Differences in Job and Task Analysis Methodologies

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

There are many forms of job analysis today, each with its unique outcome, its own taxonomy and methodology. Depending on the needs of the job analysis data user, any type of output can be derived.

Job analysis can be defined as “the process of collecting and verifying information about the job.” Any job classification may have numerous components, such as duties, tasks and subtasks. The best way to identify each is to break the job down into its components. Approaching an analysis in any other way may prove frustrating – like walking through a maze – and the output unreliable. In addition, when analyzing multiple jobs, tracking progress in any one of them may be difficult unless a defined, analytical method and taxonomy is established, and systematically applied.

The chart illustrates several popular types of analysis – from the position-specific to the standardized, general information; from those that provide data about the work to those about the worker. Most of the methods of job analysis today have limitations and tend to have “single-purpose” outcomes, suspiciously designed to point to a set a products. Some that are survey oriented methods allow for more subjectivity and may diminish the usefulness of the data. The more technical the requirements of a job classification (e.g. classifications in manufacturing, chemical operations, healthcare) the less subjectivity may be tolerated before relevancy is lost. This type of analysis is easier to administer and seems to be a “quick and dirty” solution, but seldom gives the level of detail necessary to identify complex job qualifications or process-related training and testing criteria.

At the other end of the spectrum are methods that produce massive quantities of statistical data that require hours of further analysis and interpretation; hardly acceptable for small-staff or no-staff training development and delivery applications. By the time the data processing is complete, often the original intent of the analysis is forgotten and/or the job so significantly changed the data is no longer useful.

Traditional, manually-based, detail-oriented types of job analysis data collection applied to manufacturing environments are challenged by production schedules, rapidly changing technology and adversarial labor-management relations. Furthermore, while the volume of collected data may be useful, the data is of no use unless manually manipulated into useful training and testing applications. This often proves to be too labor-intensive and often criticized as impractical by management. Companies that are in a constant state of flux further exacerbate the efforts of data collection and undermine the value of instruments generated from it if revision is not simple and continual.

The methods used in PROTECH© system of managed human resource development process have lineage in the Air Force and Navy models of job and task analysis, which are considered some of the best in the world. Decades of research went into these two models, which provide unparalleled capabilities for job mapping and sequential training. However, most private companies do not have the resources, financial and labor, to invest in such an undertaking. Their needs are more immediate and require a system that is flexible, yet thorough; accommodating but still systematic.

The PROTECH methodology lies in the center of the job/task analysis type chart and occupies a lot of space. It incorporates aspects of many methodologies, so many uses and users of data are accommodated rather than a separate analysis needed for each desired outcome. One analysis collects all data quickly, with the minimum amount of intrusion on the client’s operation. The bulk of the task-based analysis occurs through observation, rather than isolation, to ensure accuracy of the data and allow the analyst to play the part of the new-hire, asking the questions one might ask when the subject matter expert is not clear.

Other aspects of various analysis approaches were considered, but the bottom line in developing the PROTECH approach, methodology, taxonomy and software was the need for a complete system that is:

1. User friendly;
2. Flexible, to allow a yield to production scheduling, facilitating multiple job/task analyses and incorporating existing processes and documentation;
3. Thorough, collecting not only job data but task best practice procedures including all the information a new-hire needs such as tools and equipment used, reference documents utilized, specifications that need to be met and safety criteria to adhere to;
4.. Cost-efficient and effective, providing more outcomes to any size company at a cost significantly reduced from traditional, manual methods;
5. Computer based, therefore providing the affordable processing of large quantities of data;
6. Low labor requirements, offering computer-generated training plans, technical documents, training checklists, etc., through automated design and at a fraction of the cost of manual developers;
7. Revisable, to keep training current with advances in technology, process improvement efforts and organizational change;
8. Auditable, for compliance with ISO/AS/IATF quality programs, safety programs, or to give audit capability to prime contractors or any other government agency;
9. On-the-job training focused, to keep most task-specific training in the work area – building a structure around the previously unstructured.
10. A relational database that compares jobs to jobs, people to jobs, jobs to people through any progress or change;
11. Equally effective for any type of job classification, any organization, any job level in the organization (i.e. hourly, salary); and
12. Rich with data to share with educational institutions, training providers and workforce development agencies to offer them real-time job and worker data – by individual employer or local employers or regional employers or sector – so they might continually improve course content and worker development strategies.

To some degree, this breaks with traditional (or conventional) training program development. Industries have relied upon academic or vocational school training to meet its pre-hire needs, and combined it either with a text book learning, generalized” classroom” training, or with costly post-hire simulation. This has been marketed as the only solution for decades. There is a lot of resistance to “modernizing” workforce development approaches, perhaps, for fear of rendering existing institutions, practitioners and materials irrelevant.

Ultimately, on-the-job-training is accomplished one way or another. Somehow the crewleader, supervisor or co-worker explains or demonstrates enough of the basics of the work to be performed. But what if the trainee and trainer have a personality conflict? Or the trainer, perhaps the supervisor, doesn’t have the time to adequately train a new-hire? Or what if the trainer him/herself was not trained properly? Inadequate training can occur more frequently if training programs are not structured. Evidence may surface in the form of employee malperformance symptoms, which are usually remedied with disciplinary measures, yet the root cause remains undetermined and untouched.

Proactive Technologies PROTECH approach combines a thorough, streamlined job/task analysis methodology with the PROTECH software which immediately provides all of the tools of the human resource development process and keeps records on each worker’s training for each job assignment – no matter if the job or job assignment changes.

Learn more about the approach through a 13-minute video presentation. If interested, attend a live online presentation of your area of interest or schedule a time and date suitable for you and your group. If your interest is peaked, schedule an onsite demonstration, presentation and discussion that focuses the discussion exactly on your organization’s needs. You have nothing to lose and so much to gain.