A Presentation On

An Assessment Model for Human Performance Measurement - Theoretical Model and

Distance based Implementation

Presented bySatyakama Paul

University of Johannesburg

Presented at The 8th Annual London Business Research Conference

Imperial College, London, July 2013.

The major organizational challenges faced in a knowledge based economy

Creation of Sustained Competitive Advantage

– by transforming employees from “resources” into “assets”.

Asset:

As per Barney’s Resource Based View:

1. Value

2. Rareness

3. Imperfect imitability

4. Non-substitutability.

Objective of this present research

Creation of Sustained Competitive Advantage

– by transforming employees from “resources” into “assets”.

A Review of Literature

1. Kravetz (1998) and Hansen et al. (1989)

2. U.S Department of Labor (1993), Kling (1995), Delaney et al. (1996), Becker et al. (1998), and Appleby et al.(2000)

3. Welbourne et al. (1996)

4. Pfeffer (1998)

Seven principles of workforce management:

– employment security

– selective hiring of new personnel,

– self-managed teams and decentralization of decision making

– comparatively high compensation contingent on organizational performance

– extensive training

– reduced status distinctions and barriers, and

– extensive sharing of financial and performance information.

Limitations of the Works and the Models based upon them

Reasons for non application or limited application of the models.

• Peace-meal approach,

• Management commitment,

• No provision for decision models, and analytical tools.

Importance of the Research Endeavor

The Assessment model for Human Performance Measurement (APM) tries to:

1. Build an integrated framework of three factors:

i. Human capability

ii. Customer capability, and

iii. Organizational capability.

2. Formulate a decision model, and provide analytical tools for performance management.

Organizational Capability Factor

Customer FactorHuman Resource

Factor

PM

Development of the theoretical model

The Human capability factor

Understanding the Career path of a professional in a Knowledge-based economy Advisor

1. Dalton et al. Career Stage Model (1977) Counselor Colleague

Entry

2. Schein’s Career Anchor Model (1990) – An anchor is “a pattern of self-perceived talents, motives and values that serve to guide, constrain, stabilize and integrate individual careers.”

Career Anchors - (a) Technical/Functional Competence, (b) General Managerial Competence, (c) Autonomy/Independence, (d) Security/Stability, (e) Entrepreneurial Creativity, (f) Service/Dedication to a cause, (g) Pure Challenge, and (h) Lifestyle.

3. Derr’s Career Success Map (1986)

Five career motives are: (a) Getting ahead, (b) Getting secure, (c) Getting free, (d) Getting high, and (e) Getting balanced.

Technical Competence,

Security/Stability

Pure Challenge

General Managerial Competence,

Autonomy/Independence

Entrepreneurial Creativity,Service/Dedication, Getting balanced

Identifying Motivators (Result requirements)

+

+

+

+Level of team

work experience

Level of functional expertise

Leadership styles, Thinking style

Multiple IQ, Capacity toAdjust to new, novel

environment

Entry

Colleague

Counselor

Advisor

Identifying Cognitive Competencies (Behavioural

requirements)

Sta

ges

of a

P

rofe

ssio

nal

C

aree

r

Construct of the Human capability factor

Development of the Customer capability factor

Understanding Customers based upon their Expectations

Duffy’s Model of Customer Centricity (2001)

1st Stage Acquisition

2nd Stage Retention

3rd StageLoyalty

4th Stage Collaboration

Evolving Natu

re of

Customer

Expectat

ions

Acquisition

Retention

Loyalty

Collaboration

Assurance(Project deadline, Practical

solutions, Need satisfaction, etc)

Reliability (Security of information, Trust,

Teamwork, etc)

Empathy, Process(Mission-vision, Core

competency issues, Best practices)

Identifying the Customerexpectation Variables through SERVQUAL

Construct the Customer capability factor

Stag

es o

f C

usto

mer

E

xpec

tatio

n

Responsibility, Education (Leadership skills, Strong

Technical knowledge, T&D)

Entry

Colleague

Counselor

AdvisorS

tage

s of

a

Pro

fess

ion

al

Car

eer

Development of the Organizational capability factor

Technical T&D, Workgroup development

Identifying the Organizational Capability Variables

Entry

Colleague

Counselor

Advisor

Sta

ges

of a

P

rofe

ssio

nal

Car

eer

Competency development, Career Development

Empowered workgroups

Capability Management, Training on Innovation

Devising a formulae

Deriving a Formula for Human Performance MeasurementReview of Literature on Intellectual Capital

Scandia Navigator (1994) – Focus upon: Human, Customer, Process, R&D, Finance.

Sveiby’s Intangible Assets Monitor (1997)

Firm’s Assets

Financial Capital

Intellectual Capital

Human Capital

Structural Capital

Market Value

Shareholder Equity

Intangible Assets

People Competence

External Structure

Internal Structure

(Contd.)

