INNOVATION AND PERFORMANCE

IMPROVEMENT INTEGRATION
Gabriel Chung Goldia Kong

G2000’s HR Execution Excellence—Retail Attendance System was one of the innovative projects to
receive the ISPI Award of Excellence in 2016. It is a continuous improvement project that applies the
concept of holistic human performance improvement using an ISPI human performance technology (HPT)
model (ISPI, 2012) to streamline the front-end and back-end processes of our Retail Attendance System.
As a result, it leads us to achieve one of our business goals: employment regulatory compliance. In our
case, the project team was tasked with seeking solutions to ensure that the payroll process for retail staff
could be performed accurately and in a timely manner. After applying the HPT model to conduct the gap
analysis and identify the causes or factors that were limiting our performance, we integrated the concept
of human-centered design approach at the solution-design phase of the project, to lead us to innovative
solutions.

THE HUMAN-CENTERED DESIGN (HCD) approach IDEO’S HCD IS THE SOLUTION

emphasizes the human/user community as an essential
starting point if we are to design sustainable solutions
that successfully address real-world problems. In the past,
for any strategic initiatives, senior management asked
only two questions: (1) Is it financially viable and (2) is
it technically and organizationally feasible? If both an-
swers were positive, the project management initiation
stage was completed and the implementation planning
stage would follow. More recently, modern technological
advances—3-D graphics, 3-D printers, and so on—have
helped to reduce the cost and time involved in develop-
ing and implementing strategic initiatives. This leaves or-
ganizations with more time to ask a third question be-
fore embarking on the implementation planning stage: Is
our solution or product what the people actually want?
To ensure that our initiatives and solutions for the Retail
Attendance System project were desirable, feasible, and
viable, we combined a human performance technology
(HPT) model (Van Tiem, Moseley, & Dessinger, 2012)
with IDEO’s 3I model (Brown, 2008), which is an HCD
approach, to guide a very creative approach for solution
design.
Many high-profile organizations have already benefited
from IDEO’s HCD approach to progress and growth. As
a leading global design firm, IDEO has successfully intro-
duced the innovative HCD approach across a wide spec-
trum of industries—from developing a new mouse for
Apple to reworking airport security checkpoints for the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)—and has
received numerous design awards for its achievements.
The founder and chairman of IDEO, David Kelley, is
highly regarded in the design industry, having founded
Stanford University’s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design
(the d.school), and has long been a pioneer of the HCD
approach. IDEO was founded on a commitment to the re-
lationship between design and user experience, and Kelley
continues to teach HCD methodology and design think-
ing to students and business executives alike.
The HCD approach places the users at the forefront of
design, encouraging a deep understanding of the people
for whom we are designing. The next step is to generate a
range of ideas and prototypes as well as to gather genuine,
real-world feedback from the people who will actually be

Performance Improvement, vol. 55, no. 10, November/December 2016

© 2016 International Society for Performance Improvement
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21624 17

