Human Performance Technology (HPT) is a systematic examination of ways to improve performance in the workplace. The International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) defines HPT as “a systematic approach to improving productivity and competence… it is a process of selection, analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation of programs to most cost-effectively influence human behavior and accomplishment … (and consists of a) combination of three fundamental processes: performance analysis, cause analysis, and intervention selection … applied to individuals, small groups, and large organizations” (ISPI, 2012).
HPT starts with the performance analysis that aims to define a gap in the performance and to map possible solutions of how to close this performance gap and achieve the desired outcomes. A key difference between Instructional Design and HPT is that “HPT practitioners view training as only one of many possible interventions to improve performance”. Another key difference is that all fields have influenced HPT: “information technology, ergonomics and human factors, psychometrics, behavioral feedback systems, organizational development, and change management” (Foshay, et al., 2014, p. 42).
Human Performance Improvement (HPI) is defined as “the systematic process of discovering and analyzing important human performance gaps, planning for future improvements in human performance, designing and developing cost effective and ethically justifiable solutions to close performance gaps, implementing the solutions, and evaluating the financial and nonfinancial results” (Rothwell, 2012). According to Stolovitch (2018), “HPI is what we wish to achieve and HPT is the means we use to achieve it. In another sense, however, the two terms can be viewed as being synonymous” (p. 124). The term HPI is relatively new, only coming into use in the 1990s. This has been attributed to its softer sound than HPT.
Human Performance Technology (HPT) and Human Performance Improvement (HPI) are terms that are used interchangeably and also in conjunction, HPT/HPI. Similarly, the lines between the fields of ID and HPT/HPI continue to blur. What are the similarities and differences between instructional design, human performance technology (HPT) and human performance improvement (HPI) and human performance technology/improvement (HPT/HPI) as you understand them? How do you use these terms in your work to help people, groups, or organizations achieve desired performance?
References
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.
Stolovitch, H. D. (2018). The development and evolution of human performance improvement. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th Ed.), (pp. 121-131). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Andrew R. Claassen 
Andrew,
Great observations! I’ve been noticing the lines between ID and HPT/HPI blurring as well. Something that I’ve been thinking about is how HPT begins with an analysis of a gap in knowledge, performance, etc. yet ID usually begins with developing specific outcomes we want learners to meet. There’s been a lot of work recently in developing adaptive learning in more traditional ID environments so that, say, a student who comes into a course with significant background knowledge can progress through the material faster because they are able to demonstrate prior knowledge earlier in the course. What would change if ID were able to approach course/learning design from a known or perceived gap rather than beginning with learning outcomes? Learning outcomes could still be developed, but IDs would focus first on gaps in learner’s skill set/knowledge.
Best,
David
LikeLike
Hi Andrew
I use the phrase “it’s not always a training issue” often! What I like about HPT/HPI is that it focuses on external factors that can come into play when trying to bridge gaps in learning.
For example, I train claims processors on a particular software system. Their success is determined not only on the training they receive in class, but several other factors outside of the training environment. Sometimes, the support they receive once out on the floor is not the greatest. Other times, they may be required to work in their old system to help groups catch up- when that happens, they lose some of the training they just received! It is super frustrating as a trainer when the business comes back and says that the associates did not receive proper training, when in fact external influences have presented more challenges.
LikeLike