23

Performance Improvement, vol. 52, no. 10, November/December 2013©2013 International Society for Performance Improvement

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21378

USING THE I2 INTERVENTION MATRIX TO SELECT THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION

Jason Paul Siko, PhD

The I2 intervention selection matrix is a useful tool that will help in the selection of

appropriate interventions based on the level of impact and invasiveness of the intervention.

It is a two-axis grid that places interventions in one of four quadrants. Based on which

quadrant the intervention falls in, a practitioner can decide which interventions to use, not

use, or use with caution. It is a simple yet elegant way to determine appropriateness.

SOLUTIONS TO SOLVING performance problems in the workplace can be difficult to judge. Many complex factors go into deciding which course of action will provide the best results, as the source of performance problems can be found in a variety of places (Gilbert, 1978). Some inter-ventions are easy to implement but do not have a strong impact. Others will effectively close the gap between the current state performance of workers or an organization and the optimal level of performance but may be very dif-ficult to implement for a host of reasons such as available time, financial issues, or workplace culture.

For example, let us say that your organization is faced with the problem of decreased profits. Your group must decide on a solution to boost the bottom line. Four choices are presented to you: (1) the creation of compact job aids to assist the sales team members while they conduct sales calls, (2) a weeklong sales training event for the sales staff, (3) a new performance-based pay incentive system, or (4) organization-wide cost cutting through reductions in salaries. These choices, quite varied in their approach, are all common solutions to workplace performance (Van Tiem, Moseley, & Dessinger, 2001). Thus, you need to consider which factors play the biggest role in defining what is the best solution. Clearly, the primary goal in this example is increased profits, but other factors come into play, such as the cost of each intervention, employee morale, and potential personnel turnover associated with each intervention.

The I2 intervention selection matrix is a visual repre-sentation of two choice factors, impact and invasiveness. The matrix is a way to categorize interventions, that is, solutions, into one of four quadrants based on their level of impact and invasiveness, providing a systematic way of choosing, as well as eliminating, interventions that are under consideration.

DESCRIBING THE MATRIXThe I2 matrix (Figure 1) plots impact on the x-axis and invasiveness on the y-axis, reading both from low to high. This creates four distinct quadrants, labeled I through IV. Based on which quadrant the intervention falls into, a practitioner, along with client input, can decide which interventions to use, not use, or use with caution. It is a simple yet elegant way to determine the appropriateness of various interventions.

Defining the I’sBefore placing interventions on the matrix, a practitioner should start by reflecting on what the terms invasiveness and impact mean. To some, invasiveness could simply imply what is required with respect to cost alone. To oth-ers, it might imply how much time (e.g., person-hours) it will take for the intervention to be implemented by the performance improvement specialist or even off-task time requirements for the workers. Still others may feel

24 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2013

The quadrants serve as a guide to decision makers for determining which interventions are more favorable and which should be avoided.

that they need to quantify the emotional impact each intervention would have on the workers or the potential reduction in morale that might be associated with imple-menting each intervention under consideration.

The same holds true for defining impact. Once again, impact may simply mean a return on investment, or it may mean an improvement in worker test scores or a variety of other nonmonetary outcomes. Regardless, this is a key step in using the matrix, particularly when working with a client or a team of practitioners. It is important that all of the stakeholders in the organization agree on what is most important with respect to impact and invasiveness.

RANKING THE INTERVENTIONSAfter coming to a consensus on definitions and key ele-ments, practitioners can rank interventions on a scale from low to high for each element or rank them to get a composite score (Table 1). Once the rankings are com-plete and a consensus is reached among stakeholders, the interventions can be placed on the matrix. In some cases, factors can be weighted to emphasize the degree of impact of one factor over another. For example, in the case of invasiveness, we would consider lower numbers to

be advantageous in cases such as lowest cost, fewest hours lost, and so on; thus, a low overall score for invasiveness would be preferable.

Based on the scores in Table 1, option A, training, appears to be the preferred choice. However, we must also consider impact.

Table 2 shows a ranking of the options based on poten-tial impact in various categories such as which option will have the greatest effect on customer satisfaction, sales, and so on. Note that impact and invasiveness are most likely ranked in opposite order. In other words, higher impact is more favorable to lower impact, but lower inva-siveness is more favorable than higher invasiveness.

PLOTTING THE INTERVENTIONSOnce the interventions have been scored, they can be placed on the matrix (Figure 2). The matrix provides a visual representation of the pros and cons of each option. Therefore, the quadrants serve as a guide to decision makers for determining which interventions are more favorable and which should be avoided.