The HCD approach places the
users at the forefront of design,
encouraging a deep
understanding of the people for
whom we are designing.
using your product. This creative approach is a collabora-
tion between the designer and the users, one that helps to
ensure that the final innovative product or solution really
does meet a human need. Of course, there are other fac-
tors to consider as well, but as shown in Figure 1, the HCD
approach emphasizes the user community as an essential
starting point if we are to design sustainable solutions that
successfully address real-world problems.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
G2000 Group is a multi-brand specialty retailer, offering
an assortment of men’s and women’s apparel and acces-
sories under various labels. Strong product concepts and
a passion for relentless innovation have made G2000 an
institution of the apparel retail industry in Hong Kong. To-
day, the G2000 Group operates over 700 outlets in the Asia
region.
In Hong Kong, all businesses are obliged to meet the
Employment Regulatory and the Payment of Wages Ordi-
nance, which requires them to pay wages to an employee
no later than 7 days after the end of the wage period.
However, in our case, our front-end retail staff did not
input their attendance into the Retail Attendance System
(RAS) on time or correctly; therefore, the output of the
RAS was not accurate. If the RAS output was not accu-
rate, it affected the accuracy of the retail payroll process.
If this back-end process was not accurate, it might lead to
a breach of the Payment of Wages Ordinance and might
FIGURE 1. CREATE REAL IMPACT
18 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
further lead to a labor-dispute case. If this were to hap-
pens we might not be able to achieve one of our business
goals, which is employment regulatory compliance. If we
are not aware of the employment regulations compliance,
the results can be immensely stressful and expensive. In
addition, it may lead to a negative image for our employer
brand. In short, we cannot afford the consequence of
noncompliance with employment regulations.
Our question, then, was how might we streamline
the front-end and back-end processes to fulfill the em-
ployment regulatory requirement. Our HR execution
excellence RAS project therefore applied an human
performance technology (HPT) model as a systematic
performance improvement process, using the following
instructions:
1. Assess a need or opportunity
2. Identify causes or factors that limit performance
3. Design solutions
4. Develop solutions
5. Implement the solutions
6. Evaluate the results
To meet our business goal (i.e., employment regulations
compliance), we had to comply with the Payment of Wages
Ordinance, which we classified as the workplace level. But
meeting this ordinance depended on the payroll process
and the retail attendance process, which we classified at
the work level of the retail operations. These processes de-
pended on the retail attendance information being entered
by the retail staff, which we classified as the worker level.
The following explanation starts at the worker level and
works its way up through the other levels.
Worker Level Gaps
At the worker level, retail staff was not meeting perfor-
mance standards for entering attendance information. We
require retail staff to input their attendance into the sys-
tem four times a day (in and out, and before and after
meal break). Through our analysis, we uncovered three
causes for this gap. First, we had over 600 retail staff, of
whom half are part-time. What we found was that part-
timers did not know how to input the attendance record,
especially on their first day. Thus, their attendance was
missing or had the wrong data. We attributed this to a
knowledge or skills deficiency in that this group did not
know how to use the RAS. Second, the RAS interface
was not user friendly. Retail staff had to press a num-
ber of buttons to input their attendance records. Because
they wanted to go to lunch quickly and save time, some
staff decided not to input their meal-break record. We
classified this cause as a tools-and-resources deficiency
that specifically involved the RAS user interface. Third,
a small part of the performance gap was simply due to
the staff forgetting to input their attendance information,
which reflects the capacity category.
Work Level Gaps
At the work level, inaccurate data caused performance
problems. Retail attendance data goes to the retail
payroll process system at the first day of each month.
The compensation and benefits (C&B) team then cal-
culates the wages of the retail staff based on the data
in the system. Thus, inaccurate data reduced the accu-
racy of the retail payroll process. District sales man-
agers (DSMs) from retail operations discovered that
some retail staff were not entering their attendance into
the attendance record. Therefore, some attendance data
were missing and appeared as “blank” in the system.
With incomplete data, the C&B team could not cal-
culate the payroll accurately, thereby risking a breach
of the Payment of Wages Ordinance. We classified
these causes in the knowledge/skills and tools/resources
categories.
DSMs also discovered out-of-date transfer records.
When staff transferred between shops, they had to fill
out the staff transfer form. Because different shops have
different commission schemes based on the size, the
manpower, and the location of the shop, the payroll sys-
tem could not calculate the commission correctly if the
transfer form has illegible or incorrect information. We
classified this problem also in the knowledge/skills and
tools/resources categories.
The last issue we found was that when the system cal-
culated the payroll, it needed to compare the attendance
information entered with the preset roster data. This
roster data was supposed to be uploaded by the DSMs
or the shop managers every Sunday. However, this was
an aging retail roster system, and it was constantly out
of order, which made uploading the roster difficult. We
attributed this gap to tools and resources.
Workplace Level Gaps
At the workplace level, we found gaps related to com-
pliance with the Payment of Wages Ordinance. The la-
bor dispute we experienced was a significant manage-
ment challenge. The cause of it was inaccurate retail at-
tendance and shop transfer data. We paid retail staff less
than what we should have, and the case was brought to
the court. This cause reflected the tools and resources
category.
Solutions
After using the HPT model to analyze the performance
and to identify the root causes of performance gaps, our
project team used the HCD approach to generate five
solutions. To secure the quality and accuracy of the at-
tendance record, we decided to strengthen the retail at-
tendance input method, the attendance record approval
e-process, and the staff transfer e-process. To achieve
sustainable improvement, we organized train-the-trainer
workshops for shop managers to teach the retail staff to
use the enhanced system effectively, and we developed au-
tomated management reports to monitor the attendance
input performance. These solutions were selected based
on the outcomes, outputs, values, costs, and benefits to
G2000.
The key output for the design-solutions phase was a de-
tailed design document. The purpose of the document was
twofold. First, it specified that the solution development
team should have enough information and understanding
of what was to be built, how it would be used, and how
they were expected to transform the design plan into a
complete solution package of “tangible products and ser-
vices.” Second, it provided senior management enough in-
formation to review, ask for revision, or reject the develop-
ment and the implementation of the solution. In short, the
design document was used to create confidence and gain
support and approval from stakeholders, including senior
management and solution developers.
INTEGRATING INNOVATION INTO
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT
To decrease the potential for a bad user experience that
could result in extensive reworking or other costly reme-
dies, it was essential to develop solution specifications.
This ensures that the solutions are specifically designed
(and have the capacity) to close the identified root causes
and result in a good user experience. We used the HCD
approach to achieve this, which involved three main
phases: inspiration, ideation, and implementation (see
Figure 2).
• Inspiration triggers the search for viable solutions by
identifying a need or a problem and translating this
into an opportunity.
• Ideation is the creative process of generating various
ideas and testing them among potential users within
the community the designer is aiming to serve.
• Implementation is the route from ideas and concepts
to real-life solutions that benefit people in their daily
lives.
Performance Improvement • Volume 55 • Number 10 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 19
 FIGURE 2. 3I MODEL (Inspiration, Ideation, and Implementation)

