A Behavior Systems Analysis (BSA) Approach to Performance Improvement

Behavior Systems Analysis (BSA) [1] applies behavior analysis and systems analysis to performance in organizations.

• Behavior Analysis is a scientific discipline that studies the behavior of individuals and groups. Behavior Analysis maintains that behavior is the product of individual's interaction with his or her environment (e.g., physical environment, social environment, genetic environment) and the history of that interaction.
• Systems Analysis is a scientific discipline that studies the operations of complex systems such as organizations, and focuses on the interactions between parts of those systems. A system can be understood as interrelated components or parts that interact toward a common purpose. Accordingly, the behavior of one part or parts affect(s) the behavior of other parts. 
• Performance is the combination of behavior and its consequence or output.

It is an approach that focuses on performance improvement that is based on the premise that organizations are complex systems. As such, changes in one aspect of performance in an organization affects performance in other parts of the organization. A primary goal of BSA is to create optimal performance in which areas of poor performance are improved, areas of high performance are maintained, and employee performance outcomes are aligned with organizational goals.

What sets BSA apart as a methodology is that it is rooted in an objective analysis of performance, using a behavioral systems-based assessment of factors leading to productive and non-productive performance. It does not presume to know the causal factors resulting in the problem performance as many other management consulting approaches are apt to do. In other words, there is no presumption that performance can be improved by training or by redesigning a process without an assessment of the factors that indicate those solutions will have an impact.

Many companies invest in a Program Management Office (PMO), assuming that whatever the solution will be to whatever problem or need, it will need to be managed; whether the solution is relevant to the company’s core business or to performance improvement. The PMO may use PMBOK (Project Management Body of Knowledge) method or Scrum but is generally dispassionate about what the actual solution is—that is decided in some black box before reaching the PMO. Likewise, many companies have Training functions- assembled and prepared to design and deliver top-notch training solutions; there are also Business Process Offices (BPOs), Continuous Improvement Offices (CIOs), and Knowledge Management Offices (KMOs). Most of these, with the exception of the CIO, take an assumed approach to a need or problem. Generally, there is some consensus that “we need a new training program” or “we need to redesign that process” and the PMO simply manages that charter but there is never any real accountability given to whether those solutions will actually improve performance.

The Continuous Improvement Office is the closest to focusing on performance…except that it doesn’t. It does strive for continuous improvement, but of what? It is well intended and often uses a collection of good techniques and methodologies, and often does create savings and improvements in quality and timeliness, etc. but it is like stumbling upon these results in the dark because it lacks an objective analysis of performance first. Without a good analysis of the performance needed to support, sustain, and give a competitive edge to the business, it is like shooting in the dark. That is what the Performance Improvement Office’s (PIO) mission is- to improve performance in the workplace- all the time! So yes, it is a continuous improvement office but that is merely a side-effect of focusing on improving performance and letting the analysis dictate what performance variables are related to, or are causing, the trouble, which then indicate which solution to use.

 

Thomas Gilbert’s Behavior Engineering Model (BEM)[2] is a cause analysis model that categorizes performance as being affected by any of six variables- three of which are person- or individual-centered and three of which are environmental variables. The factors influencing the performance indicate which solutions may be effective.

The resulting solutions potentially indicated include but are not limited to the following:

•  Organizational design, defining roles & responsibilities
•  Leadership and executive coaching of key behaviors
•  Incentive and reward systems, and feedback systems such as 360-degree feedback and recognition programs
•  Training (Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities)
•  Business Process Reengineering and New Process Development
•  Quality improvement
•  Change Management 

Then as each solution is identified, relevant solution-specific approaches are incorporated such as Six Sigma or Lean for process work, TQM (Total Quality Management) for Quality Improvement, the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) Instructional Design Model for Training, or Prosci’s ADKAR (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement) Model[3] for Change Management- just to name a few.

 In summary, if your organization is considering setting up a Continuous Improvement or Business Process office, consider setting up a Performance Improvement Office instead, which has a collection of methodologies and tools at its fingertips rather than restricting itself to a few methodologies du jour. If the mission is to improve performance and remain objective as to what solution and respective methodology will be effective, it will hit the target every time because there is no presumption or guess-work involved. Moreover, it is not restricting itself to only a few methodologies at the outset and forcing the problems to fit the solution but rather arming itself with an arsenal of tools that can be used as indicated to obtain the performance improvement needed.

  

 [1] http://www.behavior.org/performanceMgmt_new/index.cfm

 [2] Thomas F. Gilbert, “Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance,” 1978, 1996

 [3] http://www.change-management.com/tutorial-adkar-overview.htm