Quadrant I: High Impact, High InvasivenessInterventions, that is, is solutions, that fall in quadrant I come with a cost, yet they provide the means for closing

FIGURE 1. THE I2 INTERVENTION SELECTION MATRIX: IMPACT AND INVASIVENESS

TABLE 1 AN EXAMPLE OF RANKING INTERVENTIONS BASED ON INVASIVENESS

INTERVENTION COST EMOTIONAL DISTRESS MAN-HOURS LOST INVASIVENESS TOTAL

Option A (job aid) 1 2 1 4

Option B (training) 3 4 4 11

Option C (incentives) 4 3 3 10

Option D (pay cuts) 2 1 2 5

Performance Improvement • Volume 52 • Number 10 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 25

Some changes that are systemic in the workplace will require a high degree of invasiveness to be successful.

a high-level, organizational performance gap. Select interventions from this quadrant only in these cases:

• There is strong support from the upper levels of man-agement or an executive who will back the project.

• The client strongly desires this particular intervention.• Resources such as time, funding, and people are not

scarce.• The workplace culture is accepting of the types of

changes that will accompany the intervention.

Quadrant II: High Impact, Low InvasivenessInterventions that fall in quadrant II are deemed to be more favorable. Selection of these interventions is pre-ferred when there is an opportunity to quickly and conve-niently close a performance gap. For example, in the field of education, a laminated poster with tips and solutions for problems associated with grading and attendance software can go a long way in reducing accounting errors and calls to the technical support staff while taking little effort to create and distribute.

Interventions that fall in this quadrant are not always more favorable to interventions in quadrant I, where invasiveness is higher. Some changes that are systemic in the workplace will require a high degree of invasiveness to be successful. An example is a comprehensive work-place wellness program to lower health care costs and worker absences. This intervention would involve nego-tiations with insurance carriers and unions, as well as changing the culture as to what is deemed healthy versus unhealthy in a particular workplace setting. However, less invasive solutions might only mask the symptoms of the problem rather than address the problem itself.

Quadrant III: Low Impact, Low InvasivenessInterventions that fall into quadrant III take little effort; however they provide little return. In other words,

interventions from this quadrant will not lead to the turnaround of a troubled company. For example, stud-ies examining the effectiveness of providing learners in a training session with instructional objectives before beginning the training have been shown to have a small but positive effect. Trainers do it because it takes very little effort to put instructional objectives into the learn-ers’ materials! Select interventions from this quadrant only when the client strongly desires this particular inter-vention. Select additional interventions from quadrants I and II.

FIGURE 2. A COMPLETED MATRIX BASED ON A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION

TABLE 2 AN EXAMPLE OF RANKING INTERVENTIONS BASED ON IMPACT

INTERVENTIONCUSTOMER

SATISFACTIONWORKPLACE

MORALE SALES IMPACT TOTAL

Option A (job aid) 1 3 2 6

Option B (training) 4 4 4 12

Option C (incentives) 2 1 1 4

Option D (pay cuts) 3 2 3 8

26 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2013

Quadrant IV: Low Impact, High InvasivenessInterventions that fall into quadrant IV are most often destined to fail. A practitioner would be wise to avoid these interventions at all costs. There is little to be gained from these interventions, and the effort required to implement these interventions successfully will not pro-vide positive impact or an adequate return on the invest-ment. Examples of these strategies include solutions with high costs that are time-consuming and are not forecast to have an impact in cost reductions, productivity, or in other ways. Imagine a retail company that sends its sales staff to training during the peak holiday season, when most of their annual sales occur! While this may seem like basic common sense to avoid such a situation, some-times individuals in organizations can see only the costs and benefits that apply directly to them, ignoring the needs of the organization or their coworkers.

CONCLUSIONThe I2 intervention selection matrix does not represent an earth-shattering paradigm change. As with many other aspects of the field of performance improvement,

there is an element of common sense to making deci-sions. As simple as it may seem, the process does provide a visual method for determining the more appropriate single intervention or even set of interventions for a given performance situation. The process also provides some flexibility in terms of ranking interventions, as different organizations have different goals and concerns when it comes to closing particular performance gaps. Finally, the matrix provides a valuable means to open up lines of communication between practitioners and clients in identifying and defining performance improvement goals and concerns.

References

Gilbert, T.F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Van Tiem, D.M., Moseley, J.L., & Dessinger, J.C. (2001). Performance improvement interventions: Enhancing people, processes, and organizations through performance technology. Silver Spring, MD: International Society for Performance Improvement.

JASON PAUL SIKO, PhD, is an assistant professor of educational technology at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Previously he was a high school biology and chemistry teacher. He also works as a foresight consultant for school districts and nonprofit organizations. He holds a doctorate in instructional technology from Wayne State University. He may be reached at sikojp@gmail.com