Mager & Pipe’s Performance Analysis Flowchart

WHERE/WHEN

The Performance Analysis Flowchart (PAF) is a tool used to examine an identified performance gap. It should be used during the performance analysis phase of the Human

Performance Technology (HPT) approach to solving performance gaps.

Very often an HPT practitioner will receive a request for training of staff to address a performance problem. In many situations, however, training may not be the best solution to

address a performance issue. In fact, “What people identify as the problem often isn’t the

problem at all. It is merely a symptom of the problem.” (Mager and Pipe, 1984, p. 2) The

Performance Analysis Flowchart created by Mager and Pipe, shown below, is a process for exploring the cause of an identified performance gap. Through a series of questions and

decision points, the tool guides one through checking assumptions about the cause of a

performance issue and identifying potential solutions to improve performance results.

For best results, collect information from stakeholders such as the performer, managers,

and others impacted by the performance. When collecting information, have a conversation

with the individuals involved, but also observe the work environment and work flows to

discover potential impacts to performance.

WHAT/HOW

The PAF uses a standard flowchart format. It starts with identifying the performer and the

performance discrepancy. Early in the process, the question of worth is introduced. Is the performance discrepancy worth

improving? The possibility exists

that leaving performance as is,

while changing expectations of results, is a viable solution. Or, it

may be found that the cost for

fixing performance is greater than

the cost of leaving it as is, so one

might decide it is not worth it. If, instead, it is determined that it is

worth changing the performance,

the flowchart provides

opportunities to explore underlying causes and solutions to

improve the situation.

The PAF includes a number of decision points suggesting a

simple yes-or-no answer. While

the format suggests simplicity,

responses are likely to be more complex in nature. When using

the tool, it will be helpful to be

open to complex answers as well

as the possibility of using

additional tools for analysis. Doing so will create a more systemic

approach to solving performance

issues in an organization.

Figure 1. Mager & Pipe’s Performance Analysis

Flowchart (Rothwell, Hohne, & King, (2007) Figure 2-10, p. 66)

To assist in the application of the PAF, Mager and Pipe (1997) created a Quick Reference

Checklist. The checklist has been modified here to more clearly identify decision points and

provide a tool for capturing potential solutions. Each decision point is an opportunity to list or identify actions for later consideration as interventions to solve the identified

performance gap.

The Worksheet is arranged as a table with the larger sections aligned with the larger phases of Mager and Pipe’s PAF. The left column is aligned with the decision points in the PAF, with

additional questions to draw out the analysis in the second column. The third column

provides space to make notes as the analysis progresses. At the end of each section, the

space in the third column is reserved for capturing potential action items or future interventions to address the performance issue. These action items are evaluated for

potential impact and sustainability in the last section of the Adapted PAF Worksheet.

While using the Adapted PAF Worksheet, give consideration to the following:

Measures – While defining the problem in the PAF, one must be able to communicate the

performance gap. That is, what is the gap between desirable performance and current

performance? It is important to assign measurable values to performance. Thomas

Gilbert suggests we consider performance in terms of accomplishment. He says, “By accomplishment, we mean the valuable outputs that people leave behind them when

they go home after work.” (1989, p. 5) Identifying performance as a measurable result

will provide clarity and support when selecting a solution and estimating its impact.

Worth – In the early stages of the Performance Analysis Flowchart, one is faced with a

decision to move forward to improve performance or leave the situation as is. After

considering the consequences of the performance discrepancy, consider the

consequences of leaving it alone. “If the result of letting it alone would be negligible, drop it there. If the result is substantially larger than nothing, go to the next steps of the

analysis.” (Mager & Pipe, 1984, p. 22)

Why – Throughout the tool, ask, “Why?” Why is the performance gap a problem? Why is

pursuing a solution important? Apply the 5 Why’s technique to address not just the root cause of a problem, but also the ultimate result or benefit when it comes to considering

interventions. The explanation of the 5 Why’s Technique as described by IMS

International (n.d.) may be useful should “why” opportunities arise.

Adapted PAF Worksheet

Adapted from Mager and Pipe’s Quick Reference Checklist (1997)

Define the Problem Action Steps/Notes

Who has the

performance

issue?

Who is the performer?

What are his/her responsibilities?

Describe the

performance issue.

How is the result of performance measured?

What are the current and preferred performance measures?

Why is the current performance a problem?

Is it worth the time and effort

to improve

performance?

Are there negative consequences if nothing changes?

What are the positive consequences of

improving performance?

Is the preferred performance measure reasonable?

