• Editors' Summary
• Credits

1. Overview
2. Getting Started
• Stakeholder Agreement
3. Define Desired Performance
4. Describe Actual Performance
5. Measure/Describe Performance Gaps
6. Find the Root Causes
7. Select Interventions
8. Implement Interventions
9. Monitor and Evaluate Performance
10. Managing Change

• Figures
• Tables
• Side-bars
• Bibliography

• PI approach offers many benefits
• Pilot project holds lessons
• Helping people do their best
• Burkina Faso: Assessing needs
• India: PI helps private providers
• Using the “Why Tree” in Ghana

• POPLINE
• Media/Materials Clearinghouse
• Other issues
• To order copies
• CCP Home Page

Published by the Population Information Program, Center for Communication Programs, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 111 Market Place, Suite 310, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, USA

Getting Started

Performance Improvement can be used any time the performance of an individual, a group of employees, or an organization could be better (102). The opportunity to use Performance Improvement often arises when supervisors or decision-makers request training for employees who are not performing well. Thus trainers are in a good position to introduce Performance Improvement into an organization and should be aware of the process, tools, and other resources.

The PI facilitator’s best response to a request for training is an invitation to discuss the problem further. If, instead, the PI facilitator immediately says that training alone may not solve the problem and recommends Performance Improvement, supervisors may look for someone else to do the training (102).

Some facilitators use the PI process without announcing it as a new way of solving problems. In organizations where staff members will be put off by a formal process that sounds time-consuming, or where other approaches have failed, simply carrying out the process has avoided initial objections (63, 88).

Responding to a request for help, facilitators begin by collecting preliminary information about the performance problem. Information gathering begins with the key decision-maker, the person who made the request or who will be responsible for the results. The decision-maker identifies the people, documents, and records that facilitators should consult.

Facilitators also examine the institutional context—organizational goals, strategies, and culture. For problems with service delivery, facilitators also need to understand the perspectives of clients and community groups.

The facilitators synthesize the information and draft a preliminary description of the performance problem and its context. In the full PI process the facilitators present the results first to the decision-maker and then to the other stakeholders in a project agreement meeting. In shortened or less formal applications of the PI process, facilitators can hold a single meeting with decision-makers and other stakeholders (20, 91, 102). Stakeholders need to agree on the group of staff members whose work needs to be improved and the scope of work—how large a project to conduct, how many people to involve, and how much money to allocate.

Involving all stakeholders is essential because all perspectives need to be included for the PI process to succeed. Also, omitting and thus offending stakeholders can make them resistant to change. Facilitators ask the decision-maker whom to include. Some draw a diagram showing all those connected to the staff members whose performance will be improved. In some countries kinship may have to be considered as well as organizational connections.

Getting and maintaining the agreement of stakeholders is one of the most important and difficult tasks of PI facilitators. Rarely will stakeholders agree on every aspect of a performance problem. They may disagree about the causes of the problem or how to measure desired performance, for example. The PI facilitators should make sure that the decision-maker is aware of any disagreements before holding the project agreement meeting with all of the stakeholders (102). In that meeting the PI facilitator or the decision-maker should point out the disagreements and attempt to resolve them. Some may not be resolved, but the process can continue anyway.

Maintaining the interest of stakeholders is especially difficult in projects that last a year or more. Stakeholders may lose interest if there are no quick and obvious improvements. Well-designed projects plan for some quick successes to maintain interest and decrease people’s resistance to change.

This first step ends with achievement of a consensus, if not complete agreement, among all stakeholders. The consensus can be formally stated in a letter of agreement or memorandum of understanding signed by the lead PI facilitator and the decision-maker. The letter summarizes the purpose of the project, the process of meetings and information gathering, and the next steps. It should also cover understandings about logistics, office space, travel, and funding (102).

The initial consensus may have to be reviewed several times during the process as facilitators learn more about the performance problem or as people change jobs. Facilitators may discover information that will resolve some of the disagreements, and they may discover other performance problems. Job changes among stakeholders require informational meetings for the person who takes over. At the IDSS in the Dominican Republic, for example, the director general changed twice. Facilitators had to brief the new directors general and obtain their permission to proceed (91).