Kaufman's Organizational Elements Model (OEM) (Lisa Llewellyn)

Kaufman and his colleagues proposed the OEM which uses a systemic approach to look at gaps in performance.  A main purpose of this model is to help us separate the means from the ends during needs assessment.  There are 5 system elements including inputs and processes (the means or organizational efforts) and products, outputs, and outcomes (the ends, or the organizational results and societal impacts).  Kaufman and his colleagues point out three different result levels of each system (micro, macro, and mega), and the OEM helps us assess our needs at each level.  We must always remember that needs represent a gap in results, rather than a gap in the means -- in order to arrive at an effective intervention.

Means

1. inputs
(raw materials)

Quasi-needs

What should be < Gap1 >What is

What should be < Gapn >What is

A. Organizational efforts

Internal to organization

2. processes
(how-to-do-its)

Quasi-needs

What should be < Gap1 >What is

What should be < Gapn >What is

Ends

3. products
(learner/instructor accomplishments; en-route results)

Needs at the micro-level

What should be < Gap1 >What is

What should be < Gapn >What is

B. Organizational results

4. outputs
(organizational accomplishments; the aggregated products of the system that are delivered or deliverable to society)

Needs at the macro level

What should be < Gap1 >What is

What should be < Gapn >What is

5. outcomes
(effects in and for society)

Needs at the mega level

What should be < Gap1 >What is

What should be < Gapn >What is

C. Societal impact

External to organization

 

References

To learn more about Kaufman’s OEM, refer to the following:

Kaufman, R. (1988). Preparing useful performance indicators. Training & Development Journal, 42(9), 80-83.

Kaufman, R., Johnston, J. C., & Nickols. F. K. (1979). Organizational planning and conventional wisdom. Training & Development Journal, 33(9), 70-76.

Kaufman, R., & Stakenas, R. G. (1981). Needs assessment and holistic planning. Educational Leadership, 38(8), 612-616.