trainers...If they [the trainers] fix the information stream, they'll have [fewer] courses and less training around, but they'll have more work than they've ever had before" (in Geber et al, 1995, p. 67).

In this new vision, people become both the agents for organizational change and the "lubrication" for performance support. Like oil in a car, people can help the process through the rough spots, enabling the technologies to do their work. We do not regard the technical tools as supplanting people. Rather, technology and information tools become the vehicles which facilitate training, communication, information access, troubleshooting and performance support. People continue doing the essential work--serving as role models, shaping the culture, and helping each other adopt the tools and resources available to them.

Supporting the Support System

New technologies are not always transparent to the typical user. Negroponte (1995) focuses attention on one serious drawback in the current move to digital information technologies: interaction--or the kind of interaction imposed by the technology. "The burden of interaction today has been placed totally on the shoulders of the human party. Something as banal as printing a computer file can be a debilitating exercise that resembles voodoo more than respectable human behavior...This will change" (p. 92).

Thuring, Hannemann, and Haake (1995) are designers of open, collaborative, hypermedia systems. They argue that for readers to comprehend an online document or help system, they must be able to construct a mental model that represents the objects and semantic relations described in the text, which also corresponds to facts and relations in the real or possible world. Users then refer to this mental model as they approach a task and decide which aspects of the system to draw upon.

Perkins (1996) expands the mental model concept to encompass knowing one's way around the entire performance environment. This means having a sense of orientation and structure, perceiving how things work together, and feeling comfortable within the environment. This comfort level comes from knowing where to find things, who to ask, and what to expect. Having attained a sense of familiarity, the learner is then able to draw on all of the available resources, develop a rich schema-based understanding of problems, and apply that knowledge to solve problems in a sensible, coherent manner. For example, most professional workers develop a set of tools and a working space where they feel comfortable. Such an environment might be an office with a particular computer and a particular set of software programs. Force of habit is strong, and a worker may have mastered a subset of WordPerfect or PowerPoint, for example, sufficient to master the daily tasks required. The worker may address technical questions about software to a friend and colleague two doors down. This colleague then becomes, along with the technology, the office, and the tools, an essential part of the comfortable, familiar environment where effective work can occur.

In our own research (Lawyer-Brook & Sherry, 1996), we have found that new trainees must establish a comfort zone and have access to continuing support before they feel confident using their newfound skills. A project that introduces innovation to a population requires ongoing support until the innovation becomes part of the culture. We have found that, no matter how wonderful the innovation, it is worthless unless it is used. And like it or not, much of the support at the beginning takes the form of one-on-one mentoring and what is often termed "hand-holding."

Though EPSSs are improving dramatically, corporations have still not disbanded their training programs. Moreover, the new breed of trainers is beginning to integrate traditional instruction with instruction in using the EPSS itself, so that new users may be able to find their own solutions to performance problems--a second order form of instruction that "lends support to the support itself." Just as a well-designed EPSS will support the work environment with a new, electronic, information-rich environment, so a well-informed trainer or a well-designed instructional system will help learners to find out how the new system works, and how to search for relevant information therein, so they will not be intimidated by it.

This has been our own experience (Wilson et al., 1996). In an effort to encourage our academic community to use our newly World-Wide Web resource, we have incorporated a Getting Internet Help system in the main menu. In addition, we have provided paper-based job aids, formal courses, one-hour workshops, brown bag sessions, and informal mentoring, both face-to-face and via e-mail. It is our policy always to refer new users to the online help resources; however, they must not only know where these resources are, but also how to use them.

EPSSs are storehouses of just-in-time, just-in-place information to solve performance problems. Needless to say, they may not be perfect--especially when they are designed concurrently with new or newly updated products. Like the information explosion that we are seeing on the Internet and the WWW today, EPSSs may contain potentially useful information, but sometimes that information is buried and inaccessible so that the user wastes precious time and keystrokes in attempting to retrieve it (McKenzie, 1995).

McKenzie suggests that the answer lies in excellent message design, impeccably structured and annotated electronic directories, and carefully filtered information. Upon closer scrutiny, however, we find that this is the very antithesis of a user-driven information model! The more the designer filters and structures the data, the more "canned" it is, and the fewer options the user will then have to tailor the information to match his/her own situation. The answer to the human-tool mismatch is not to build a more controlling tool, it is to build a different kind of tool, one that allows more flexibility and appropriation by people with different needs. People don't need someone deciding to give them less information, they need better ways of seeing and getting at the information available.

