Models and Frameworks
Why ? Pros and Cons
Finding a single, “universal” model that can effectively replace any other –HPT or notcurrently in use can be a waste of time and resources, hampering critical multi-disciplinary collaboration. There is a simpler way to get all the possible benefits of a universal model, and it is to combine and align existing HPT and non HPT models according the level of results and dimensions of intervention that our performance project requires.
We can classify the multiple PI/HPT models –more than 46 according to current research8 - into three main categories according with their focus and scope9 :
Individual performance models –such as Gilbert´s BEM (popularly known as the “Six Boxes”), Mager´s performance analysis algorithm, Langdon´s Language of Work (LOW) or Spitzer´s context of work considers individual workers as the unit of analysis.
Organizational performance models – such as Rummler´s Anatomy of Performance (AOP), Brethower´s Total Performance System (TPS), Tosti, Carleton and Lineberry´s SCAN, or Addison, Haig and Kearny´s Performance Architecture (PA) makes process and functional performance their unit of analysis.
Strategic, societal performance models – such as Kaufman´s Organizational Elements Model (OEM) analyze single or multiple organizations´ performance in the market, as part of business and social ecosystems from the perspective of the value added (or subtracted) to customers, employees, investors and other stakeholders. In the real world, most performance problems have multi-level causes and consequences, and require the collaboration of multiple specialists as multi-disciplinary teams.
A review of the models and disciplines involved in more than 60 projects and organizations – summarized in Figure 1 (Bernardez, 2006) -, shows that improving performance to create value for customers and internal stakeholders involves connecting external and internal factors and multiple HPT and non-HPT models.