cpt期刊投稿

PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT: APPLYING A HUMAN PERFORMANCE MODEL TO ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES IN A MILITARY TRAINING ENVIRONMENTWayne Aaberg, CPT Carla J. Thompson Haywood V. West Matthew J. Swiergosz This article provides a description and the results of a study that utilized the human performance (HP) model and methods to explore and analyze a training organization. The systemic and systematic practices of the HP model are applicable to military training organizations as well as civilian organizations. Implications of the study for future organizations grappling with registrar office concerns include the development of a rich information base and the acquisition of data collection resources. DURING THE LATE 1990s, the U.S. Navy commissioned a new organization, the Human Performance Center,with a major integrant mission to optimize Navy war fighting performance by applying the human performance (HP) model tenets to all facets of Navy operations,while focusing on performance improvement (HPC,2007). The history provided by Van Tiem, Moseley, and Dessinger (2001) contends that the HP model uses a wide range of interventions drawn from many other disciplines,including behavioral psychology, instructional systems design, organizational learning, evaluation, and management sciences. Based on Van Tiem et al., the rationale for the present study generated a systematic application of solid investigative techniques for resolving organizational issues in military training environments. These background and rationale considerations prompted the selection of the HP model for use as the theoretical framework for the present study.The International Society for Performance Improvement posits that the HP model accents a rigorous analysis of present and desired levels of performance, identifies the causes for the performance gap, offers a wide range of interventions with which to improve performance, guides the change management process, and evaluates the results. The model consists of five segments: performance analysis, cause analysis, intervention selection, intervention implementation, and evaluation, as depicted in Figure 1 (ISPI, 2008).In addition to using the HP model methods, a scientific method (time motion techniques) pioneered by Taylor in 1911 (Harrison, 2004) helped create the framework for this project. Taylor’s scientific methods provided the insight to establish the metrics for this project to document and analyze daily student registration and other related activities.Taylor posited that efficiency could be increased by carefully planning workers’ movements to ascertain the most efficient manner that jobs could be standardized and simplified by breaking the jobs down into core elements. This process of standardization and simplification was called time and motion (Harrison, 2004).This study utilizes the HP model with a focus on student registration processes and concerns. Student registration processes at military training sites are continually plagued by complex workloads, and workflow frequently bottlenecks. Registration processes are often exacerbated by numerous repetitive administrative initiatives. TheseSource. Based on data from the ISPI Web site, 2008. Adapted with permission from ISPI.FIGURE 1. BASIC HUMAN PERFORMANCE MODELconcerns stimulated the current study. In addition, time and motion techniques (Chevalier, 2008) were applied to the project. The impetus for using time and motion methods was a result of initial data discovered during the assessment of student registration workflow processes. The HP model and the established rationale promptedthe current study.STUDY OBJECTIVEThe study objective was to reduce work hours associated with student registration processes by 10% within a 12-month period and to identify effective methods to improve workflow within student registration processes.The following data collection techniques were utilized in the study.DATA COLLECTIONMultiple data collection techniques were employed in the study. The following data collection procedures were utilized: interviews, observations, regulations, benchmarkings,and observed process work hours. Each data procedure is described in this section.InterviewsInterviews were conducted to capture the methods and perspectives of the various processes to determine the existing business practices related to student registration procedures. Interviews included key personnel in the training organization. These interviews involved the commanding officer, executive officer, training officer, technical training supervisor, registrar personnel, instructors,and administration personnel. Personnel (performers) were identified and their participation provided the focus to determine individual responsibilities, inputs, and outputs. This information is depicted in Table 1.ObservationsObservations were performed over a 2-month time frame to determine and document the scope of current performer responsibilities. These observations included extensive reviews of the registrar processes, academic review board instructions, student file retrieval processes,registrar/customer service processes, and student data filing processes in the Navy military training database.Observation data were pertinent to the organization process improvement.Regulations Governing documents were reviewed to determine whether the organization registrar functions were aligned with higher level training mandates. These documents included the Navy School Management Manual, taskbased curriculum development manuals, local organizational instructions, and personnel descriptions for the registrar training technicians. Therefore, these documents pertaining to organizational improvement were an integral part of the study.BenchmarkingRegistrar processes from several training organizations were compared with one another for the purpose of determining best practices in registrar processes. ThisTABLE 1 PERFORMER GROUPS AND THE IMPACT ON THE BUSINESS PROCESSESprocedure generated benchmarks for the study, which revealed that the benchmark training organizations: (a) did not perform additional activities other than registrar functions; (b) used a local Microsoft Access database in conjunction with the U.S. Navy’s Corporate Enterprise Training Activity Resource Systems (CETARS; Corporate Enterprise Training Activity Resource Systems, 2006) todocument, track, and archive student status; and (c) closely adhered to military training manual and instructions. The resulting benchmarks were used for comparative analysisof the registrar study.Observed Process Work HoursThe work hours associated with processing student registration forms were based on the estimated time to complete selected functions. These data were collected from student registration training technicians. The estimated time for the training technicians to complete each form was determined by the following procedure: time required to complete each form was multiplied by the number of student cases per year to obtain the total available observed process work hours Per year.Approximately 49% of student registration work hours were found to be associated with forms processing. Table 2 depicts the estimates of student registrar work hours.PERFORMANCE ANALYSISThe HP model uses performance analysis, a procedure that involves the following components: assumptions, performance focus, root cause analysis, and root causes.Initial ObservationsThree major initial observations provided motivation for the present study: (a) estimates of the time involved in student intake forms and data entry exceeded expected time requirements; (b) recurring tasks in the administration department are not as demanding as registrar tasks,and some functions of both departments are duplicated; and (c) benchmarking observations involving two nearby training organizations have effective registrar routines that are viable models to demonstrate solid registrar processes. These observations provided the initiative for the study.TABLE2Performance FocusThe performance focus included tasks associated with student check-in andcheck-out,disenrollment, academic review, and graduation processes. For each task, the appropriate forms and documentation were examined and analyzed relative to the work processes. Therefore, the performance focus of the registrar operation was concentrated on specific forms and how each form was processed.Root Cause AnalysisThe root cause analysis included the following acquired data: (a) approximately 2,041 work hours were expended for processing forms (see Table 2), (b) approximately 200work hours involved performing data entry functions, (c) no evidence of existing registrar regulations that validate data entry, and (d) no documented defined process with which to enter student information. For example, it was difficult to retrieve student records, as evidenced by the fact that an attempt to retrieve studentdatatook approximately 30 minutes to search for 10 student records and not find any records.A comparison of the observed registrar workflow processes in this study with the benchmarked organization processes of another training organization resulted in the following findings: (a) the benchmark training organizations performed no additional activities other than registrar functions; (b) the benchmark training organization used a local Microsoft Access database in conjunction with the U.S. Navy’s CETARS (2006) to document, track,and archive student status; and (c) the benchmark training organization closely adhered to military training manual and instructions. When comparing the study’s registrar office with a similar training organization, the following additional comparisons were determined: (a) the registrar functions of the study’s registrar office were not aligned to the command’s mission; (b) a nearby training organization uses a dedicated individual (registrar representative) to handle military student administration forms, whereas the registrar in the study does not have a dedicated individual within the registrar office; (c) the CETARS (2006) person event data category is not aligned to accurately reflect actual student status at the study’s registrar office; (d) the study’s registrar automated computer tracking of person event codes (CETARS) is not aligned to each course of instruction assessments within each training division; and (e) personnel descriptions for registrar personnel are updated and aligned to organizational goals in the comparative organization but not in the study’s registrar office.Root CausesThe study found three processes that contribute to decreased efficiencies: (a) the registrar is performing duties and tasks that are not registrar functions; (b) there are inadequate policies, regulations, procedures, and supervision relative to registrar functions; and (c) there are no computerized tools to automate forms processing and enhance data input in the registrar office.The study uncovered the root causes through careful observation, analysis, and documentation of the findings. The root causes provide the commanding officer (CO) with a clear vision of the actual issues in the registrar’s office.INTERVENTION SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTIONThe next step in the HP model is the intervention selection and implementation. The analysis determined the roles and responsibilities of the performer and the responsibility of the performer to improve the organization. The intervention-selection step determines the best means to improve the process and estimate the costs of interventions and recommended interventions.The roles and responsibilities of performers for the implementation of interventions are listed in Table 3.This section reviews the estimated costs of interventions and provides specific recommended interventions for improving the workflow processes of a registrar office.