Another information technologist (McAlister, in Trends in the Information World, 1995) notes that technology is often used to flood consumers with information, without providing the accompanying tools to allow them to deconstruct massive texts into bite-sized chunks of information that satisfy an immediate need. A potential solution lies in the development of improved search tools--tools that enable end users to find precisely the information they need, when they need it. "Intelligent agent" technology uses expert systems to develop a profile of a user's information needs, then anticipates those needs and adapts the interface accordingly. Though such approaches are still being developed and refined, they are more sophisticated and efficient than the hierarchical search tools that were available just two or three years ago. For example, the tried-and-true WWW search engine, Yahoo, is now being challenged by tools such as Inktomi, which uses a set of parallel processors to search a much large database, and runs a lot faster.

In essence, there is a continuing tension between the end user's need to control the type, level, and flow of relevant information, and the designer's need to produce an efficient, effective learner support environment. With the growing trend toward user-centered design, it is generally the end user, not the designer, who should ultimately be able to adjust the level of system filtering, anticipation, and support. The tension, however, will always be there. A good designer will acknowledge this, and will allow for varying levels of support to accommodate both the contextual factors and the diverse learning styles of the practitioners for whom the system is designed.

Informal Training: User Support Groups

Despite the move toward user-friendly, integrated documentation and information systems, there is definitely a place for the helpdesk, for the toll-free call to "the person on the other end of the line who can help me when I get stuck", and for other forms of informal, personalized user support to serve as an alternative to formal training. Computer users' groups are big players in this field. Hundreds of local Macintosh Users' Groups, Internet Users' Groups, and PC Users' Groups connect their members with electronic bulletin board systems (BBSs), provide expertise in solving hardware and software problems for their members, and host demonstrations of the latest electronic products. Stansel, President of the Polk Apple Core Users' Group (1995), describes the role of a users' group, not as a commodity to be bought, but as a sharing group that members buy into with mutual interest and commitment:

[Its value is] the personal contact, warmth, and acceptance that we try to show all members, whether they are experts who are willing to share, or novices willing to learn. The beauty of a users' group such as ours is that we are all in the adventure together, and it is important that we keep the faith with each other. All of the above factors [publications, BBS, support from local school district, magazines and newspapers] help us get new people in the door, but once they are in, it is everyone's responsibility to make them comfortable and important enough to stay. (p. 1.)

With the growth of the Internet, support groups are now going online. There are Usenet Newsgroups and LISTSERVs, through which participants can tap the distributed expertise of thousands of people throughout the world who share similar interests and knowledge. No longer is the Internet the domain of the UNIX gurus and the research establishment; academia is gaining a strong foothold there, too. The WWWEDU LISTSERV, for example, supports its members with advice on setting up their own school web servers, linking to educational resources, and designing and publishing school-based Home Pages and other electronic publications on the WWW. The EdTech LISTSERV is a valuable resource for educators who wish to avail themselves of the latest technologies.

Learner support systems are becoming popular within the academic environment. These involve a blend of face-to-face interactions and electronic conferencing to enable new users to acquire the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in their coursework. Nowhere are these more prominent than in the field of distance learning. Through the Open Learning Agency, Porter, Fallick, and Dagert (1995) have designed and pilot-tested a distance learning environment for secondary schools in British Columbia. Their FirstClass bulletin board system proved to be an excellent resource for information exchange and learner support. Teachers, site facilitators, and dispersed learners worked productively together and succeeded in lowering the traditionally high dropout rate. Input from participants was weighted highly by the design team, and concerns were acted upon quickly and effectively. Their mid-course review provided valuable insights and resulted in a number of significant modifications to the prograM--an excellent example of iterative design.

Online support groups are becoming popular in local, as well as global, settings. Discussion groups and networked learning environments are important forms of support for adult learners in commuter schools with alternative class schedules, who must balance family and job responsibilities with academic requirements.

In a higher education environment, we (Sherry & Myers, 1996) have found that the relative importance of formal classes is decreasing, whereas the use of electronic tutorials and references, posing questions to sysops and other experts via e-mail, and participation in online discussion groups is increasing. Students use the automatic distribution list feature of their e-mail system to send informal messages to their professors and classmates, seek clarification about topics discussed in class, present and refute arguments, build a collaborative knowledge base, and mentor their peers. This helps to build a constructivist learning environment in which knowledge, rather than being transmitted by a professor, is developed collaboratively by the students.

