From Theory to Practice--Utilizing Human Performance Technology to Assess Computer Security in an Educational Setting.

The American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) defines human performance technology (HPT) as “a systematic approach to analyzing, improving, and managing performance in the workplace through the use of appropriate and varied interventions.” The first step in this approach is the performance analysis (Gilbert, 1978). In this step, the performance technologist/consultant works collaboratively with the client to examine the current situation. Performance gaps or deficiencies are identified and are prioritized according to the needs of the client (ISPI, 2004). This case study describes a project in a graduate level HPT class at a Midwestern university. A team of graduate students was formed to address computer security issues for the client organization. The project team implemented a performance analysis process (Define, Analyze, and Select) as described by Schaffer and Douglas (2004). This process incorporated tools and frameworks such as the Performance Relationship Map (Robinson and Robinson, 1995) and the Performance Pyramid (Wedman and Graham, 1998, 2004). The significance of the project is that it provided a real world context in which the project team and the client could learn about HPT processes. The experiences were enriched by the request from the client to continue the HPT process after the analysis project. Introduction “Think performance, not training!” (Robinson & Robinson, 1995, p. 6). Human Performance Technology (HPT) is a field of professional practice which is project-based and focused on workplace effectiveness (ISPI, 2004; Stolovitch & Keeps, 1999). The application of procedures is derived from scientific research and professional experience and is applied to the solution of practical problems. The American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) defines performance technology as “a systematic approach to analyzing, improving, and managing performance in the workplace through the use of appropriate and varied interventions.” Many names have been given to this field, including human performance technology (Stolovitch & Keeps, 1999), human performance improvement (HPI) (Rothwell, Hohne and King, 2000), human performance enhancement (Rothwell, 1996) performance consulting (Robinson & Robinson, 1995), performance engineering (Dean 1994; Gilbert, 1978), performance technology (Harless, 1992), and so forth. In addition to the various names, many different performance improvement process models exist. The first step in the HPT approach is the performance analysis, in which the performance technologist works collaboratively with the client to examine the current situation at one or more of the following levels: societal, organizational, process, work group, or individual. Performance gaps or deficiencies are identified and are prioritized according to the needs of the client (ISPI, 2004). Schaffer and Douglas (2004) developed a framework for object-oriented performance analysis for the Automated Object-Oriented Performance Analysis Project (AOOPA). This framework recommends that organizations not bypass the problem-solving process by neglecting the definition and analysis of a problem/opportunity or by skipping directly to the selection of a single solution. According to this framework, the most basic elements in performance analysis are three iterative phases: define, analyze, and select. The major tasks for each phase are as follows: § Define: Define the opportunity or problem ο Start with clear statement of the opportunity or problem