In the wedding scene at the end of the movie “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, the father of the bride, Gus, makes a toast in which he refers to his family and his new son-in-law’s family as “apples and oranges”. He then makes this statement, and it is one of my favorite quotes in the move: “Here tonight, we have, ah, apple and orange. We all different, but in the end, we all fruit.”. I believe that this statement applies no less to our discussion about the differences and similarities between HPT and IST. For this post, I want to discuss some of the similarities and differences between the two that I observed from this week’s readings.
First, I want to discuss one of the primary differences between HPT and IST, and that difference is that HPT is very much focused on producing results that are aligned with the goals of the organization as a whole. The question then is “How does a Human Performance Technologist” do that?”. The answer is that the HPT needs to identify the strategic direction of the organization and once this is identified the goals of stakeholders need to be analyzed and evaluated for how they fall within the strategic direction (Watkins, 2006). Of particular importance is remembering that “partners and stakeholders in projects will have both unique and shared criteria in defining success. As a result, for the performance technologist, recognizing and attending to the multiple strategic goals and objectives of the partners and stakeholders in the project are critical, and since it is unlikely that any performance interventions will completely meet the demands of each of these perspectives, prioritizing these various criteria for success is important.” (Watkins, 2006, p. 199). A lot of the time, IST is primarily focused on what an individual or small group of individuals needs to accomplish within a defined learning environment. HPT is different in that it first focuses on what the organization needs to accomplish at the strategic or macro level and then it moves down the chain to determine what needs to be done within the organization to support that strategic goal. Eventually, the HPT will then evaluate what learning on the individual level needs to occur in order to support the strategic goals from the ground up. This way of looking at things is because of the HPT focus on results. What learning needs to occur cannot be identified until the desired results are identified, and the desired results cannot be identified until the HPT has determined what the organization and its stakeholders are actually trying to accomplish. So, it is very much a top down approach. As Watkins (2006) says, “By defining the common goals and objectives both within the organization and among the stakeholders outside of the organization, strategic planning initiatives can begin to define the results that all agree must be achieved” (p. 193).
Second, I want to discuss one of the ways that HPT and IST are very similar. One of our strongest similarities lies in the fact that both enterprises for the most part use models to support their work. According to Wilmoth, F. S., Prigmore, C., & Bray, M. (2010) in referring to HPT, “The key concept here is the ability of the individual, when looking at any complex activity, to conceptualize a myriad of causal relationships and chart them in some manner that can be communicated to others” (p. 6). This is no less true for IST. HPT and IST both use models because models can provide a logical support system and guide for analyzing, evaluating, and determining potential issues and solutions. These models also can help to “visualize and then communicate the process logic” to others who are invested in the process as well (Wilmoth et al., 2010, p. 6). Basically, it is the facts that our work process is so similarly structured and that our work will in the end seek to determine what changes in the learner or the learning process need to occur that make HPT and IST so similar.
Watkins (2006). Aligning Human Performance Technology Decisions with an Organization’s Strategic Direction. In Pershing, J. A. (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (pp. 191-207). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Wilmoth, F. S., Prigmore, C., & Bray, M. (2010). HPT models In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, vol. 2: Selecting and implementing performance interventions (pp. 5-26). Silver Spring, MD: International Soceity for Performance Improvement.
The Learning World Is My Oyster 