Needless to say, "one size does not fit all" where learning and support are concerned. Informal human support has its strengths and limitations, as do instruction, information tools, and other performance supports. Table 1 compares some key resources available to support human performance, noting their principal strengths and limitations.

Support	Examples	Strengths	Limitations
Designed Messages and Experiences	-Documentation -Training and instruction -Simulations -Web pages	-Conveys information well -Good peer review -Quality control	-Expensive to produce -Difficult to keep updated -May require specialized hardware/software
Information Tools and Resources	-Information databases -Procedural aids -Online help -Quick references -Search tools	-Flexible user control -Easy to construct and maintain -Specific and detailed -High-level expertise -Timely -Easy to keep up to date	-Information overload -May not be presented well -Variable quality -May not match user's needs
Informal Human Support	-Primary workgroup (office, team, cohorts, family, etc.) -Specialized support groups (online support groups, self-help groups, users' groups, SIGs, clubs, etc.)	-On-on-one mentoring -Backup support, helping where other supports fail -Local expertise -Motivational support -Group identity -Quick response time	-Resource intensive -Variable quality -Limited presentation capabilities -Lack of access

Table 1. Key Resources for Performance Support

In general, the best performance-support systems employ all three kinds of supports--designed messages, tools, and human support. They each fill a needed niche within the overall system. Over-reliance on one type of support places an undue burden on that component to fill the complex needs of people in performance settings.

New Environments: New Roles for Designers

How does the move from a fixed, linear design approach to a more situated, systemic, bottom-up, user-sensitive approach affect the designer of instructional or information systems? A decade ago, Gould and Lewis (1985) introduced three principles for user-centered design, which were more often honored in their breach than in their practice:

early focus on users and tasks--the design team should be brought into direct contact with typical users right from the start of the design process;

empirical measurement--allow intended users to use simulations and prototypes to perform real tasks in the context of the workplace;

focus on iterative design--incorporate results of pilot-testing on typical users into the next version of the system.

Analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation are sometimes carried out by teams who have little contact with end users in the field. Such teams may end up designing a product to meet the requirements of management, rather than having direct, empirical feedback from ordinary users. Grudin (1991) identified several problems arising from this division of labor which adversely affect the end user:

market researchers query managers, rather than typical end users;

designers use rational analysis rather than a creative, situated, empirical approach where human users of a human-machine interface can lead to very unpredictable results;

by the time empirical data on usage gets back to the designers, the developers may already have moved on to new products, and the documentation, support, and marketing may already have been cast in concrete.

This scenario can be remedied through these, and perhaps other, early interventions:

include stakeholders and end users in the composition of design teams;

get designers out into the field to become participants in the culture;

integrate methods of pilot-testing, prototyping, and formative evaluation into design practice;

encourage users to take more responsibility for their own environments (as in, for example, electronic discussion groups on the World-Wide Web).

These principles apply directly to instructional designers and information technologists, and also to the design of any intervention intended to improve human performance.

Groupware design tools are becoming available, enabling team members to collaborate within a seamless, multi-platform, electronic workspace (see Ishii et al., 1995). Integrated publication and information systems (see Streitz, 1995), open hyperdocument systems (OHS), and hypertext design environments (see Nanard & Nanard, 1995) are now being developed and refined. Environments for collaborative design de-emphasize quick turnaround time and focus on the designer's interaction with the application, the user's interaction with the designer, and the team members's interactions with one another. Likewise, they de-emphasize "generate, then test" and stress interaction between designers and users through all phases of the design (Winograd, 1995). Thus many of the top-down, goal-based, structured problem-solving methods learned in school need to be unlearned. A cycle of innovation develops where new tools lead to new practices, which in turn open up possibilities for new innovations that make the end user's task easier.

One implication of these new design environments is the merging of traditionally separate roles. Grudin (1991) notes that participatory or collaborative design, as well as the current trend toward customization of software products, puts the end users in direct contact with the developers during the entire development process. Software development teams may cycle members through instructional design, corporate training, manning the helpdesk, site visitation, and a variety of other related activities, to give each member a more holistic picture of how end users will eventually react to the finished product. Trainers, too, may wear many hats: presenter, developer, learning facilitator, and system design team member.

Winograd (1995) sees another new design trend: a move from technology-driven, through productivity-driven, to appeal-driven software that focuses on the cognitive processes of the end user, rather than the internal mechanisms or algorithms of the product. As the emphasis on user participation in iterative design blurs the distinction between design and support, Winograd remarks:

The perspective of software design shifts from the 'outside looking in' focus on mechanisms to an 'inside looking out' focus on people and their situations; how people experience software, what they do with it; and the larger situation in which they encounter it. (p. 68).

