As a performance improvement consultant, a key step in the overall HPI process is conducting a needs assessment to identify the gap between current and desired performance to determine root causes to be improved. This involves objectively gathering data on the existing environment, processes, and stakeholders, while building a collaborative relationship with the client. Together, we define ideal performance and uncover possible barriers to success. Analyzing these insights and presenting the feasibility and limitations of interventions allows for targeted recommendations to bridge the gap.
I had the opportunity to apply this process with the Electrical and Computer Engineering department at a local college, addressing their higher attrition rates compared to other programs. The department head engaged us to conduct a needs assessment, which became the case project of Student Retention to Decrease Attrition Project for Mountain View College.
This is what we were able to accomplish.
The Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) department at Mountain View College (pseudonym), a mid-sized public university in the Pacific Northwest, serves a diverse student body of approximately 270 students each semester. With open enrollment and a mission to prepare students for careers in fields like telecommunications and power systems, this College of Engineering department offers accessible, industry-aligned education supported by a team of 21 faculty and 9 staff.
This needs assessment, sponsored by the department chair, engaged a broad range of stakeholders, including faculty, staff, and students. Our team analyzed environmental and institutional factors, such as industry trends, student demographics, and peer program comparisons, to look for patterns to uncover the causes of a rising attrition rate, which could impact future funding.
We mapped out our client's connections to the other stakeholders for the project (see graphic above) and gathered other extant data of enrollment numbers in ECE in the last four years. we compared this quantitative data to both departments within the Electrical and Computer Engineering department, other departments throughout the College of Engineering (COEN), and similar programs at other top-tier colleges and universities. We calculated an attrition rate for each area each year and started looking for patterns. We were surprised to discover that the attrition rate was low in two of the three areas:
Average attrition within the departments of Electrical and Computer Engineering were almost zero for the last three years.
Average attrition rate has been declining in the COEN (College of Engineering) overall for the last three years, and ECE's rates are consistent.
While locally the numbers are normal, the attrition rate is much higher than other ECE programs at similar universities (not shown in the graphic).
This identified the problem in one area and an opportunity in other areas.
We decided to focus on a short-term and long-term solution to bridge the gap of increased attrition that the client faces on a national level, thus making them more nationally competitive. The short-term goal, set for 2026, was to reduce the attrition rate for 19% to 15% and the long-term goal, set for 2030, was to reduce attrition to 9%. To decide how this would be accomplished, we needed to determine the cause for the gap by using industry standards research-based analyzation tools.
The team gathered data from multiple sources and compiled the information.
It was our desire to reduce a possible bias by triangulating the data sources. We issued surveys to current students, interviewed staff members, and conducted passive observations of core level courses. We compiled the data and compared our findings.
Since we had allowed the Behavioral Engineering Model to guide us, we started to categorize data to analyze what we found. That’s when we discovered we had chosen the wrong tool. Much of what we found, roughly fell within the categories of environmental information and resources. We had used a tool geared to home in on the factors that influence the “behavior of the individual” (the student). We needed something that was designed to uncover needs for alignment between the levels of an organization and “needs” within those levels. We pivoted and started using Rummler and Brache’s 9 Box Matrix or Model to guide our focus. This systemic change changed everything.
Once we had the information recategorized, we identified patterns in certain categories by using a Force Field Analysis. We plugged the categories along a spectrum to identify both driving (encouraging) and restraining (negative influences that could hinder change) forces related to the problem.
We analyzed the alignment with the known root causes and brainstormed about possible interventions. We used the Ishikawa Diagram, also called the Fishbone Diagram, to map root causes and brainstorm interventions aligned with the performance gap. The root causes were placed along the back and belly of the fish while the “bones” of the fish were the brainstormed intervention ideas to bridge the gap.
While the proposed interventions showed strong potential, certain limitations could impact their success. These include low survey response rates, limited access to employees for interviews, time constraints, and potential reliability issues in data collection.
Understanding the feasibility of each recommendation is equally important. Successful implementation depends not just on identifying the right changes, but on recognizing the conditions needed for those changes to take hold. Our team used the Weighted Multi-Criteria Intervention (WMCI) Analysis tool to assess and prioritize interventions based on multiple factors such as cost, impact, stakeholder buy-in, and ease of implementation.
The WMCI tool, in particular, enabled us to identify "quick wins" and build on existing organizational strengths. Presenting clear, evidence-based recommendations, while being transparent with the client about respecting the process helped establish credibility and supported a smooth path toward implementation.
The team prioritized the intervention choices based on effectiveness, cost, time to implementation, stakeholder buy-in, and ease of execution. The four top recommendations are explained below in order of feasibility and maximum impact:
Improve Accessibility of Information
Streamlining program information will reduce student confusion, lower attrition, and lighten the advising load.
Additional Scaffolding for Student Support
Layered support structures will foster community, boost student persistence, and allow faculty to focus on deeper engagement.
Offer Degree Plans Extending Beyond 8 Semesters
Extending degree plans accommodates nontraditional students, reduces stress, and supports long-term retention.
Curate Online Community Support
Building virtual peer spaces strengthens connection and engagement outside the classroom.
The proposed interventions address key barriers to reducing student attrition. They target gaps in communication, support, and program structure. By enhancing the clarity of information, strengthening academic and emotional support systems, and aligning the program with the needs of a diverse student population, the department can create a more consistent, inclusive, and effective learning environment. These changes are expected to reduce attrition and elevate the overall student experience.
With just a 5% improvement in attrition rates over two academic years, the estimated value of these interventions to the ECE department is between $500K and $1.5M annually.
References
Chevalier, R. (2008). The evolution of a performance analysis job aid. Performance Improvement, 47(10), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.20034
Chyung, S.-Y. (2008). Foundations of instructional performance technology. ProQuest Ebook Central. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/boisestate/detail.action? docID=435534
Gilbert, T.F. (1978). Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rummler-Brache Group. (n.d.). Process improvement certification training. Rummler-Brache Group. Retrieved from https://www.rummler-brache.com/
Van Tiem, T. D., Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2012). Fundamentals of performance improvement: Optimizing results through people, process, and organizations. Center for Creative Leadership.
Watkins, R., Maurya, M., West Meiers, M., & Yusra Laila Visser. (2012). A Guide to Assessing Needs: Essential Tools for Collecting Information, Making Decisions, and Achieving Development Results. World Bank.
You will find that the subpages in this Projects & Resources section are all related to my journey to acquire my Master of Science Degree in Organizational Performance & Workplace Learning (College of Engineering-BSU). These valuable examples of my work were all developed and submitted as completed course work toward this advanced degree earned in December.