TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:The Three Components of Performance From:MSTSACX -at- GSUVM1 -dot- BITNET Date:Sun, 20 Feb 1994 20:25:01 EST
A few of you responded to my earlier post congratulating Eric on his changes
to the list. Someone commented that this was a technical change and technical
changes rarely work.
I disagree. If the reduced traffic on the list this week is any indication,
this technical change has already helped to reduce the unnecessary traffic
on this list.
This change is consistent with theory of work performance (and the information
overload on this list is a work performance issue). According to Tom Gilbert,
the founder of performance technology, performance has three components:
o Knowledge and skills. Does the person know how to do the job?
o Resources. Does the person have the tools needed to do the job, such as a
computer or funds.
o Motivation. Does the person have the motivation to do the job, such as
an encouraging manager or the joy of solving a complex problem.
As others noted, most of us have the knowledge and skills to show some
restraint on the reply key, but for some reason, aren't exercising it.
That's because the resources are too readily available; at the touch of
a key, people can respond.
Increasing knowledge and skill won't solve the problem; changing either
the availability of resources or the motivation is needed to change
performance.
Eric chose to change the availability of resources--and made replies more
difficult.
The initial results seem to indicate that Eric's actions had the intended
results.
Folks, this problem isn't just a TECHWR-L problem. As we make the
means of communication more available, we have to face up to the realization
that all the additional information isn't necessarily useful. The ability to
easily send a reply doesn't mean that the reply necessarily has value.
If we were convinced that more communication is better communication, why,
then, have so many of us expressed interest in minimalist documentation?
Perhaps we because we value pithy, succinct communication.
"
Saul Carliner Ph.D. Student
Instructional Technology Geo. State Univ.
Note new userid----> mstsacx -at- gsuvm1 -dot- gsu -dot- edu 404/892-3945