As a result, the design process itself becomes less systematic and more situated. Nanard and Nanard (1995) see design as a blend of top-down and bottom-up processes, a mix of formal methods and creative mental activities on the part of the designer, rather than a systematic approach. Similarly, Rowland (1994) sees the designer as "'betwixt and between', i.e., as maintaining a balance of two perspectives--that of the outsider creating on behalf of another and that of an insider experiencing the look and feel and the consequences of the envisioned design" (p. 19). The creative tension between designing and evaluating, and especially between the rational and intuitive approach to design, is what drives the quality of the process.

Conclusion

Knowledge is built by reconciling alternative points of view. Rosenberg sums up the EPSS viewpoint toward training:

[E]lectronic-performance support is a revolution. It's a recognition that you can get to performance without necessarily going through learning, and I think it's a whole new paradigm...the opportunities are theirs [for trainers] to create fabulous new information streams to replace training so that people can access what they need when they need it. (in Geber et al., 1995, p. 68)

Rossett (in Geber at al., 1995), by contrast, is in favor of "legitimate" training. Both agree that the emphasis should be on just-in-time, just-in-place information, situated in the context where it is to be used, and easily comprehensible by the end user. Instructional systems, EPSSs, HPT, integrated documentation and information systems, and informal user support should be combined into a mature support system for people who are trying to do their jobs.

Moreover, the design process itself is open to new alternatives. Design, whether for instruction, for online help systems, or for software development, will approach that of an open, rather than a closed, system. Designers will collaborate closely with end users and other team members at all stages from conceptualization and design, through development, to documentation, training, and support. Roles will merge as marketing personnel and trainers serve on system design teams, system designers man helpdesks, and information technologists become involved with user support. The design process itself will evolve from a formal, systematic model based on "golden rules" and guidelines to a flexible, iterative process that is much more attuned to the context and needs of the end user.

Clearly, the problem of striking a delicate balance between designer control vs. learner control will continue to exist. The emphasis, however, will be placed more and more upon the user and the community, rather than the designer, to define the process of instruction or support, and upon the designer to implement increasingly user-friendly and adaptive support systems.

References

Adix, R. (1995). Selecting online software: The team approach. STC Intercom, 42(9), 12.

Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology (pp. 88Ð101. Englewood CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Bresnan, L. (1995). Usability testing: A human approach. STC Intercom, 42(9), 16-17.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Lauren B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crane, B. A. (1995). Making manuals more user-friendly. STC Intercom, 42(9), 17, 46.

Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the experience of collaborative learning. London: Routledge.

Dick, W. (1996, February). The Dick & Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis IN.

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 1Ð16). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Edelson, D. C., Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. (1996). Constructivism in the collaboratory. Unpublished manuscript: Northwestern University.

Farquhar, J. D., & Surry, D. W. (1993). Adoption analysis: An additional tool for instructional developers. Educational Technology and Training International, 31 (1), 19Ð25.

Garland, K. P. (1995). Diffusion and adoption of instructional technology. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.) (pp. 282Ð287). Englewood CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Gould, J. D., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 29(3), 300-311.

Grudin, J. (1991). Obstacles to user involvement in software product development, with implications for CSCW. International journal of man-machine studies, 34, 435-452.

Geber, B., Harless, J., Rossett, A., Gery, G., & Rosenberg, M. (1995, June). A rabble-rousing roundtable. Training, 61-68.

Hackos, J. (1995, April). Trends Forum explores future of technical communication. STC INTERCOM, 42(4), 4-5, 16-17.

Hancock, C., Kaput, J. J., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1992). Authentic inquiry with data: Critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27 (3), 337Ð364.

Ishii, H., Kobayashi, M., & Arita, K. (1994). Iterative design of seamless collaboration media. Communications of the ACM, 37(8), 83-97.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 5Ð14.

Kahn, P. Visual cues for local and global coherence in the WWW. Communications of the ACM, 38(8), 67-69.

Lawyer-Brook, D., & Sherry, L. (1996). Creating Rural Connections: An Internet training program for rural K-12 teachers. Paper presented at the Seventh National Conference on College Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville, FL.

Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41 (3), 4Ð16.

McKenzie, J. (1995, June). Home Sweet Home - Creating WWW pages which deliver. Educational Technology Journal. [Online], Available: http://www.pacificrim.net/~mcKenzie.

