Gilbert’s Behavior Engineering Model

Thomas F. Gilbert was a foundational thinker of human performance improvement (HPI) and
often considered father of human performance technology (HPT). One of his major contributions
to HPT was his book Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance, originally
published in 1978. In this book, Gilbert introduces an approach to view performance. Gilbert
proposes the need to:

1. define worthy performance by outlining accomplishment versus behavior

2. outline the equation and the approach to achieve the potential for improving performance
(PIP)

3. propose his Behavior Engineering Model (BEM)

These concepts are related and should be understood together to fully understood Gilbert’s
model.

Worthy Performance

Gilbert believed that “Nothing is more critical to creating competence than establishing clear,
valuable, and measurable goals, and determining the potential for accomplishing them (Gilbert,
1978, p. 73). One step in this process was to determine worthy performance. Worthy
performance (W) was characterized as a behavior (B), what a person does, could be measured in
in relation to an accomplishment (A), the outcomes of the behavior. Gilbert noted this
relationship as:

Gilbert noted that behavior was little more than the vehicle to reach accomplishment.
Accomplishment was the goal.

Potential for Improving Performance (PIP)

To fully understand the BEM, the HPT practitioner must also determine the gap between desired
and current performance. To determine this gap Gilbert believe that the HPT Practitioner must
compare the best performance with typical performance \. To illustrate these relationships Gilbert
notes that exemplary performance (Wex ) should be compared to typical performance (Wt) to
arrive at the potential for improving performance (PIP). This formula is expressed as:

In short, the PIP is the performance gap, the delta, between exemplary performance and typical
performance. It is the area to remediate when considering improvement.

Behavior Engineering Model

Once the HPT practitioner has differentiated worthy performance from the confounding
behaviors that may or may not lead to it and has established the PIP, the practitioner is in a
position consider the influences on behavior. These influences could result from the individual
and their knowledge and skills, capacity, and motivation or the environment where behaviors
occur. The environmental factors were information, resources, and incentives or consequences.
 (Dr Shoffner, PowerPoint presentation, week 4).
All six conditions of behavior influence performance and it is the job of the HPT practitioner to
consider these in devising an intervention. The goal of the HPT practitioner is to ensure that
interventions areas have the greatest impact on improving performance with the least cost.
Typically, the least costly interventions on the BEM table were environmental in nature.
Interventions that addressed an individual’s behavior tend to be more expensive to influence or
change.

Finally, Gilbert acknowledge the role of management as the ultimate purveyor of responsibility.
“For any given accomplishment, a deficiency in performance always has as its immediate cause
a deficiency in a behavior repertory (P), or in the environment that supports the repertory (E), or
in both. But its immediate cause will be found in a deficiency of the management system (M).”
(Gilbert, 1978, p.76)

References
Gilbert, T. (1978). The behavior engineering model. In T. Gilbert, Human competence:
Engineering worthy performance (pp. 73-105). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wagner, D. (2006). Who Needs HPT? Competing Models for Performance Improvement.
Retrieved April 03, 2018, from http://debwagner.info/hpttoolkit/gilbert_bem_hpt.htm

Shoffner, M. (2017). Lecture: LT 7150. Analysis of Performance and Instructional Systems.

Retrieved from icollege: https://gastate.view.usg.edu/d2l/le/content/1560179/Home