How the HPT evaluation model analyzes current and desired performance levels to guide improvement

The HPT approach: turning gaps into measurable gains

If you’re exploring talent development frameworks, you’ll quickly notice a simple truth: problems in organizations aren’t just about “tilling the soil” with training. They’re about performance—the real, on-the-ground ability to do the job well. In the CPTD landscape, one model stands out for its laser focus on performance gaps: the Human Performance Technology (HPT) evaluation model. It’s the kind of thinking that helps you start with what currently happens, then map a clear path to what should happen. Let me unpack how it works and why it matters.

What the HPT model is really about

At its core, HPT asks a straightforward question: how well are people performing right now, and how good do we want them to be? The emphasis is on analysis of both ends of the spectrum—the current state and the desired state. Rather than jumping straight to solutions, HPT centers diagnosis. That means you don’t just identify problems; you define the performance target and then work backward to figure out what’s keeping people from hitting it. When you see a performance shortfall, you don’t assume training is the fix. You ask: is the gap caused by skill, knowledge, tools, incentives, environment, or something entirely different?

Here’s the thing: that deliberate starting point—current performance plus desired performance—anchors everything that follows. It keeps your interventions relevant and increases the odds that they’ll actually move the needle, not just tick a box. In the CPTD vocabulary, this is the kind of clarity that helps you design more effective, evidence-based solutions.

How the model breaks down

Think of the HPT process as a five-step journey, each stage building on the previous one. It’s not linear in the sense of a straight line, but it’s definitely logical and methodical.

1. Clarify the current state

• Gather data from real work: observations, performance metrics, error rates, time-on-task, customer feedback.

• Interview employees, supervisors, and stakeholders to surface everyday friction points.

• Ask the team to describe what “good performance” looks like in practical terms.

2. Define the desired state

• Pin down concrete performance targets: what needs to be achieved, by when, and for whom.

• Translate those targets into observable actions and outcomes (e.g., complete a task within a defined time, meet a quality standard, achieve a certain customer satisfaction score).

• Make the targets specific enough to be measured, but flexible enough to account for real-world variation.

3. Gap analysis and cause identification

• Compare current performance with the desired state to identify the gap.

• Probe the root causes behind the gap. This is where you differentiate symptoms from real blockers: skill gaps, missing tools, inadequate processes, misaligned incentives, or environmental barriers.

• Use simple but sturdy tools—5 Whys, cause-and-effect diagrams, or quick fishbone analyses—to keep the dialogue grounded in evidence.

4. Design and implement interventions

• Choose interventions that address the identified causes. You might mix training, job aids, redesigned workflows, improved processes, or better access to resources.

• Remember: the goal is to remove barriers and empower people to perform at the target level, not just to transfer knowledge.

• Implement with small, manageable pilots when possible, then scale what demonstrates real impact.

5. Evaluate and close the loop

• Measure outcomes against the targets. Look for signals like faster task completion, higher accuracy, improved throughput, or better customer metrics.

• Adjust and iterate as needed. The strongest HPT efforts are iterative, learning from what works and what doesn’t.

• Tie the results back to the business impact—what changed for customers, teams, and the organization as a whole?

A practical example that sticks

Let’s imagine a mid-sized customer service team. Current performance shows that average call-handling time is 6 minutes, with moderate customer satisfaction scores. The desired state is to cut handling time to 4 minutes while preserving or improving satisfaction.

• Current state: calls average 6 minutes; agents sometimes switch between screens, reference long scripts, and escalate more often than needed.

• Desired state: 4-minute average handling time; high-quality customer experiences; fewer escalations.

• Gap causes: fragmented knowledge base, inconsistent script usage, and a lack of quick-reference tools at agents’ fingertips.

• Interventions: create a unified, searchable knowledge base; standardize and simplify scripts; provide a one-page escalation flowchart; train on concise communication and rapid problem-solving; deploy a lightweight agent-support tool that surfaces the right tips during calls.

• Evaluation: track average handle time, first-contact resolution, and customer satisfaction before and after the changes; monitor escalation rates and agent confidence. If the data show a drop in time without sacrificing satisfaction, you know you’re closing the gap.

Why this matters in CPTD work

In talent development practice (CPTD-aligned work), this gap-focused logic is gold. It keeps you anchored to real performance outcomes rather than abstract ideas about “better training.” It also helps you communicate with stakeholders in business terms: what you’re improving, how you’ll measure it, and what the payoff looks like.

And let’s be honest: not every problem has a neat training answer. Sometimes the bottleneck is the system itself—an outdated process, a lack of tools, or misaligned incentives. HPT nudges you to ask the right questions first, so you don’t waste time building resources that don’t move the needle.

A quick contrast with other models

If you’re choosing among frameworks, here’s a quick orientation to help you see why HPT stands out for current-versus-desired analysis:

• Data-driven evaluation models tend to emphasize gathering and analyzing data streams. They’re powerful for identifying what’s happening, but they don’t necessarily start from a defined target of what should happen, so the path to improvement can feel murky.

• Qualitative evaluation models focus on narrative insights from interviews and observations. They’re great for depth and context, yet they can miss precision about how much performance must change and how to measure it concretely.

• Formative evaluation models emphasize ongoing feedback during development and implementation. They’re excellent for iterative refinement but may not always crystallize a clear end-state performance target before starting.

HPT, by design, couples the current state with a clearly defined desired state and then works backward to close the gap with targeted, evidence-based interventions. It’s this focus that helps you connect everyday work to strategic outcomes.

Practical tips for CPTD learners

• Start with a crisp performance problem statement. If you can’t articulate the current shortcoming in one sentence, you’re not ready to move forward.

• Use simple diagnostics to surface root causes. You don’t need a billion data points—just enough to identify genuine blockers.

• Keep interventions tight and targeted. A few well-chosen tools often beat a pile of generic resources.

• Build a lightweight measurement plan from day one. Decide what metrics will tell you you’ve moved the needle, and how you’ll collect them.

• Tie outcomes to business results. When stakeholders see the link to cost, speed, quality, or customer impact, you’ll earn buy-in more easily.

• Be prepared to iterate. Real improvement rarely appears on the first try—test, learn, adjust, and try again.

A few quick reminders you can carry into your CPTD work

• Always describe the current state and the desired state in observable terms. Vague descriptions invite vague results.

• Ground your analysis in evidence, not assumption. Data plus input from those on the front lines makes for sturdy conclusions.

• Don’t settle for a single solution. If one intervention doesn’t close the gap, re-evaluate causes and try a different mix.

• Keep communication clear and outcomes-focused. People respond better when they understand the purpose and the expected impact.

Putting it all together

The HPT evaluation model is a practical compass for talent developers who want to move beyond good intentions and toward measurable improvement. By starting with the present reality and naming a concrete future target, you create a transparent path from diagnosis to intervention to evaluation. The result? Real, observable performance gains that stick.

If you’re thinking about how to tackle performance challenges in your organization or in your CPTD work, remember this: the most reliable route to improvement is a guided walk from where people are now to where they could be, with clear steps, concrete targets, and honest measurements along the way. That’s the heart of HPT—and the kind of thinking that makes talent development both impactful and deeply rewarding.