Deriving a Formula for Human Performance Measurement

Roos et al. Intellectual Capital Index Model (1997)

Total Value

Financial Capital

Intellectual Capital Renewal and Development

Relational

Organization

Intellectual Property

Competence

AttitudeHuman Capital

Structural Capital

(Contd.)

Asset Capital

Inputs Outputs

The Input Output Model of APM

Formulation of a generic Assessment Model for Human Performance

Measurement and Analysis

Human capability

Customer capability

Organizational capability

Human Capital

Relational Capital

Structural Capital

Objective

(Attributes)

(Attributes)

(Attributes)

Integration

The Formulae For Performance MeasurementA Professional’s Performance measured as:

Where:

Human capital consists of components of Human capability factor

Relational capital consists of components of Customer capability factor.

Structural capital consists of components of Organizational capability factor.

ω1, ω2, and ω3 are the respective weights.

1 2 3Asset capital Human capital Relational capital Structural capital Eq. [1]

Creation of the Knowledge-based Assessment System

Knowledge

Repository

Inference Engine

Explanatory Facility

User Interface

Entry Colleague Counselor Advisor

Use of APM as a HRD/Strategic tool

(** The Career path is assumed to have continuous milestones rather than discreet ones.)

Proposed Usage of APM

APM can be used for:– Strategic H.R decisions.

– Identification of problem areas within the three factors.

– The knowledge-based system can create Sustained Competitive Advantage.

An example of implementation – Promotion decision

Three possible candidates (c1, c2 and c3) – Who to promote???

Capitals Dimensions Attributes Denoted by

Weights assigned

Human Human capability

Technical competency A1 ω1

Team work competency A2 ω1

Relational Customer capability

Expertise in presenting practical solutions to the customers

A3 ω2

Adherence to project deadline

A4 ω2

Organizational Organizational Capability

Quality of technical training provided by the organization to the professional

A5 ω3

Quality of team development training provided by the organization

A6 ω3

Characterization of the Entry stage

Grading the attributes Corresponding values

Excellent 1.0Very very good 0.9

Very good 0.8Good 0.7

Quite Good 0.6Not so good 0.5Quite bad 0.4

Bad 0.3Very bad 0.2

Very very bad 0.1Terrible 0

ω1, ω2 and ω3 are 1, 0.8, and 0.5, respectively.

relative importance’s of the weights are :ω1= (1/2.3 = 0.434)

ω2= (0.8/2.3 = 0.347)

ω3 = (0.5/2.3 =0.217).

Desired Vector

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

c0

0.7 0.6  0.9  1.0 0.8 0.7 

Actual Vector1

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

c10.8 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.8

Actual Vector2

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

c2

0.6 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.8

Actual Vector3

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

c31.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8

Results

1c : 0.434 * 0.8 0.3 0.347 * 0.7 0.4 0.217 * 0.9 0.8 1.228

2c : 0.434 * 0.6 0.7 0.347 * 0.5 0.2 0.217 * 0.9 0.8 1.176

3c : 0.434 * 1.0 0.5 0.347 * 0.6 0.6 0.217 * 0.9 0.8 1.436

Further considerations

d aci

,

[{ * C } – { * C }]m

µ

Where: : Property by which actual level above and below the desired level is penalized. Mathematically this can be achieved by the modulus operation m : Refer to the attribute : Weight of attribute m

dC :Desired level of the attribute m required for promotion a

ciC : Actual level of the attribute m possessed by candidate ci

1

2

3

c : 0.434* {0.7 0.8} 0.0434

c : 0.434* {0.7 0.6} 0.0434

c : 0.434* {0.7 1.0} 0.1302

d aci

,

[ { * C } – { * C }]v n

v Where: v : Property by which actual level that is below the desired level is penalized n : Refer to the attribute n : Weight of attribute n

dC : Desired level of the attribute n required for promotion a

ciC : Actual level of the attribute n possessed by candidate ci

1c : [ 0.434 *{ 0.6 0.3 } 0.347 *{ 0.9 0.7 } 0.347 *{ 1.0 0.4 }] 

0.217 *{ 0.8 0.9 } 0.217 *{ 0.7 0.8 }] 0.4078

v v v

v v

2c : [ 0.434 *{ 0.6 0.7 } 0.347 *{ 0.9 0.5 } 0.347 *{ 1.0 0.2 }]

[ 0.217 *{ 0.8 0.9 } 0.217 *{ 0.7 0.8 }] 0.4164

v v v

v v

3c : [ 0.434 *{ 0.6 0.5 } 0.347 *{ 0.9 0.6 } 0.347 *{ 1.0 0.6 }]

[ 0.217 *{ 0.8 0.9 } 0.217 *{ 0.7 0.8 } ] 0.2863

v v v

v v

d a d aci ci

, ,

[{ * C } – { * C }] [ { * C } – { * C }]m v n

D µ v

1

2

3

0.0434 0.4078 0.4512

0.0434 0.4164 0.4598

0.1302 0.2

:

8

c :

63 0 5c 6: .41

c

Q&A

Thank You