中华肿瘤防治杂志官网有详细的约稿内容，附上链接祝上稿~

美国的科技技术处于世界领先的地位，许多学习高新科技的学生都有去美国进修的想法， 美国的计算机科学研究生课程为国际学生提供接触尖端技术和大老板的机会。跟着来看看在美国读计算机有什么优势吧。

根据研究生院理事会的数据，2017年秋季至2018年秋季，美国大学数学和计算机科学的国际研究生申请数量增长了6%。以下是国际学生想在美国大学获得计算机科学研究生学位的三个原因（优势）：

• 多样化学科。

•暑期实习。

•业前景。

优势一：多样化学科

想申请留学的国际学生应该知道，在美国学习计算机，可以学习从人工智能到网络安全等话题。佐治亚理工学院计算机学院院长表示，最优秀的计算机科学家，那些真正处在建设未来前沿的人，都在美国的大学和公司工作。

加州大学圣巴巴拉分校计算机科学系有来自世界各地的200多名研究生正在攻读硕士和博士学位，学习高级课程，并在顶级期刊和会议上发表有关他们研究的论文。加州大学圣巴巴拉分校计算机科学系拥有研究实验室， 研究范围包括机器学习、编程语言和数据挖掘等计算机科学领域，以及计算机安全、分布式系统、科学计算、网络、软件工程、智能系统、人本中心计算等前沿课题。

优势二：暑期实习机会

在美国完成两个学期的全日制学习后，国际学生可以申请 课程实践培训（CPT） ，以进行暑期实习。CPT是一种工作授权，允许国际学生与校外雇主一起参加培训；这项工作是学生学位课程的重要环节，必须在毕业前完成。

在美国大学攻读计算机科学研究生学位可以让国际学生与美国科技产业老板建立联系，而且美国的科技行业是世界上最先进的，好处多多。据德州莱斯大学网站称，该校计算机科学硕士学生最近参加了亚马逊、领英、斯伦贝谢和Tableau等公司的暑期实习。

优势三：职业前景光明

专家表示，计算机科学领域学生在Facebook、思科、苹果和甲骨文等科技巨头的所在地的 职业前景非常好 。根据美国劳工统计局的数据，计算机和信息研究科学家的岗位预计在2016年至2026年间将增长19%， 远高于其它所有职业7%的平均增长率 。

国际学生可以通过可选的实践培训项目（OPT）在美国获得为期12个月的工作经验。那些获得科学、技术、工程或数学（即STEM领域）学位的人，可以申请理工科实习培训（STEM OPT）延期，这可以增加24个月的工作时间，可在毕业后最多获得36个月的工作资格。

威斯康辛大学麦迪逊分校计算机科学系工作人员表示，进修研究生学位为工业领域的学生开辟了许多可能的工作新途径。大多数计算机科学毕业生最终都进入了比如谷歌、微软、亚马逊和苹果这些科技行业，而有些人则走上了学术道路，成为了加州大学伯克利分校和康奈尔大学等顶尖学府的成功教授。