1
MODEL COMPARISON
Comparison of Assessment Models
While a theory is a logical attempt to explain and describe reality, models are a generalized and structured representation of that reality (Richey, Klein, & Tracey, 2011). Needs assessment models assist practitioners as they identify and address performance gaps in organizations. The two selected models in this comparison provide an ordered representation that can help instructional designers, and other human performance technology practitioners, assess and analyze the needs of clients.
Witkin’s Three Phases of Needs Assessment
Witkins’s needs assessment model describes a generalizable system with information and data inputs, internal processing phases, and potential solutions or interventions as outputs (Altschuld & Watkins, 2014). The model is its earliest form dates back to 1984, however, the revised version described by Altschuld and Kumar (2010) is more complex and can guide users through a wider range of organizational circumstances. Internal to the system are three phases, or a pre-assessment, assessment, and post-assessment stage. There will be overlap as a practitioner progresses from one phase to the next, though the serial progression helps to simplify the overall model. The model also recommends the inclusion of three levels of an organization in the needs assessment. These levels include the Level 1 users and clients, Level 2 services and facilities, and Level 3 systemic infrastructure supports. For instance, in a higher education environment Level 1 users would be students, Level 2 providers would be faculty and instructors, and Level 3 infrastructure could include support staff and administrators.
The pre-assessment Phase 1 of the model first determines the feasibility of the needs assessment. Observations, informal interviews, literature reviews, and reviews of other preliminary sources are used to initially find or confirm a gap between how the organization should function and how it is functioning. This phase develops an initial scope for the needs assessment and helps the client and assessor determine the need to continue onto Phase 2 and 3 or to immediately proceed to Phase 3. The Phase 2 assessment formalizes the data collection processes with tools such as surveys, interviews, focus groups, and further artifact, document, and literature reviews. Decisions made at the end of the second phase inform the development of potential solutions in the post-assessment of Phase 3. Need prioritizations, benchmarking, and formative and summative evaluations (presumably of prototype designs) guide potential decisions and the solutions considered in the post-assessment phase. Additionally, these phases should consider all three levels of the organization during all stages of the assessment. The pre-assessment, assessment, and post-assessment should include users, services, and support structure levels to triangulate towards potential solutions based on overall organization needs.
While the model presents a linear process, the authors recommend treating the model as a guideline that can be adapted to meet the individualized needs of the user and the organization (Altschuld & Kumar, 2010). In practice, a user should assume that results in a post-assessment analysis can be further explored with tools and techniques from the pre-assessment or assessment phases. For instance, the results of formative feedback as described in the post-assessment phase can be further analyzed by an interview approach described in the assessment phase.
Wedman and Graham’s Performance Pyramid
Wedman(2014) bases the performance pyramid model on the observation that an organization’s accomplishments are based on a vision, available resources, and support systems. The organization’s vision and resources are system inputs, accomplishments are system outputs, and the internal support system is a combined set of internal attributes and processes. The internal system structure consists of Knowledge and Skills, Performance Capability, Motivation, Values, and Self-concepts, Tools, Environment, and Processes, Expectations and Feedback, and Rewards, Recognition, and Incentives. These comprehensive traits are embedded in an organization’s culture that is bounded by that organization’s change and status monitoring processes. The system’s accomplishments become information inputs, serving as feedback for self-correction. The overall model’s illustrative structure is created by the inputs at the base, the support system in the center, and the outputs at the top of the pyramid (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The basic performance pyramid evolved into a more complex model that considers the major internal components of the support system during a holistic needs assessment.
The intent of the model is to be an organic collection of the core components required by a successful organization. To be equally successful, a needs assessment and analysis must consider all of these organizational components. Tools, Environments, and Processes describe the hardware, software, and subsystems that allow human agents in the system to perform their jobs within the larger system. The Expectations and Feedback element describes the likelihoodthat human agents in the system know the expectations of other system agents. The Rewards, Recognition, and Incentives component would investigate how agents are externally rewarded, if they are rewarded, and if the rewards are aligned with the objectives of their activities. Assessing the system element of Motivation and Self-concept would investigate the internal attitudes and attributes that help or prevent agents from being successful. Performance Capability describes the cognitive, social, and psychomotor capabilities that agents must possess to be effective. Finally, the seventh internal system component of Knowledge and Skills describes the experience or training required to reach a required level of performance capability. These components are embedded within the organizational culture, which should also be considered by an assessment. To remain healthy, a system should be able to self-correct itself and implement change based on feedback, therefore there should also be an assessment ofthe Continued Monitoring and Change Processes that guide these internal components.
