Chevalier’s Behavior Engineering Model (BEM) was the primary diagnostic tool to categorize the root causes of the productivity gap. Chevalier’s variation of the BEM is an update to Thomas Gilbert’s original framework (Chevalier, 2008). It serves as a diagnostic tool to distinguish between environmental factors and individual repertoires. The model is structured as six variables categorized into two levels:

Environmental Supports: These factors are external to the performer and include Information (clear expectations and feedback), Resources (tools, materials, and time), and Incentives (financial and non-financial rewards).

Individual Repertoire: These factors are internal to the performer and include Knowledge and Skills (the ability to perform the task), Capacity (physical or mental ability), and Motives (personal alignment with the work).

Performance gaps can be caused by one variable or multiple variables, though Gilbert noted in Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (1978) that Environmental factors account for the great majority of performance issues.

The team used the Rummler-Brache Nine-Variable Model (Nine Boxes) to evaluate the invoice accuracy gap through a wider systemic lens. The Rummler & Brache Nine Boxes provides a systemic view of performance by examining the organization through a three-by-three matrix. This framework allowed us to trace performance disconnects across its three Levels of Performance and its three Performance Variables (Rummler-Brache Group, n.d.).

The Three Levels: Organization Level (the total company), Process Level (how work gets done across departments), and Job/Performer Level (the individual execution).

The Three Variables: Goals (are there clear standards?), Design (is the structure or process logical?), and Management (is performance monitored and supported?).

The strength of this framework lies in identifying misalignments. For instance, an organization may have clear goals at the top level, but if the Process Design is flawed, the Job/Performer will be unable to achieve the desired outcomes regardless of their individual skill level.

The Five Whys is an iterative interrogative technique used to explore the cause-and-effect relationships underlying a particular problem (Stefaniak, 2020). The primary goal of this technique is to move past surface-level symptoms to identify the root cause of a performance gap. By repeatedly asking "Why?" (named for the commonly used five whys, though the number is variable), practitioners can peel away layers of symptoms to reveal the systemic or environmental failure that requires intervention.

SWOT analysis is a strategic planning tool that evaluates four key dimensions of an organization or situation to inform decision-making (Stefaniak, 2020). These four dimensions are: Strengths, the Internal positive attributes and capabilities that give the organization an advantage; Weaknesses, the internal limitations or gaps that hinder performance; Opportunities, the external or internal factors that the organization can leverage for improvement; and Threats, the external or internal factors that could negatively impact the organization.

The MCA is a decision-making tool used to evaluate and prioritize potential interventions when multiple, often conflicting, factors must be considered (Watkin et al, 2011). In a performance improvement context, practitioners establish a set of weighted criteria (such as Impact on Goals, Feasibility, Cost, and Readiness for Change) to score each proposed solution. These weights are determined in consultation with the stakeholders. Once the weights are determined, the interventions are scored, and a final weighted grade is given to each intervention. This systematic approach ensures that recommendations are not based on subjective preference but are aligned with the organization's strategic objectives and resource constraints.