|
Samples The following are examples of performance support systems and tools. Many have been formally judged to be excellent examples of EPSS by the annual Performance Centered Design Competition. Others include simple but effective performance support tools, large systems, and specialized systems and tools.
What makes a good performance-centered system?
In her classic article Attributes and Behaviors of Performance Centered Systems Gloria Gery delineated twenty-something elements, including:
Subsets
of these and other attributes and behaviors are exhibited by good
performance-centered systems, but seldom do we find - or need - more
than several in a given system. The goal of a
performance-centered system is to enable business performance, which
means that the desired outcome of the process represented by the system
is achieved.
A
minimalist point of view suggests that a good performance-centered
system would exhibit just a few of the attributes and behaviors if it
is designed to achieve a focused goal. Which subset of the
attributes and behaviors are necessary for a given system depends on
the nature of its goal. Beyond 5 or 6 attributes and behaviors
that are common to most performance-centered systems, there would be
very few additional ones for a given system.
As Alan Cooper points out (in his book The Inmates are Running the Asylum)
that goals and tasks are different things. The task may be war,
but the goal is peace; the task may be to mow the grass, but the goal
is to picnic on the freshly cut lawn; the task may be to program a
logic controller, but the goal is to be the best of the breed (a
business goal).
The criteria used to judge the annual
Performance Centered Design Competition comprise the subset of Gloria
Gery's attributes and behaviors that are common to almost all
performance centered system goals, namely:(1) Establishes or aids in establishing goals;
(2) Stretches the EPSS paradigm;
(3) Supports the performer through best practice processes;
(4) Represents and facilitates the proper flow of work for a given goal and context;
(5) Minimizes translation; and
(6) Provides access to supporting resources.
Moreover, the criteria are weighted by importance, in the order in which they appear above, as follows:
(1) 0.261110243348861
(2) 0.204285153869309
(3) 0.191246870941497
(4) 0.16889007363165
(5) 0.105616067359932
(6) 0.0688515908487502.
The weights were determined by calculated a priority vector using Thomas Saaty's acclaimed Analytic Hierarchy Process (see Decision Making for Leaders) - an integral part of the performance-centered systems development lifecycle.
While
the Analytic Hierarchy Process is...well, analytic, it compels us to
combine judgments and personal values concerning performance in a
logical way.
|