Idaho National Laboratory 

Post-Job Briefs 

Needs Assessment

Halah Mohammed

Challenge 

Background 

Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) site. Projects at INL  vary in focus from contributing to the development of electric technologies to turning waste into fuel and preparing power sources for NASA’s space exploration. INL is required by the DOE to use feedback mechanisms to obtain feedback from workers and incorporate it into continuous improvement efforts that support the safety, sustainability, and advancement of their projects and the success of the organization (DOE Policy 450.4A, Integrated Safety Management Policy). One feedback mechanism that INL uses is post-job briefs (PJBs), a communication about the strengths and weaknesses of a project that takes place after a job task has been completed.

Opportunity 

Mo Elder (pseudonym), a staff member for Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and fellow student in Boise State University’s Organizational Performance and Workplace Learning master’s degree program, proposed a needs assessment (NA) project to assess the problem/need of PJBs not being frequently or consistently completed. I joined the project team along with two other graduate students. After a few informal meetings with INL’s stakeholders we learned that the presented problem/need is mainly anecdotal and not supported by qualitative or quantitative data. Therefore, we determined that there is not a defined problem/need regarding PJBs at INL, but there may be an opportunity. INL stakeholders made it clear that they value PJBs and since they are a useful requirement and tool for continuous improvement they are curious about how PJBs can be maximized for even greater benefit to the organization. In light of this new information, we changed the focus of our NA from assessing a problem/need related to PJBs  to assessing an opportunity to maximize the benefits of PJBs throughout INL. 

Methods

Ethics & Professionalism 

Before we could conduct our needs assessment (NA) project, an assessment of a need or opportunity), INL required us to submit our project proposal for approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), a board for assessing and monitoring the ethics for research projects. The IRB required us to submit a project proposal with all related materials (e.g. survey questions, interview questions, etc.) and to submit documentation proving we can conduct social and behavioral research, such as our CITI Certifications. Once we were approved by the IRB we began collecting data and moving forward with the bulk of the NA project work. Throughout the entire NA project we followed ethical guidelines outlined by the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) to ensure we met the ethical standards for both INL and the OPWL program and field. 

Analysis

We used systematic methods to conduct our NA such as a Needs Assessment Planning Table (NAPT) (see Appendix A), which is a model that records, organizes, and step-by-step guides needs assessors with performing multiple analyses and using a variety of frameworks to determine interventions that can support an identified and defined need or opportunity (Stefaniak, 2021). The NAPT especially helps to identify and define the gap, causes, and interventions that would most appropriately address a problem/need or opportunity. 

We used the NAPT to inform the majority of our initial interview questions with Idaho National Laboratory (INL) stakeholders and it led to a defining moment in our project. In one interview with INL stakeholders we asked them to describe a typical post-job brief (PJB) and they all informed us that PJBs are conducted differently depending on the mission organization (sub-organizations within INL). Sometimes they are conversations and other times they are forms workers fill out, among other formats. From this information we concluded that it is important for us to assess the opportunity to maximize the benefits of PJBs on micro to mega levels of the organization and its external partnerships. Out of the many human performance improvement and needs assessment analysis frameworks that we could use to perform our NA, three of them are fairly easy to combine and when combined are exceptionally useful for conducting micro to mega analysis. They are the HPT Performance Improvement Model, Gilbert’s Behavior Engineering Model & Rummler & Brache’s Nine Box Model. See the graphic below to learn more about these models. 

We based our processes for analyses on these three models. Our extant data review, the review of already existing data such as documents, SOPs, policies, research on post-job briefs at other organizations, on the HPT Performance Improvement Model. We designed our interview and survey questions to align with Gilbert’s BEM (BEM) and Rummler & Brache’s Nine Box Model (RB9B) (see Appendix B). We conducted over 8 hours of interviews with managers and workers, deployed over 100 worker surveys, and engaged in a few in-field observations. Altogether we learned about several causes that support or inhibit the opportunity for INL to better maximize their use of PJBs. 