Nanard, J., & Nanard, M. Hypertext design environments and the hypertext design process. Communications of the ACM, 38(8), 49-56.

Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Alfred A Knopf.

Perkins, D. N. (1996). Preface: Minds in the 'Hood. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publication

Porter, D., Fallick, A., & Dagert, T. (1995). New directions in distance learning: The year in review. Available: David Porter, Open Learning Agency, 4355 Mathissi Place, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5G 4S8.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rossett, A. (1991). Needs Assessment. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 156-169). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Rowland, G. (1994, January). Conceptual models and issues in systems design. Educational Technology, 10-22.

Seels, B. B. (Ed.). (1995). Instructional design fundamentals: A reconsideration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.

Sherry, L., & Myers, K. M. M. (1996). Developmental Research on Collaborative Design. Proceedings of the Society for Technical Communication 43rd Annual Conference, Arlington, VA.

Stansel, J. (1995, July). Bits & Bytes. The Apple Press, Newsletter of the Polk Apple Core User's Group, 3.

Stevens, G. H., & Stevens, E. F. (1996). Designing electronic performance support tools:: Improving workplace performance with hypertext, hypermedia, and multimedia. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Streibel, M. J. (1991). Instructional plans and situated learning. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 117-132). Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.

Streitz, N. A. Designing hypermedia: A collaborative activity. Communications of the ACM, 38(8), 70-71.

Suchman, LA. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human/machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, R. (1991). NSPI president challenges instructional design profs. ITED Newsletter, 1, 4-5.

Tessmer, M., & Harris, D. (1992). Analysing the instructional setting: Environmental analysis. London: Kogan Page.

Thuring, M., Hannemann, J., & Haake, J. (1995). Hypermedia and cognition: Designing for comprehension. Communications of the ACM, 38(8), 57-66.

Trends in the information world. (1995). Trends in Technical Communication, Proceedings of the Society for Technical Communication 42nd Annual Conference.

Wilson, B., Osman-Jouchoux, R., & Teslow, J. (1995). The impact of constructivism (and postmodernism) on ID fundamentals. In B. B. Seels (Ed.), Instructional design fundamentals: A reconsideration (pp. 137Ð157). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Wilson, B., Ryder, M., McCahan, J., & Sherry, L. (1996). Cultural assimilation of the Internet: A case study. In M. Simonson (Ed.), Proceedings of selected research and development presentations . Washington D. C.: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, in press.

Winn, W. D. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design. Instructional Science, 19, 53-69.

Winograd, T. (1995). From programming environments to environments for designing. Communications of the ACM, 38(6), 675-74.

Lorraine Sherry

is a research associate at RMC, Inc. in Denver Colorado. She is also a doctoral student at the University of Colorado at Denver. E-mail: lsherry@carbon.cudenver.edu

Brent Wilson

is an associate professor and serves as Lorraine's doctoral advisor. They share an interest in the adoption and use of innovative learning resources, and in the cultivation of learning communities that make use of those resources. E-mail: bwilson@carbon.cudenver.edu

Lorraine Sherry

Updated October 19, 1996

Sample Applications Design Assumptions

Assumptions

The primary performance support within the application is intrinsic to the application and occurs as a result of user interface design and system communication and behavior (e.g. message boxes, labels and language, metaphors, feedback, etc.)

THE APPLICATION is built on Performance Centered Design principles (Attachment A)

The APPLICATION user interface is the primary mechanism for task support and learning. Additional resources will complement the UI.

Formal usability testing with representative novice and intermediate users will be the measure by which THE APPLICATION is evaluated and modified.

All intrinsic and other support is geared to Novice and Intermediate performers with no APPLICATION experience

Experienced users will be able to use the application and invoke support without major productivity loss

Extrinsic performance support structures incorporate a minimalist design philosophy providing just-in-time and just-enough information and guidance. Resources will be simple, straight-forward and sufficient. They will not include gratuitous graphics, superfluous content, or patronizing feedback.

Extrinsic performance support resources are tightly coupled with primary displays and minimize breaks from task performance.

Support resources are integrated and linked where appropriate.

Support resources are reusable and extensible

As much as possible, support resources will require limited programming and employ THE APPLICATION and Windows '95 Help architecture.

Support resource development requirements will be contingent on final primary display but the development process will be structured to permit as much parallel development and testing activity as possible.

There will be continued travel agent involvement in design and evaluation activities.

Design will be a collaborative effort between UI designers, performance support designer and author, and Apollo Team members.

