Sims Learning Connections

I’ve noticed in my employment search that many of the job descriptions that attract me mention “needs analysis” as part of the responsibilities. This observation was all I needed to set me off on another of my mini-research projects, this time on the topic of needs analysis — also referred to as ‘needs assessment’, ‘performance analysis’, ‘gap analysis’, or ‘Training Needs Analysis, TNA’.

I’ve been doing various flavors of needs analysis for years as a business analyst, as a program manager in role of “gate-keeper,” and as an occasional instructional designer (although I still resist claiming that label.) Have I been following ‘good practice’, or just winging it? Can I be credible on job interview questions on the topic? Research says…

As I began to dig into the abundant writing on the topic, it quickly became apparent that there is a continuum of possible approaches relative to rigor and resources required. Here in Part-1, I’ll focus on the lighter-weight alternatives to what I came to call full-blown needs analysis below.

Much of the writing on ‘needs analysis’ makes an underlying assumption that the presenting situation and framing is ‘performance improvement’; i.e., in some fashion the company, function, department or role is not achieving the desired results and Human Resources, Organizational Development, Learning & Development (Training), or other support group(s) are engaged by the line of business to analyze the situation and make the appropriate intervention.

My own experience within the Learning & Development function is that engagement more typically looks like one the following scenarios:

• From Legal, “There is new regulation going in effect on [date] and we need to ensure that employees behave appropriately.” Nah, I’m being too generous…closer to real-word would be: “I need a new e-Learning module with an assessment to be able to demonstrate that employees have been trained on the new regulation.”
• From Product Management, “We are launching this new product on [date] and the sales and support staff need to be ready to sell and support the product.” Nah, I’m again being too generous…closer to real-world would be: “Here are my 200 slides that I’ve been using to explain this new product, please convert them into some sort of engaging e-Learning for the sales staff before we launch at the end of the month.”
• From IT, “We are rolling out a new expense reporting application on [date] and all employees need to know how to use it.”
• From Operations, “We have decided to off-shore function xyz starting on [date], the service provider needs to learn our applications and processes.”

These scenarios often confuse “wants” and “needs” as described in this page from a NOAA needs analysis e-Learning course:

Too often people consider only one solution (a want) and discuss it as a need… Effective questioning can reveal the need behind the want…

• Needs are gaps – the space between what currently exists and what should exist.
• Wants are solutions – a proposed means to filling the gap.

From my experience, usually the “wants” are expressed as a desire for a particular formal training solution, e.g. a new “instructor led classroom course” or “e-Learning module.” Sigh, ‘training professionals’ have often set themselves up to become training order-takers versus performance consultants — a situation that is difficult to break out of, once established (previously discussed under the ‘status quo’ heading in my 21 November 2007 post). As the CIPD notes in Identifying learning and training needs:

Strictly speaking, the analysis of gaps in knowledge and skills identifies what employees will need to learn in order to be fully competent in the jobs they will be doing now and in the future. How these gaps are filled may involve formal or informal training provision, or other opportunities for the necessary learning to be carried out. However, training and learning professionals have been using the acronym ‘TNA’ for the process of identifying these gaps for many years… (emphasis added)

In addressing these scenarios, I have found the use of a simple “intake form” to be beneficial, and I typically have done little in the way of needs analysis beyond this form for these scenarios. Rockwell Collins use this approach, as described in the book Built to Learn:

…we instituted a mandatory needs analysis form. Before any appeal for training could be processed, managers had to complete this online form outlining the specifics of their training needs. It asked for the business objectives they expected to support with the training, skill gaps…the link between training and job performance, and specific examples of problems the training was expected to address.

The form was designed to show whether a training request was a legitimate one. (p.90)

The actual form is illustrated on p.91-92 (viewable via the amazon.com link above, and this Workforce Management archive — registration required.)

Speaking of vetting training projects, I like Michael Allen‘s “Prerequisites to Success” in his book Guide to E-Learning:

The items in the following list seem to be rather obvious requirements, yet, inaccurate assessments are often made about them:

• Performer competency is the problem.
• Good performance is possible.
• Incentives exist for good performance.
• There are no penalties for good performance.
• Essential resources for e-learning solutions are available. (p.31)

In future iterations of the intake form I plan to use I’m going to attempt to weave these points in more strongly.

Back to light-weight needs analysis…Last week, Tom Kuhlmann also had situationally appropriate alternatives in mind when he posted Here’s How to Avoid Needs Analysis Paralysis with the following tips for light-weight needs analysis alternatives:

• Schedule some time to investigate the physical environment of those who’ll take your elearning course. It’ll help put the course in the proper context.
• Sit with your learners and get a feel for the work they do and how they’d apply the course content to their work. The better you know your learners, the more relevant you can make the course. If you’re pressed for time, only meet with two people. Sometimes, just spending a couple of hours watching them work can be enough.
• Assemble a pilot team.
• Rapid prototype your courses.
• Create a survey.

I am tracking with Tom until the last one. Perhaps I’m just gun-shy about surveys given the lively survey debate (also described here) this past week over at the actKM discussion list, or perhaps this is just starting to feel like it is becoming less than a light-weight alternative.

For a future posts:

• Needs analysis good practice for when the performance consulting and improvement scenario does apply and a more full-blown needs analysis is warranted.
• Content needs analysis from an information management perspective.

photo credit: Fernando Weberich

P.S. If you found value in this post, you might also like:

• Writing Learning Objectives
• On the Job Training (OJT)
• New employee orientation / onboarding