INSPIRATION PHASE OF HCD

To create meaningful innovations designers need to know
their users and care about their lives. The inspiration
phase is all about opening oneself up to creative possibil-
ities. Before we started to consider any design concepts
at all, we first immersed ourselves in the world and lives
of the people for whom we were designing, doing re-
search, collecting data, and examining the problem from
all angles and perspectives. There are two key princi-
ples we used during the inspiration phase: empathy and
extremes and mainstreams.

Inspiration Phase—Empathy
The HCD approach is rooted in empathy—the ability to
understand other people’s feelings and see things from
their perspectives. The goal is to find an innovative solu-
tion that not only works well or looks good but truly meets
the needs and desires of the target users. Understanding
and involving the people you’re designing for, throughout
the design process, is therefore your route to success.
Looking at problems from a new perspective unleashes
a certain freedom and creativity in human-centered de-
signers in that it forces them to put aside their preconcep-
tions and assumptions, challenges their existing ways of
thinking, and allows them to see opportunities for inno-
vation and improvement with fresh eyes. Empathy is the
best way to make sure that you stay on track throughout
the design process, keeping your focus on the target users
FIGURE 3. EMPATHY MAP
you are aiming to serve. One of the tools that helps you to
stay on track is the empathy map (see Figure 3).
Inspiration Phase—Extremes and Mainstreams
To fully serve our audience with a design solution that
worked for everyone, it was important to make sure that
we included people from the extremes of the spectrum as
well as those who fit squarely in the mainstream (see Fig-
ure 4). In fact, it is often in consultation with some of the
people at either extreme that your creativity will be most
stretched, as this inevitably pushes you to consider more
nuanced use cases, challenges, and opportunities.

20 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016


FIGURE 4. EXTREMES AND MAINSTREAMS
Depending on your particular project and goals, the
definition of an “extreme user” will vary. When recruit-
ing participants for interviews, there are many basic fac-
tors to consider, such as age, gender, and income level. It
is also important to identify the particular characteristics
and experiences that might place someone at either end of
the spectrum.
For the G2000 project, to understand the needs, the
feelings, and the desires of our retail staff, both the ex-
tremes and mainstreams, we (the talent management
team) visited retail stores to meet and stand alongside both
full-time and part-time retail staff. We immersed our-
selves in the retail working life by observing how staff used
the RAS, as well as how shop managers approved retail
staff attendance. We also interviewed the human resources
(HR) staff who are responsible for payroll. With the help
of the empathy map (Gray, Brown, & Macanufo, 2010),
we observed, asked questions, and listened to what staff
had to say to better understand how they think and feel
and to identify the problems they face. We captured what
they heard about the RAS and the payroll process on the
empathy map.
In short, we arranged a series of elicitation sessions
to collect direct feedback from retail staff, shop man-
agers, district sales managers, and HR. The format of
each session was tailored to the respondents’ profile and
level of understanding of the company; data collection
methods included interviews, questionnaires, and onsite
observations.
Once we gathered as much information as possible,
our next task was to translate this data into key themes
and lessons learned that informed and directed the rest
of the design process. In HCD, these are called insight
statements—three to five clear and directional summary
sentences that proved invaluable in keeping us focused
on designing sustainable, human-centered solutions. Here
are some insight statements that we came up with:
FIGURE 5. DOWNLOADING THEIR LEARNINGS AFTER THE
INTERVIEW
• RAS needs to be more user friendly.
• Paper shop transfer forms currently in use are out-
dated.
• The workload of the DSMs is very heavy; they can-
not be relied on for the attendance approval and shop
transfer process.
• Part-time and new employees do not know how to use
the RAS.
IDEATION PHASE OF HCD
The ideation phase is about generating as many ideas as
possible from the data gathered and lessons learned. This
is a collaborative process; the project team shared the find-
ings and insight statements with the team members, en-
couraged an exchange of ideas, and then collectively de-
cided which concepts to pursue. The project team also
kept going back to the target users with rough proto-
types to obtain the instant feedback that guided refine-
ments to the solution. There are three key steps associated
with the ideation phase: synthesis, brainstorming, and
prototyping.
Ideation Phase—Synthesis
As user feedback and findings continue to grow, it is vital
to take the time to consciously assess and make sense of
what you are seeing and hearing from your community so
that you do not lose your direction.
Step 1: Download your learnings. Teamwork and
collaborative creativity are central to HCD, so you will
“download,” sort, organize, and discuss your findings as a
group. To make sure that everyone has an opportunity to
share his or her thoughts, stories, and feelings, it is help-
ful to use individual sticky notes, stuck to large sheets of
paper (see Figure 5). This generates a rich pool of group
knowledge from many different perspectives and voices.
Performance Improvement • Volume 55 • Number 10 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 21