Design and development process will be iterative and employ rapid prototyping techniques. Prototypes will progress from low to high fidelity (i.e. paper to screen to working structures)

THE APPLICATION performance support will not support Windows '95 and mouse training

Scope Definition

To be completed.

Date: TBD

Responsibility: Name of those responsible

For other than labels and language which are inherent on each display, the following needs to be identified for each support resource type

development tool or environment and implementation methods

number of each support type

complexity of information gathering, development and implementation for all support resources other than Tool Tips

The role of technology in improving performance

by Barry Raybould

Improving individual and organizational performance requires changes in organization, processes and technology. Continuing improvements in technology are providing many new opportunities to improve performance and these in turn are starting to enable new processes and organizational structures. In this article I survey the range of technology options for improving human performance, and introduce the concept of a performance support continuum , a range of options or performance support structures from which to choose for any performance improvement initiative.

Technology plays a different role depending on where you are on this continuum. Even though some of these structures are not electronic or technology-based, most of them can be integrated electronically. For example on a performance-centered Intranet you can disseminate instructor-led training materials that you can print on-demand or you can maintain a database of phone numbers of company experts that are available via hotline support.

There are several ways to categorize the various options for improving human performance. Three key ways of classifying these technologies are:

Performance versus learning focus

On-the-job versus off-the-job, and

Technology only versus human intervention

Let us take a look at each of these three attributes in turn.

Performance versus learning focus

Performance

Interventions can be designed with the primary objective of transferring knowledge or of producing performance. In the performance support literature it has been shown that it is possible to design an intervention that can generate performance without pre-requisite learning. Learning often occurs as a by-product but it is not the primary objective. (See discussion of the organizational/performance learning cycle in Raybould, 95). Technologies that focus on performance as the primary objective are referred to as performance-centered systems, in which a software application is designed in such a way as to allow someone to perform a job at a high level of performance using the techniques of closely integrating the knowledge, information and tools a job performer needs into the interface of the software itself. [Gery, 95, Raybould, 96]. The knowledge and information can be integrated into the primary work area of the software (usually the main window), or it can be in a separate work area that is linked to the primary work area, often a pop-up window or second window on the screen. Technologies in this category include:

Performance Support Tools: specialized software applications to help people perform specific tasks such as give an employee review, write a legal document or develop a negotiating strategy

Performance-Centered Information Systems: such as a customer call center application

Performance-Centered Intranets- Intranets designed around a task-oriented structure

These technologies use a variety of performance support structures in the human/computer interface to support the job performer. In the primary work area these include performance support structures such as on-screen text and graphics, dialog boxes, pushbuttons, task bars. In the secondary work area these include performance support structures such as wizards, cue cards and on-line reference.

Learning

Performance support structures can also be designed with a learning focus in which case the primary objective is that of transferring knowledge to long-term memory. Technologies that fall into this category are:

Computer-based training (CBT)

Web-based training (WBT): CBT delivered via an Intranet (An Intranet is similar to the Internet, but only accessible within an organization), and

the various types of simulation technologies, such as software simulators, business practice simulators or equipment simulators

CBT and WBT are fundamentally an electronic form of Instructor-Led Training. Instead of an instructor facilitating the student's interaction with the course material, these interactions are programmed into the computer to facilitate transfer of knowledge to long-term memory. Simulations re-create the work situation to provide a "safe" learning environment. They may be totally technology based or involve a mix of technology and traditional approaches such as paper-based media or instructor-led facilitation.

On-the-job versus off-the-job

Performance support structures can also be designed to be used either on-the-job or off-the job. Often those structures whose primary goal is performance are intended for use on-the-job and those structures whose primary goal is learning are used off-the-job although there is a body of practice called OTJ (On-the-job) which is an exception to this. Performance support structures designed to be used off-the-job include

Audio-cassette based courses

Video based courses

CBT

CBT can be designed however into smaller, more granular units. Often web-based training (WBT) is designed this way. These training units are designed to be used both on-the-job and off-the-job depending on the nature of the job and the amount of time the job performer has in between work activities to go through a training module.