Decision Point Is it worth the investment to improve performance?

Explain why it is or is not worth moving forward to

improve performance.

Explore Fast Fixes

Are the

expectations clear to the

performer?

Can the performer communicate the

expectations? Does the performer’s understanding of the

expectations match the manager’s

expectations?

Does the performer understand why the expectations exist and where they fit in

organizational goals?

Are the

resources

adequate?

Does the performer have the tools, staff,

time, and supplies needed to perform?

Is performance

quality visible?

Does the performer get feedback?

Can the performer see progress toward the

performance goal?

Is coaching or mentoring available to provide performance feedback?

Decision Point Is there a need to provide clarity about expectations, to provide resources to support

performance, or to seek opportunities to

improve feedback to the performer?

List potential solutions, if any, for clarity, resource

needs, and feedback.

Check Consequences

Is desired performance

punishing?

Does the performer experience or perceive negative consequences for performing at a

desirable level?

Is undesired

performance

rewarding?

Does the performer experience or perceive

positive consequences for not performing as

a desirable level?

Do they gain attention, prestige, or comfort

by not performing?

What motivates

performance?

Does desired performance lead to favorable

consequences for the performer? Are there benefits or positive impacts as a

result of reaching performance goals?

Decision Point Are there any consequences, negative or

positive, which would inspire desirable

performance?

List potential motivation

ideas, if any.

Enhance Competence

Is there a skill deficiency?

If no help were available, could the performer figure out how to accomplish the

task?

Has the skill been performed

in the past?

Has the performer been able to accomplish the task in the past?

Have they ever been successful in the

performance in question?

Is the skill used often?

How often does the skill get applied? Does the performer forget how to do the task

because it occurs so infrequently?

Decision Point Does the performer really need to learn the steps to completing the task? Does the

performer needed more practice?

If applicable, identify what skill is lacking and/or how

practice would assist

performance.

Can the task be

made easier?

Would a support aid or documentation be

helpful?

Is the workplace or environment conducive to performance?

Can the task be delegated or reassigned?

Can the criteria for success be revised?

Are there

obstacles to

performance?

Is there something in the way of performing

successfully?

Are there conflicting demands on the performer?

Are policies, procedures, or other

organizational constraints holding back

performance?

Does the

performer have

potential to succeed?

Is it likely the individual can learn to perform

successfully?

Does the individual require physical accommodations to perform?

Does the performer have the physical and

mental capacity to perform?

Is the performer over-qualified for the task?

Decision Point Would adjustments, support aids, or other

modifications assist in improving performance?

List any adjustments or

support aids that might be useful for improving

performance.

Intervention Selection

Identify Potential Solutions Refer to the options listed in the Decision Points above.

Have all potential solutions been identified? Do solutions

listed address the gap in performance?

Calculate Costs and Benefits Consider the costs to implement potential interventions:

What are the actual costs to implement? What are the benefits and/or savings as a result of

implementation?

Will a solution address the cause of the performance

gap in more than one of the areas outlined above? Which intervention(s) would have the greatest impact

for the least cost or risk in implementation? In many

cases, interventions that address performance gaps at

the top of the PAF, or worksheet, will have greater impact for lower costs.

Select and Plan Select the intervention(s) that will address the

discrepancy in performance. Create an Action Plan to implement the selected intervention(s). Include evaluation

activities to monitor progress and results.

CASE STUDY

Background

The New Place Library (NPL) in [Location], serves a small community of 1,527 residents.

The library is staffed by a part-time library director working 22 hours per week; the same

hours the library is open. The library director is, essentially, the manager of a city department with all the same responsibilities such as managing the department budget,

reporting to city council, complying with the state’s laws, and related administrative

functions in addition to serving the customers that use the library. Due to a limited city

budget, the library receives little technical support of the computer systems through the city. Technical support is provided through volunteers or contract services with the library’s

budget.

In order to benefit from programs and services funded by the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) administered by the State Library Agency (SLA), the library must

meet LSTA Eligibility Requirements. Compliance is important because the library relies on

other services funded by LSTA to support the summer reading program, access to online

information tools, and eligibility for grant opportunities.

The library, due to LSTA eligibility requirements, is expected to maintain a web presence

with current information about its services. Because many of the libraries in the state lack

the technical support staff for web services, the SLA provides an eBranch service for

publicly-funded libraries. The service provides free hosting of websites for libraries. Libraries making use of the service are provided with website templates using a content management

system that requires little technical expertise to add, remove, or edit content on an existing

site. Staff at the library are trained to update their local content by SLA staff when the

library’s site is launched. Additional one-on-one training is available by request. The SLA maintains content that is consistent across all eBranch sites (e.g. summer reading themes,

online reference databases, and other services delivered statewide through all libraries) in

an effort to ease the workload of library staff and provide consistent branding on statewide

services.