FIGURE 6. “HOW MIGHT WE” STATEMENTS
Step 2: Identify themes. This helps to consolidate your
group reflections and draw out certain patterns or con-
sistencies that might inform your next steps. Where are
the recurring themes and common problems? Are there
significant comments or insights that stand out to you?
Did anything particularly surprise you? For our project,
the themes we identified included RAS, approval process,
information technology aspect, shop-transfer application,
and training.
Step 3: Craft “how might we?” questions. The fi-
nal stage of synthesis is to move from insights to op-
portunities. The idea is to use your insight statements to
motivate the next phase of the design process by reinter-
preting them as inciting prompts. The HCD approach ad-
vocates “how might we?” questions (see Figure 6) because
they are productive yet open-ended. These questions im-
ply that there are solutions to be found without putting any
constraints on imagination or innovation.
Ideation Phase—Brainstorming
After the team has crafted the “how might we?” questions,
it can follow the seven rules for brainstorming to discover
the top ideas for solving the problem that the team is tar-
geted to solve. The seven brainstorm rules (IDEO, 2015)
are:
1. Defer judgment.
2. Encourage wild ideas.
3. Build on the ideas of others.
4. Stay focused on the topic.
5. Have one conversation at a time.
6. Be visual.
7. Go for quantity.
At the end of the brainstorming session, we generated
over 80 ideas, and one of the top ideas was to make our
RAS input system more user friendly.
Ideation Phase—Prototyping
Prototyping is a quick and effective way of trying out your
ideas in the real world with your user community to re-
fine the ideas. This takes the guesswork out of the equation
and ensures that any changes, decisions, and iterations are
guided by your user group. Prototyping should be a con-
22 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
tinuous exchange that takes place early and often in the
design process to avoid investing significant resources into
a product or solution that will ultimately fail. By sharing
rough models with your target audience you can gather
valuable feedback at every stage, learn from your mistakes
before it is too late, and gradually hone your initial concept
into a powerful solution.
Step 1: Storyboarding. It can be helpful to start proto-
typing by breaking your idea into smaller key moments.
A great way to do this is by creating a storyboard that il-
lustrates how the target users might potentially interact or
benefit with your idea or solution over time. Storyboards
(see Figure 7) provide an effective way of visualizing your
concept because they are quick to develop and low-budget.
They do not need to be a work of art. A rough outline of
your idea from start to finish is usually enough. Along with
helping to communicate and selling the various elements
of your product or service to others, the process of story-
boarding will also help you to clarify the concept in your
own mind, ensuring that you fully understand who will
benefit and how.
Step 2: Rapid prototyping. It is crucial that you do not
spend too much time on each prototype (see Figure 8) as
it only needs to be a rough model. The most important
thing is to build and share prototypes as frequently as pos-
sible, so that you are always learning and your concept is
constantly developing. For human-centered designers, the
value of prototyping is in the feedback you receive; with
rapid prototyping you can quickly progress through vari-
ous iterations based on what you have learned from your
users.
Step 3: Getting feedback. Sharing your storyboard or
the prototype with the people you are aiming to serve
and listening to what they have to say is the foundation
of HCD. It is this element of the ideation phase that en-
sures that there is a specific human community at the
heart of your project, driving and shaping your design
process.
Step 4: Integrating feedback and iterating. In the ini-
tial inspiration phase, your creativity was sparked by the
lessons you learned from your user community, but this
learning must be an ongoing process. The ideation phase
is an opportunity to show users how you have translated
your findings into viable concepts and to find out whether
you are on the right track. Integrating feedback after each
iteration keeps you focused on your users, so you can be
confident that you are designing something that they will
be ready to adopt.
ITERATE, ITERATE, ITERATE
Iteration is at the heart of the HCD approach because it
is driven by human feedback from testing and because it
 FIGURE 7. STORYBOARD
stimulates and stretches creativity. The ongoing process
of iteration challenges designers to be responsive and
