Human Performance Technology

According to Pershing (2006), human performance technology (HPT) can be defined as “the study and ethical practice of improving productivity in organizations by designing and developing effective interventions that are results-oriented, comprehensive, and systemic” (p. 6). HPT is characterized by four distinguishing features that set it apart from other fields and disciplines involved in improving organizations: (1) HPT is evaluation- and change-driven, (2) HPT’s characteristics are dynamic and constantly changing, (3) HPT is non-ideological according to its basis on research and evaluation methodologies and no intervention bias, (4) HPT is eclectic (Pershing, 2006).

Human performance technology and instructional design have both similarities and differences. Foshay et al. (2014) discuss how both instructional design (ID) and human performance technology (HPT) begin with a systems view. Even though they share the same four main characteristics (learners, objectives, methods, and evaluation), ID and HPT differ in application. One of the ways ID and HPT differ is in their frameworks. Instructional design is grounded in a research base, while HPT is mainly supported by performance improvement case studies. Another way the two differ is in their methods. ID employs variations of the ADDIE model to create instructional systems, while HPT implements the HPT model to address performance gaps. While ID might employ rapid prototyping for design, HPT usually does not (Foshay et al., 2014).

Cho, et al. (2011) further discuss the relationship between ID and HPT. The authors identify instructional design as one of five key factions within human performance technology (HPT), with other factions including performance, performance support, organization/workplace, and transfer of training. Instructional design plays a role in supporting the purpose of HPT — ‘‘to engineer systems that allow people and organizations to perform in ways that all stakeholders value’’ (Pershing, 2006, p. xiii). HPT is firmly grounded in instructional design and technology. Its research themes include expertise, models, practices and activities, and HPT foundation (Cho et al., 2011).

How would you explain the way instructional design and HPT relate to one another? What might be the research directions or applications that overlap between HPT and instructional design?

References

Cho, Y., Jo, S. J., Park, S., Kang, I., & Chen, Z. (2011). The current state of human performance technology: A citation network analysis of Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1988-2010. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24(1), 69–95.

Foshay, W. R., Villachica, S. W., & Stepich, D. A. (2014). Cousins but not twins: Instructional design and human performance technology in the workplace. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 39–49). New York: Springer.

Pershing, J. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.) (pp. 5-34). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.