Problem

The library director reached out to staff at the SLA with a request for a workshop on the

eBranch system. While no formal workshops were scheduled, she was informed that one-on-one training is always available upon request. After confirming that the library director

had received the appropriate onboarding training, the SLA consultant inquired if there was a

specific task or issue with which she was having difficulty. The library director then

explained that she finds the system too hard to use, and she forgets how to use it between updates. She was stressed with the situation knowing the library’s website had inaccurate

information. When she tried to make edits, she would end up frustrated by the experience

and quit the task.

Analysis

After the initial conversation between the library director and the SLA consultant, the

consultant scheduled an on-site visit at NPL to learn more about the environment, barriers,

and workflow. In addition to conversation about goals, tools, motivation, support, and process; the consulting visit included observing the work environment as the library director

attempted to make edits to the website. This illuminated certain factors that were not clear

from the conversation alone. Library users were in need of assistance while the consulting

meeting was taking place, the Director’s computer workstation has a small-sized monitor

that does not fully display the full eBranch interface in administrative mode, and Internet

connectivity slows when the library is busy with users. The consultant also met with the staff at the SLA charged with coordinating the eBranch service.

Using information collected during the consulting visits, the Adapted PAF Worksheet was

completed as follows:

Adapted PAF Worksheet

Define the Problem Action Steps/Notes

Who has the

performance

issue?

Who is the performer?

What are his/her responsibilities?

The library director

In addition to the

other duties of her position, she is

responsible for

maintaining a current

website.

Describe the

performance

issue.

How is the result of performance measured?

What are the current and preferred

performance measures? Why is the current performance a problem?

The website has

inaccurate, outdated

information because she is unable to

remember how to add

or edit content using

the content management system

(CMS) provided by the

web hosting service.

The measure is either true or false. The

website is or is not

current.

An outdated website is

a poor reflection of the library

Without a current

website, the library

may be ineligible for some grant funded

services

Without an accurate

website, community members cannot

interact with library

services during closed

hours.

Is it worth the

time and effort

to improve performance?

Are there negative consequences if nothing

changes?

What are the positive consequences of improving performance?

Is the preferred performance measure

reasonable?

If nothing changes,

community members

will not have accurate information about

library hours, program

schedules, and links to

interact with library services.

The SLA is not likely to cut off access to

services because of an

out of date website;

they are more concerned with

helping the library to

reach customers and

provide quality services.

The situation

experienced by the

NPL is not unique; other small libraries

have expressed similar

frustrations. There is

an opportunity to help

other libraries, too. The measure, to have

an up to date website,

is reasonable

Decision Point Is it worth the investment to improve

performance?

Having an inaccurate or

nonexistent website for

the library is not an option, so improving

performance is desirable.

Additionally, because NPL

is representative of a number of libraries of

similar size and situation,

any solutions resulting in

improved performance for

the one could be applied to other libraries for

improved service.

Explore Fast Fixes

Are the

expectations clear to the

performer?

Can the performer communicate the

expectations? Does the performer’s understanding of the

expectations match the manager’s

expectations?

Does the performer understand why the expectations exist and where they fit in

organizational goals?

The expectations are

understood – maintain a current website.

The importance of the

expectation is also

understood.

Are the

resources

adequate?

Does the performer have the tools, staff,

time, and supplies needed to perform?

Staff time is severely

limited.

She is only able to

work on the website

during open hours, so interruptions are

frequent

There is not enough

funding for additional staff or contracting

No supplies are

needed

The SLA provides the content management

system and web

hosting at no charge.

The computer workstation has a

small monitor, which

skews or hides some

menu options in the CMS interface creating

a confusing view.

Is performance

quality visible?

Does the performer get feedback?

Can the performer see progress toward the

performance goal?

Is coaching or mentoring available to provide

performance feedback?

Feedback is provided

when customers notice

that information isn’t

available.

Director is aware of the current status of

the website as it is

used/accessed often

when she assists customers.

The SLA performs an

evaluation of all library

websites every other year to evaluate their

own goal of helping

libraries sustain a web

presence, but

feedback (to correct or commend) is not

regularly reported

back to the individual

libraries.

Decision Point Is there a need to provide clarity about

expectations, to provide resources to support performance, or to seek opportunities to

improve feedback to the performer?