flexible, to explore new approaches, and to be constantly
improving.
The goal of iteration is perfection, but this is achieved
through the testing of numerous imperfect prototypes
along the way. This saves you from investing endless
hours and resources into early, questionable versions of
a concept and enables you to reach successful solutions
more quickly. Ultimately, iteration gives designers the
freedom to run with a concept without worrying about
getting it right the first time; it also keeps this process in
check and guides you toward an effective solution that
meets a real need.
For the G2000 project, the team used the app screen
mockup method for the user interface and arranged
several structured walk-through workshops for po-
tential users (see Figure 8). The mockup prototypes
provide a quick, easy way for users to “visualize” the
design ideas, and evolutionary prototyping can signif-
icantly accelerate the development time. The iterative
nature of prototyping incorporates feedback from users
very early on in the process, allowing ongoing formative
evaluation.
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE OF HCD
The implementation phase occurs when your vision be-
comes a reality. You can take it to market in full confidence
that your solution will be successful because you have con-
sistently kept the community you are aiming to serve at the
heart of the process.
Human-centered design underpins the rest of the HPT
process. After the stakeholders have agreed on a prototype,
the implementation, maintenance, and evaluation plan are
prepared and presented to the decision maker. The team
can design a handful of mini-pilots that precede and in-
form the full pilot program. Mini-pilots might engage peo-
ple who are outside of the group of stakeholders for the
final implementation. These pilots shape the final devel-
opments and refinements and ensure the conformity and
feasibility of the solutions.
An important element of the implementation phase is
to develop strategies that make the solutions sustainable
over time, so that the changes you implement will continue
to help the company to achieve its goals more effectively.
If you want to see different outcomes in the future, you
often need to make forward-thinking changes at this stage,
whether that involves finding fresh talent, developing new
skills, or building new external partnerships.
Performance Improvement • Volume 55 • Number 10 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 23
 FIGURE 8. RAPID PROTOTYPE AND SCREEN MOCKUP
After implementation, it is crucial that you take the
time to evaluate the results and their impact by de-
veloping a measurement strategy. Human-centered de-
sign integrates design and measurement methods in
a continuous learning cycle. By encouraging ongoing
measurement, evaluation, and iteration, the solutions
stay grounded in real-world impact and continue to
evolve.
Applying an HPT model to assess the needs and to
identify the root causes of the limitations to our HR per-
formance was an important place to start, as we needed
to be sure of the essential problem before trying to work
toward a solution. With the integration of the HCD ap-
proach, we then performed the inspiration phase to ex-
plore new perspectives on our need, the ideation phase
to generate ideas, and the implementation phase to make
these ideas tangible and usable. Following this, we re-
turned to the performance improvement process, and
through the implementation of the G2000 project, we
have successfully exceeded our targets in the past year.
To ensure the effectiveness of the project, we evaluated it
by Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2006). Even after the project had been
24 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016
running for a year and responsibility for the solution
was under the operations team, we still monitored the
project results by using the balanced scorecard method
(Kaplan & Norton, 1996). This was an evaluation jour-
ney (see Figure 9) that combined the balanced score-
card model and Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation
model.
The results we have experienced thus far include the
following:
• Level 7 (L7) (BSC–Financial Perspective) Risk rating
of breaching the payment of wages: before: 25 scores,
target: 5 scores versus result: 5 scores (meets target).
• Level 6 (L6) (BSC–Customer Perspective) The satis-
faction rate of the RAS from retail staff and C&B team
members is over 95%.
• Level 5 (L5) (BSC–Internal Process Perspective) Ac-
curacy rate of the RAS: before 79%, target: 95% versus
result: 95% (meets target).
• Level 4 (L4) (BSC–Learning and Growth Perspective):
100% new retail staff received the enhanced RAS user
training on day one at their shop.