Causes

On an environmental level, the causes that help to support and at times challenge the maximization of PJBs at INL are related to  process design and information (RM9B), process management (RM9B), and mission organization or location specific factors. The data we analyzed showed that: 

• Workers across all levels of the organization value PJBs

• There is opportunity for PJBs to be better defined, designed, and managed

• There is opportunity for PJB processes to be better define, designed, and managed

• There is opportunity for PJBs to help breakdown siloing of information habits and structures across the different mission organizations that make up INL

On an individual level, the causes that help to support and at times challenge the maximization of PJBs at INL are related to performer management (RM9B), knowledge and skills (BEM), and motivation (BEM). The data we analyzed showed that:

• There is opportunity for PJB facilitators to be better informed and trained 

• There is opportunity for workers to better understand where feedback from PJBs goes

• There is opportunity for workers to be better informed about what PJBs are, their purpose, and material implications 

• There is opportunity to augment work schedules to free up financial opportunities to incentivize and motivates workers to do PJBs 

Recommended Solutions

Before we recommended any of six interventions to INL stakeholders, we first used the models listed below to create a list interventions that would be systemic and address root causes across the areas that opportunities to maximize the benefits of post-job briefs (PJBs) at INL were present in the data we collected (Performance Architecture, Ch. 5): 

• Judith Hale’s Intervention Families Technique (Hale, 2006)

• The Van Tiem Intervention Priority Chart (Van Tiem, Moseley, & Dessinger, 2012)

• The Ease & Impact Model Matrix (Watkins et al., 2012)

In accordance with being systematic, we modeled our intervention selection process on Van Tiem’s (2012) methodical intervention selection process as shown in the graphic below.

Intervention Selection 

Using the list of causes we uncovered from extant data review, interviews, surveys, and in-field observations, we began to draft a long list of potential interventions. But, as Hale (2006) notes, “I find it helpful to classify the different types of interventions in "families”’ so as to ensure all interventions are necessary and serve a primary purpose (see Appendix C). Keeping this in mind, we started to categorize our intervention into “families” such as interventions that define, organize, reward, and standardize.

Then, we used Van Tiem’s Priority Chart (2012) to vote, prioritize, and finalize the interventions chosen to address the opportunity 

(see Appendix C).

Intervention Prioritization 

We used the Ease and Impact Model Matrix (Watkins et al., 2012) to vote on each intervention based on its presumed ease and impact. We used the voting results to prioritize the interventions for implementation within the short and long-term. The Ease & Impact model we created and the final list of interventions are shown in the below graphics. 

The final list of six  interventions that we recommended to INL stakeholders are shown in the below graphic. Each of these interventions address the causes we uncovered from the data collection and analysis we conducted in the NA.

After presenting our executive NA project summary and sharing our executive needs assessment report, stakeholders at INL noted that they would be moving forward with using our work to support their next steps with maximizing the use of PJBs throughout INL. 

References

Department of Energy (2011). Directive: Integrated safety management system guide (DOE G 450.4-1C). Integrated Safety Management System Guide (doe.gov)

Hale, J. A.(2006). The Performance Consultant’s Fieldbook: Tools and Techniques for Improving Organizations and People. (2nd ed.). Pfeiffer. 

Stefaniak, J.E. (2021). Needs Assessment for Learning and Performance: Theory, process, and practice. Routledge. 

Van Tiem, D., Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2012). Fundamentals of performance improvement : Optimizing results through people, process, and organizations. Center for Creative Leadership.

Watkins, R., West Meiers, M., & Visser, Y. (2012). A Guide to Assessing Needs: Essential Tools for Collecting Information, Making Decisions, and Achieving Development Results. The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/644051468148177268/A-guide-to-Ssessing-needs-essential-tools-for-collecting-information-making-decisions-and-chieving-development-result