The Models Compared
Witkin’sThree Phases of Needs Assessment model and Wedman and Graham’s Performance Pyramid model have different internal processes and elements though share a systems approach to needs assessment and analysis.
Processes
The two models each use different processes toassess the needs of an organization. Witkin’sThree Phases model is essentially a linear model, with each phase providing an output for the next phase. Wedman and Graham’s Performance Pyramid model is intended to be used organically, or aspects of all components can be explored in any order or all at once. Wedman (2010) also suggests a series of tools that be used to help facilitate an assessment process. These toolsinclude an alignment (or gap analysis) scorecard, base interview questions, survey tips, a data job aid tutorial, and a final report outline.
Elements
The assessment goals of each model are similar, though the elements within each model and the overall approaches are different. The main elements of Witkin’smodel are the three pre-assessment, assessment, and post-assessment processes as well as the critical aspect of Levels within the organization that must also be considered during a needs assessment. The main elements of Wedmanand Graham’s model are the existence of resources and a vision that fuel a support system to output significant accomplishments. Within that support system are seven organizational elements, an organizational culture, as well constant monitoring and change processes.
Similarities
Interestingly, neither model specifically differentiates between assessing a need and analyzing a need. Assessing the needs of an organization identifies the gaps between how the organization is performing and how that organization should be performing. This gap identification has to exist first, before that need can be analyzed for its causes and potential resolutions. Both models suggest the use of surveys, interviews, focus groups, and document examinations as a means to collect information to identify gaps, both models also appear to assume that “analysis” is included in the overall “assessment.” For instance, there is not a specific analysis phase in the Witkinmodel, rather the function of analysis is conducted as part of the post-assessment phase. For some practitioners, this might support a common misperception that “assessment” and “analysis” are synonymous. TheWedmanand Graham modelalso does not include a specific analysis stage, step, or component, rather the investigationof the cause of gaps is implied by the use of the alignment scorecard, development of a data job aid, and the creation of a final report.
The knowledge base for instruction designers defines a system as an entity or organization of internal structuresand feedback processes that consume inputs to create useful outputs (Richey, Klein, & Tracey, 2011). Both models assume a systems perspective as they describe how to assess the needs of an organization. A systems approach would assume that there will be different interrelated and interdependent levels and components that will need to be assessed and analyzed within that system.
Differences
The Witkin three phasesmodel is process orientated while the Wedmanand Graham model appears more object oriented. The Witkin model describes a linear process from initially confirming a need, to scope development, to data gathering, to creating potential solutions, and reporting recommendations. The Wedmanand Graham model describes system components, these components should be considered during a nonlinear comprehensive gathering and analysis of information. The Witkin model also includes the different Levels of human agents within the system, an important assessment and analysis aspect that is only briefly addressed by the expectations and motivations components of the Wedmanand Graham model.
Contexts and Applications
While neither model includes a specific analysis phase, a practitionershould assume that needs assessment and needs analysis are two separatefunctions, and that needs must first be identified before they can be investigated for their causes and effects. When human performance technology practitioners operationally define organizations as systems of people, technology, and processes assembled to accomplish a common goal, then both models can be very effective. Both models would work well in the context of a holistic organizational needs assessment and analysis.
Conclusion
The Witkin three phases model and the Wedmanand Graham performance pyramid model have similarities and differences that can complement each other. A benefit of both approaches is the systemic view of needs assessment and analysis, or the guiding of a practitioner to consider a wide range of organizational aspects. For instance, not considering all of Witkin’s Levels or not assessing and analyzing all support system aspects in Wedmanand Graham’s pyramid could lead to an incomplete analysis. A comprehensive needs assessment and analysis approach can be crafted by combining aspects of the Wedman and Graham performance pyramid within the stages and levels of Witkin’s three phases model. Data gathering withinterview and survey questions that investigateperformance pyramid attributes can be used to enhance the three phases model and would create a comprehensive needs assessment and analysis plan.
References
Altschuld, J. W., & Kumar, D. D. (2010). Needs assessment: An Overview.Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc.
Altschuld, J. W., & Watkins, R. (2014). A primer on needs assessment: More than 40 years of research and practice. In J. W. Altschuld & R. Watkins (Eds.), Needs assessment: Trends and a view toward the future. New Directions for Evaluation, 144, 5-18.
Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011).The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wedman, J. (2010). Performance pyramid: Needs assessment made simple. Retrieved from
Wedman, J. (2014). Needs assessments in the private sector. In J. W. Altschuld & R. Watkins (Eds.), Needs assessment: Trends and a view toward the future. New Directions for Evaluation, 144, 47-60.