Having taken Dr. Javeri’s EDIT 594 class, I already had a pretty strong idea of what HPT is and its usefulness in a variety of settings. I think it is a very solid system for both finding problems or performance gaps then seeking to alleviate them. I think the systematic approach that HPT offers is missing in a lot of areas, especially in education. I think the problem, unfortunately, is what happens when there are several gaps or worse, an overall disagreement between final goals and objectives?
I think HPT is great for problems where 1 or 2 gaps are defined and then closed. However, I think HPT struggles when there are several gaps. As an example, I will discuss the project where I performed a gap analysis and created a solution.
The English department at my school does not really talk to each other. While this could be a minor inconvenience, one problem that frequently arises is that sometimes certain teachers will use one novel in their class,
and that novel may be repeated later. I created a list of books by grade level that failed miserably. While I gathered data, and went through the steps of HPT I also had to recognize that some teachers simply did not want to take the time and effort to stay with the plan. Even though I may have implemented a solution, there was no way for me to enforce it. I had assumed that since it was a common complaint, everyone would be on board. I was wrong. What looked like one easy gap to fill, ended up being a lot deeper touching on subjects like encouraging motivation and cooperation.
I would definitely support the use of either electornic support systems of knowledge management systems. I believe that either system can be effective provided it is properly implemented. My greatest concern is that either one of these is used for a short time, then not updated, then abandoned, and finally forgotten about. To have either EPSS or KMS, they need to be consistently updated and consistently used. Organizations need to find ways to make them not just important, but integral.