List potential solutions, if

any, for clarity, resource needs, and feedback.

Staff – funding for

additional staff, or SLA

staff could perform updating as part of

eBranch service

Free up time by

creating efficiencies

elsewhere in her task list

Schedule work time

when the library is

closed for difficult tasks

SLA staff could provide more feedback to

library when site is

doing well and

suggestions for updates when content

falls behind.

A larger monitor for

the staff workstation would be helpful for

interacting with the

content management

system

Check Consequences

Is desired

performance

punishing?

Does the performer experience or perceive

negative consequences for performing at a

desirable level?

Due to the time it

takes to remember

how to make updates,

she is pulled from

other important tasks in her work day

Is undesired performance

rewarding?

Does the performer experience or perceive positive consequences for not performing as

a desirable level?

Do they gain attention, prestige, or comfort

by not performing?

There is no prestige for not performing.

The only positive

consequence for not

updating the site is that her time can be

spent on other tasks.

She is frustrated by

the outdated content

What motivates

performance?

Does desired performance lead to favorable

consequences for the performer?

Are there benefits or positive impacts as a result of reaching performance goals?

Continued access to

grant funds and LSTA-

funded services is the only real motivation,

aside from the

knowledge of having

done a good job.

Decision Point Are there any consequences, negative or

positive, which would inspire desirable performance?

List potential motivation

ideas, if any. She would be more

motivated to make the

updates if it were

perceived as easier The SLA could reward

or provide public

recognition of great

websites as motivation

Enhance Competence

Is there a skill deficiency?

If no help were available, could the performer figure out how to accomplish the

task?

With time and assistance, she could

accomplish the task

eventually.

Has the skill

been performed in the past?

Has the performer been able to accomplish

the task in the past? Have they ever been successful in the

performance in question?

She has successfully

updated the website in the past

Is the skill used

often?

How often does the skill get applied?

Does the performer forget how to do the task

because it occurs so infrequently?

Updates do not

happen frequently.

Due to time between

edits, the steps to make edits are

forgotten.

Decision Point Does the performer really need to learn the

steps to completing the task?

Does the performer needed more practice?

If applicable, identify what

skill is lacking and/or how

practice would assist

performance. Create a regular

schedule for updating,

reviewing, or editing

the website to keep

skills honed.

Can the task be

made easier?

Would a support aid or documentation be

helpful? Is the workplace or environment conducive

to performance?

Can the task be delegated or reassigned?

Can the criteria for success be revised?

Online screencasts are

available for basic editing tasks, but are

not useful to her when

she’s also updating

online. She prefers print documentation.

A manual is available

online, but it is out of

date and perceived as too technical.

There is no other staff

to delegate to, and

volunteers are

inconsistent The SLA is tied to the

criteria of defined for a

current website, and

feels the current definition is the bare

minimum

Her workspace is in a

public place, so interruptions are

frequent and ability to

concentrate is difficult.

Are there obstacles to

performance?

Is there something in the way of performing successfully?

Are there conflicting demands on the

performer?

Are policies, procedures, or other

organizational constraints holding back performance?

The city will not provide additional

funding to permit work

hours outside of open

library hours.

The frustrating experience impacts

her confidence in her

own abilities

Does the

performer have

potential to succeed?

Is it likely the individual can learn to perform

successfully?

Does the individual require physical accommodations to perform?

Does the performer have the physical and

mental capacity to perform?

Is the performer over-qualified for the task?

She has the ability to

perform the tasks,

having done it in the past.

She performs better

when a coach or

trainer walks her through it.

There are no physical

or mental constraints

to keep her from

performing the task.

Decision Point Would adjustments, support aids, or other

modifications assist in improving performance?

List any adjustments or

support aids that might be useful for improving

performance.

Printed support

documentation with step-by-step

instructions and

images would be

welcome Uninterrupted time to

perform tasks would

be helpful, though

unrealistic

Intervention Selection

Identify Potential Solutions Refer to the options listed in the Decision Points above. Have all potential solutions been identified? Do solutions

listed address the gap in performance?

The SLA is planning to update the content

management system. The update is currently being tested. EBranch users will have the option to move to

the new system.

Calculate Costs and Benefits Consider the costs to implement potential interventions:

The NPL does not have any funds to put toward a

solution.

The SLA has an established budget with some

flexibility to move funds, but not increase funds. Staff time is considered a cost or investment. The NPL

does not have additional staff time to devote to the tasks. SLA staff does have flexibility to add or adjust

workloads.

