My thanks to JD & Dave Ferguson for their comments to my initial post on this topic - and I fully agree with the comment "we should make clear the purpose of training (or any other intervention) -- improved performance"
So on reflection, I'd like to add a third theme to my previous comments on Performance Support.
It is well accepted that from a typical well-designed training intervention, some delegates will gain significantly and translate the skills gained into improved business performance, while others on the same class will gain little, or be unable to positively impact business performance with any new knowledge/skills gained.
[for more on this - see my enthusiasm for evaluating training using the methodology proposed by Brinkerhoff]
In my view we should expect the same from Performance Support.
...why is it that some truck drivers efficiently get from A to B using Sat Nav., while others using the same system end up stuck in country lanes ?!
When training & performance support are blended, those already using Brinkerhoff's 'Success Case Method' are likely to be gaining important insights on the relative importance of the performance support associated with the training being evaluated.
What is new - is that in situations where performance support is being used to replace 'just in case' training - there could be merit in taking a similar approach to evaluation (i.e. accepting that performance support does not yield uniform outcomes, but through understanding the enablers & barriers to it translating into improved business performance - we can get more from these tools)