Technology only versus human intervention

Finally the third attribute is whether human support is required or the support is provided completely by technology. Performance support structures in which human intervention is required include:

Hotline support (support available by telephone from a pool of experts)

Peer support (support available from co-workers)

In hotline support technology plays a role in two ways. First the job performer may have access to an electronic database of experts and their telephone numbers. Secondly, the expert at the end of the telephone hotline may be supported by technology. This technology might include

a call-center system

an expert system (containing a body of expertise encoded as a series of IF-THEN rules)

a case-based reasoning system (containing a body of previous case histories that can be searched to find out how a similar problem was solved in the past

a text retrieval system (containing information that can be searched)

Selecting the most effective technology

Performance support structures fall along a continuum from most effective and most productive at the top to least effective and least productive at the bottom. In the table: "The Performance Support Continuum" I list and describe many of these different options for providing support for human performance. This is because research has shown that learning is most effective when it is done on-the-job in the context of actual work [Seeley 89, Streibel 89], and workers are clearly more productive when they are on-the-job. When taking a performance-oriented rather than a training-oriented approach you place emphasis at the top end of the table, rather than lower down. When determining how best to apply technology to improve human performance, it is most effective to use technology to either build or enable structures towards the top of the table. Of course in any performance-based initiative there are a number of constraints and most initiatives use a combination of structures from the table. The trick is the choose the right balance for optimum performance.

Table: The Performance Support Continuum

Key:

P	√	Performance-oriented
		Learning-oriented
O	√	On-the-Job
		Off-the-Job
N	√	No human support needed
		Human support needed
I	√	Support integrated in primary work area
		Support linked or external to primary work area

P	O	N	I	Structure	How it can support the worker
√	√	√	√	On-screen text and graphics	Can display knowledge to support the worker's current task in the main window of a software application, such as procedure steps, tips, examples, checklists, definitions from a glossary or some necessary background conceptual or process knowledge. May be context-sensitive.
√	√	√	√	Dialog box	Can provide the same support as on-screen text and graphics, but displayed in a pop-up box. Can be automatically triggered based on the workers actions.
√	√	√	√	Pushbutton	Can automate the worker's task in software.
√	√	√	√	Task bar	Can be used to lead the worker through a series of tasks in a sequence.
√	√	√	√	Dynamic dialog box advisors	A series of choice boxes that lets the worker know what choices are available, given choices that have already been made.
√	√	√	√	Pull-down menus and commands	Can show the job worker what can be done at any point in time by displaying it as a menu or a command listed in a menu.
√	√	√	√	Monitor	Part of a software program that tracks what the worker is doing in the software and pro-actively provides guidance and tips for doing the work or using the application more efficiently.
√	√	√	√	Task-oriented interface	A series of screens that contain a number of the above structures to sequentially gather information and choices from the worker and then perform some action in the software.
√	√	√	√	Animation	Moving graphics that can support the worker by demonstrating visually a series of events or showing how something works.
√	√	√	√	Advisor	A series of screens in the main window or in an overlay window designed to support the worker by diagnosing a problem or situation and providing advice. May be based on a simple decision tree logic or on a more complex set of rules using expert system technology.
√	√	√	√	Template	A pre-structured format or shell for something the worker wants to create that provide the worker a "place to start" without having to develop from scratch. May contain on-screen text or graphics or link to dialog boxes to provide task support.
√	√	√	√	Checker	A function that verifies something the worker has created in the software for completeness, accuracy or appropriateness.
√	√	√	√	Feedback	Provides a way for the worker to respond or give input to the designer of the system or developer of the content.
√	√	√		Search function	A part of the software that helps the worker find some information or knowledge stored electronically.
√	√	√		Wizard (aka Assistant, or Helper)	A task-oriented interface displayed in an overlay window to perform some task in the main window. Actually performs a set of actions in the primary window, unlike cue cards and advisors which only recommend an action. Used to make an existing software application whose main program code you cannot change more performance-centered.
√	√	√		Coach	A series of screens displayed in an overlay window that gives the worker help and advice with a complex task in the main window one step at a time. Branches according to the worker's current context. Keeps some control when the user is working in the main window to prevent the worker making errors. Also used to make an existing software application whose main program code you cannot change more performance-centered.
√	√	√		Cue card	Similar to a coach but less sophisticated in that it does not keep control when the user is working in the main window, allowing for the possibility of the cue card help getting out of step with the worker's task in the main window. Also used to make an existing software application whose main program code you cannot change more performance-centered.
√	√	√		Show me software demonstrations	A type of animation that demonstrates how the worker does something in a software application. Often "canned", but can use live software.
√	√	√		Multimedia presentation	A series of screens displayed in the main window or in an overlay window that gives the worker background conceptual or process knowledge about the work. May use any combination of media including text, graphics, animation, audio or digital video.
√	√	√		Procedural help	An overlay window that provides step-by-step instructions on how to complete tasks in the main window. Similar to cue cards but all the steps are displayed in a single scrolling window, each step in less detail than in a cue card.
√	√	√		Field-level help	Supports the worker in entering data in a particular field of a form. Provides guidance on format and syntax and examples of correct input.
√	√	√		Help system	An overlay window that can contain any combination of procedural, field-level, window and conceptual help and provides access to them via a table of contents, search and keyword index. Used to make an existing software application whose main program code you cannot change more performance-centered.
√	√	√		On-line reference	Electronically delivered manuals.
√	√	√		Assessments	Timed or judged tests activities that allow the worker to test their knowledge of the task or application.
√	√			Hotline support	A call center available to the worker for assistance provided by experts. Experts often use other performance support structures. Note: Integrated electronically: EPSS contains database of expert's individual or department telephone numbers.
√	√			Peer support	Co-workers who provide help with the work. Usually located physically close to the job worker.
	√	√		Practice activities	Structured "let me try" activities that allow the worker to practice their knowledge of a task or of an application.
	√	√		Practice questions	Questions that test a job worker's knowledge about a topic, or skill in an area.
	√			On-the-job training (OJT)	The training environment and the actual work environment are the same. Training materials can be used, but typically any software or equipment is part of the production resources.
		√		Business practice simulator	Part paper-based, part computer-based exercises that let workers use live software as part of an activity to simulate an area of business practice and compare their approaches with models recommended by experts. Simulations provide safe environments for users to practice real-world skills. They can be especially important in situations where real errors would be too dangerous or too expensive. May be stored in the EPSS and printed on demand.
		√		Software simulator	A reconstruction of a software application's display that allows the worker to initiate actions and get responses.
		√		Equipment simulator	Mimics the functionality of control panels of equipment to show system responses or machine movements, simulate feedback, and provide the look and feel of equipment or systems.
		√		Computer-based training (CBT)	CBT uses any combination of interactive multimedia such as audio, text, color graphics, animation, color photographs, and motion video to accurately reflect processes or procedures and to enhance the learning process. Student's interaction with the program determines whether learning has taken place. Integrated electronically by linking or embedding in an EPSS.
		√		Audio-based courses	Training courses delivered primarily on audio cassettes. May be accompanied by paper-based materials. Limited interaction compared with CBT.
		√		Video-based courses	Training courses delivered primarily on video. May be accompanied by paper-based materials. Limited interaction compared with CBT.
				Hands-on training	ILT where actual software or equipment is incorporated as a training tool to facilitate actual task practice. Conducted in a training environment, not on-the-job..
				Instructor-led training (ILT)	Traditional training incorporating the use of a facilitator / expert and training materials. Typically this is a scheduled event where a group of students meet with the instructor in a classroom environment. Integrated electronically: EPSS contains database of schedules and electronic masters of course materials.

