Human performance technology and its future

Kaufman, R., & Bernardez, M. L. (2012). Human performance technology and its future. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(1), 5–11. doi:10.1002/piq.20131

Kaufman and Bernardez posit that the future of HPT is dependent on how willing professionals are to discarding, adopting, and adapting. They suggest that there is a need to move beyond the reactive state and include the proactive mindset. Additionally, the authors put forward the argument that practitioners should make sure that all interventions align with the Organizational Elements Model (OEM). This would insure that value is added at all levels. The authors state in closing, that “HPT has a choice: change or die.”

The intended audience is the practitioner of HPT. I found the arguments very brief and poorly argued from the view of the practitioner. Yes, change is important. Yes, the work we do should add value and be aligned with the OEM. But I am left with the question, what are they solving for? They argue that HPT has had a history of change and is moving constantly in a positive direction. So who is it they are trying to convince that HPT must “change or die.” It seems overstated, misdirected, and ineffective.

The article relates directly to the field of HPT and I can relate to the direction in general.  But I don’t see myself referring back to it in the future to add value to my job. I would keep the charts handy. They are a great historical insight and the OEM is interesting as well. But these seem separate from the article and their value is intrinsic to themselves.

I was hoping for more.