FIGURE 9. EVALUATION JOURNEY MODEL
• Level 3 (L3) (Kirkpatrick–Behavior) The majority of
the retail staff are entering information into the RAS in
a timely manner using the new input method: before:
87%, target: 100% versus result: 100% (meets target).
• Level 2 (L2) (Kirkpatrick–Learning) Shop managers
can correctly apply and explain the changes of the
project content and are confident in promoting the
changes in their own shop: target: 90% versus result:
92% (meets target).
• Level 1 (L1) (Kirkpatrick–Reaction) Shop managers
perceive that the solving of the problem (enhanced
RAS) is related to their daily operation: target: 5 out
of 6 versus result: 5.2 out of 6 (meets target).
All retail staff are now able to follow the enhanced atten-
dance input method and workflow, and over 570,000 at-
tendance records have been completed in an accurate and
timely manner.
It is clear that HR efficiency has greatly increased
through this internal improvement project. The ongoing
evaluation and monitoring system also builds in a contin-
uous improvement capability, which significantly empow-
ers our strategic HR role of supporting our business goals.
CONCLUSION
Aside from the success of achieving the specified busi-
ness goal using an HPT model, the integration of HCD for
creative and strategic solutions, especially through the in-
spiration and ideation phases, facilitated a smooth transi-
tion between the analysis and development phases of per-
formance improvement. The advantage of this integrated
approach also led to three more unexpected benefits to the
company.
Staff Engagement
All of the solutions are focused on the real-life daily prob-
lems that our staff was facing. Their voices played a vi-
tal role in the development and iteration of our solu-
tions, and throughout the process they knew that we were
listening, caring for, and respecting their ideas. IDEO’s
3I model was therefore a highly effective engagement
tool.
Collaboration
Throughout the brainstorming and prototyping activities,
members from different departments were invited to work
together toward the defined common goal and to build on
the ideas of others. This encouraged valuable communi-
cation and teamwork across departments.
Innovation Management
The HCD approach allowed the company to respond to
external or internal opportunities and employed its cre-
ativity to introduce new ideas, processes, and products.
This is not relegated or restricted to research and devel-
opment; it included representatives at every level con-
tributing creatively to a company’s product development,
manufacturing, and marketing. This innovative approach
completed and enhanced the original HPT model and re-
ally brought it to life. By integrating HCD into our ap-
proach, the new RAS, many ideas came from our staff and
they felt some ownership over its design. We have seen
that our staff were also more willing to share their ideas
with senior management because they knew that we were
listening.
References
Brown, T. (2008, June). Design thinking. Harvard Business
Review, 85–92.
Gray, D., Brown, S., & Macanufo, J. (2010). Gamestorming: A
playbook for innovators, rulebreakers, and changemakers.
Sebastapol, CA: O’Reilly.
IDEO (2015). The field guide to human-centered design.
Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org/resources/1
Performance Improvement • Volume 55 • Number 10 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 25
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). The balanced scorecard.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kirkpatrick, L., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training
programs. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Van Tiem, D.M., Moseley, J.L., & Dessinger, C. (2012).
Fundamentals of performance improvement (3rd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

GABRIEL CHUNG, PMP, CSSBB, CBAP, CPLP, is a practitioner in organization development and was the
project lead of the 2016 ISPI award-winning HR Execution Excellence project for G2000 Apparel Ltd. The
corporate projects led by him have received seven public awards, including: ISPI Awards of Excellence;
HR Asia Best Companies to Work for in Asia Award; HKAI Customer Service Award; HKRMA Service
& Courtesy Award; Family Council Innovation Award; ERB Grand Prize Award; and HKIHRM Excellent
Learning & Development Award. He may be reached at gabriel@hkipi.org
GOLDIA KONG is a human-centered design facilitator. She has extensive experience in setting up customer-
service operations and conducting both technical and soft-skills training. She has worked in various service
industries such as airlines, apartments, food and beverage, shopping malls, and retail apparel. One of her
most impressive achievements was to set up, develop, lead, and train front-line and managerial staff for
several prominent shopping malls in Hong Kong. She was awarded the HKMA Outstanding New Trainer
Award and is a Certified DDI facilitator, a DISC Certified Behavioral Consultant, and a DesignKit (HCD)
facilitator. She may be reached at goldiakong@gmail.com

26 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2016