Adapted from resources in the Ariel PSE(tm) Methodology Library, Ariel Performance Centered Systems, Inc.

Summary

In this article we have seen that there are a number of techniques, or performance support structures, for supporting human performance each of which can involve technology to a greater or lesser degree. These structures and technologies vary in their emphasis on performance versus learning, whether they are used on-the-job or off-the-job and whether they require human intervention. When embarking upon any new initiative to improve human performance, a range of structures will be needed. The initiative is likely to be most successful and cost-effective if it is weighted towards the top of the continuum. These structures and technologies have a strong performance rather than a learning focus, are used on-the-job rather than off-the-job and require the minimum of support by other people.

References

[Gery, 95] Gery, Gloria. "Attributes and Behaviors of Performance-Centered Systems" Performance Improvement Quarterly (Washington, D.C.: International Society for Performance Improvement) 8 no.1, (1995)

[Raybould, 95] Raybould, Barry. "Performance Support Engineering: An Emerging EPSS Development Methodology for Enabling Organizational Learning". Performance Improvement Quarterly (Washington, D.C.: International Society for Performance Improvement) 8, no. 1 (1995): 7-22.

[Raybould, 96] Raybould, Barry. "Performance-Centered Design". Training & Development. (March 1996).

[Streibel 89] Streibel, M.J. 1989. Instructional Plans and Situated Learning. Journal of Visual Literacy, 9(2).

[Seeley 89] Seeley Brown, J. 1989. Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher.

Created by rdickelman
Last modified 2004-09-22 03:54 PM

EPSScentral.INFO

Sections

Personal tools

Key Concepts

Document Actions