Any solution should focus on building the capacity of

the libraries to sustain a web presence versus doing it for them.

Intervention Selection

The following potential solutions were identified during the consulting visit and application of

the Adapted PAF Worksheet:

Revise library director’s schedule to add work time when the library is not open

Assign SLA staff to perform site maintenance for libraries using the eBranch service.

Review library director’s schedule and workflow to find time savings SLA performs more regular evaluations to provide feedback and encouragement to

eBranch site users

Upgrade library director’s computer workstation with a larger monitor

Adjust administrative interface settings in the content management system to scale

with display size Simplify the editing process; use a system with easier editing tools

SLA create a public recognition program for eBranch sites

Establish a schedule for regular review, updates, and editing on the website for more

regular practice Create printable support documentation with step-by-step instructions and images

demonstrating how to add, remove, and edit eBranch content.

During consultation with the NPL director and SLA staff, it was determined that any selected solution should:

be free for the library,

result in no additions to the current SLA budget,

extend to or be replicated for other eBranch users, and

be sustainable long term for the eBranch service.

Initial application of the selection criteria was narrowed to those listed below, then ranked

from six to one by lowest cost, most sustainable long term, and greatest impact to all

eBranch site users.

Potential Intervention Cost Rank

(6=low,

1=high)

Sustainability (6=long,

1=short)

Impact to All eBranch

users

(6=high,

1=low)

Total Score

Rank

SLA performs more regular

evaluations to provide feedback and encouragement to eBranch

site users.

6 5 3 14

Adjust administrative interface settings in the content

management system to scale with

display size.

2 4 2 8

Simplify the editing process; use

a system with easier editing tools. 1 6 6 13

Create a public recognition program for eBranch sites.

4 2 4 10

Establish a schedule for regular review, updates, and editing on

the website for more regular

practice.

5 1 1 7

Create printable support

documentation with step-by-step

instructions and images demonstrating how to add,

remove, and edit eBranch

content.

3 3 5 11

By ranking the factors, three intervention ideas rose to the top. The three interventions will

be explored further with stakeholders to create an action plan. The interventions below, with recommendations, will be presented to the Web Team at the Idaho SLA for Libraries,

so a plan of action can be developed collaboratively.

Interventions and Recommendations

SLA performs more regular evaluations to provide feedback and encouragement to

eBranch site users.

o The SLA performs a periodic review of all public library websites to measure

the output target of 75% of public libraries maintaining a web presence as identified in the SLA’s Strategic Plan. (Idaho SLA for Libraries, 2014a) This

review is not regularly scheduled.

o Recommendation 1: Complete the review annually. Share total results with

the entire library community. Share individual results with each library to let them know how well they are meeting the web presence criteria.

Simplify the editing process; use a system with easier editing tools.

o The Web Team at the SLA is already testing a new content management

system with a reported simpler user interface.

o Recommendation 2: Implement as soon as feasible. Create printable support documentation with step-by-step instructions and images

demonstrating how to add, remove, and edit eBranch content.

o The SLA’s Web Team indicates that when the new content management

system is released, instructional screencasts will be provided. o Recommendation 3: In addition to screencasts, Web Team should work with

SLA staff who are trained in developing instructional content to create

printable instructions for the most common tasks performed in the interface.

Evaluation o A number of potential solutions were identified using the Adapted PAF

Worksheet, some requiring funding that is not currently available.

Interventions that did not become recommendations for funding, staffing, or

other reasons, should not be excluded from future consideration if it is determined during evaluation that the performance discrepancy persists.

o Recommendation 4: Include an evaluation component in the action plan that

invites follow-up from the library director of NPL and additional input from

other eBranch library users. The evaluation component should consider

performance results at NPL, input from other eBranch libraries, and results from annual website reviews.

References

Gilbert, T., & Gilbert, M. (1989). Performance engineering: Making human productivity a science. Performance + Instruction, 28(1), 3-9. doi:10.1002/pfi.4170280103

IMS International (n.d.). Guidance notes: 5 whys technique. Retrieved from

http://www.imsworld.org/images/docs/Doc%206i%20issue%201%20guidance%20notes%20on%205%20Whys%20Technique.pdf

Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1984). Analyzing performance problems, or, you really oughta

wanna. Belmont, CA: Pitman Management and Training.

Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1997). Analyzing performance problems, or, you really oughta

wanna: How to figure out why people aren't doing what they should be, and what to do

about it. Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance.

Rothwell, W. J., Hohne, C. K., & King, S. B. (2007). Human performance improvement:

Building practitioner performance (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.