Tag Archive for 'needs analysis'

Needs analysis round-up (part-2)

Published on 26 February, 2008 in instructional design, learning and methods. 2 Comments

Continuing from Part-1, I’ll now more systematically dig into “needs analysis proper,” contrast to “needs-analysis-lite” and the “needs analysis avoidance” that was the focus of Part-1.

Where does needs analysis fit in? From Donald Clark’s Analysis page, attributed to Allison Rossett & Kendra Sheldon (in Beyond the Podium, 2001, p.31), “Analysis: The study we do in order to figure out what to do.” Within the context of ‘needs analysis’, I can think of no better top-line description. Plus, of course, ‘A’ is for Analysis in ADDIE, the place to begin.

Performance or training needs analysis? In his comment on Part-1, Rory Chalcraft mentions how his client is implementing a two-part analysis process; one part for performance and another for training. This makes sense to me as long as processes and the people staffing the processes (if not the same person doing both) are well integrated. The ‘performance consultant’ must have a good grasp of what all the various potential solutions can and can’t achieve. I could imagine a ‘performance consultant’ from the more Human Resources, Organization Development or HRD traditions partnering, or even sub-contracting, with a colleague in a training design and development function — where the ‘performance consultant’ has responsibility for the overall performance analysis and the ‘training professional’ has responsibility for the training needs analysis.

Three data-points from my reading in this mini-research project:

  1. Donald Clark’s top-level process diagram has a separate “Performance Analysis” block upstream of “Training Requirements Analysis”.
  2. The International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI)’s Human Performance Technology (HPT) model also begins with a “Performance Analysis (Need or Opportunity)” process block. Within this block are sub-tasks for “Organizational Analysis” and “Environmental Analysis” — with the latter including a further sub-task for a “Worker” analysis that looks at “Knowledge, Skill, Motivation, Expectations, and Capacity”. The entire ISPI model doesn’t even use the word ‘training’, not even within the “Intervention Selection, Design, and Development” block, where I thought it would appear. Rather, there, they use “Performance Support (Instructional and Noninstructional)” and “Personal Development” as the labels for interventions that might more typically be labeled with ‘training’ or ‘learning’.
  3. In the book Performance Consulting the authors separate needs into four groups as illustrated by their Figure 2.1:

Performance Consulting - Figure 2.1

The Figure is explained as follows:

Training and work environment needs are linked to business needs through the performance needs box. In focusing on performance, it is critical to identify both training and work environment needs. Training needs represent areas where performers lack the skill or knowledge to perform satisfactorily. Work environment needs represent the aspects of the system that must be modified to ensure that the needed performance is adequately supported.

In a traditional training environment, training needs are identified; affirming any of the other needs is optional… (emphasis added)

What are the objectives of a Training Needs Assessment? Janice A. Miller and Diana M. Osinski in their 1996 Training Needs Assessment paper (5 page PDF, available via the ISPI web site) offer a straight-forward answer, along with yet another reminder regarding the above distinction between training and performance:

The results of the needs assessment allows the training manager to set the training objectives by answering two very basic questions: who, if anyone, needs training and what training is needed. Sometimes training is not the solution. Some performance gaps can be reduced or eliminated through other management solutions such as communicating expectations, providing a supportive work environment, arranging consequences, removing obstacles and checking job fit. (emphasis added)

Assessment versus Analysis? (prompted by the previous, where ‘Assessment’ was the chosen word) Is there a difference, or are these words effectively synonyms? I haven’t yet found a clear reference answering this question; however, a potential distinction is to use ‘assessment’ for defining if there is a need and ‘analysis’ for defining the appropriate response to this need is. Splitting hairs? For now, I’m going to continue to use ‘analysis’ as it matches with the ADDIE definition and also reduces confusion with the use of ‘assessment’ as measuring an individual‘s knowledge or learning. Leading to this the next point…

What scale?. The needs analysis can be executed at the department, role (e.g. for project managers across all company functions), function (e.g. Marketing), or company level. At the individual employee level I tend to instead use ‘assessment’ and see this as part of ‘performance management’ more than performance or training needs analysis; however, very importantly, the aggregation of individual needs becomes an input to higher-scale needs analysis.

Proactive or reactive? An example of ‘proactive’ is preparing an annual learning planning undertaken as part of the company strategy review and budgeting processes. From CIPD:

The aim is to understand the amount and types of learning that will be needed to ensure that all employees have the right knowledge, skills and attitudes to perform the jobs they do. Ultimately such a survey is ensuring that the skills will be available for the organisation to meet its strategic objectives, and may cover the short-term (within a year) or look to the longer term in order to ensure the supply of the right skills at points in the future.

Examples of ‘reactive’ are all the various permutations of a presenting issue or request, including the scenarios I described in Part-1.

Who gets to define the need and how is it defined? Are needs determined by input from the people directly with the need? Or, via their managers? Or, subject matter experts? Are the needs what I feel or are they determined from objective performance measurement?

What are the details within a Training Needs Analysis? My reading has illustrated a wide range of interpretations here. For example, training outsource provider Intulogy, describes ‘needs analysis’ as comprising the following steps (links are to their lower-level pages):

In ISD From the Ground Up (one the far too many books I’m trying to simultaneously read now) author Chuck Hodell describes the analysis phase as answering “seven key questions”:

  1. What is the need?
  2. What is the root cause?
  3. What are the goals of the training?
  4. What information is needed, and how is it gathered?
  5. How will the training be structured and organized?
  6. How will the training be delivered?
  7. When should the training be revised?

If a sub-group for ‘needs analysis’ were defined (and it is not in the book), I’d suggest that it would include questions #2, 3, and the first part of #4 as well as obviously #1 — but not the others.

Mike Morrison in TNA: Knowing Where to Start Your Journey references ” ten questions from Grey (1994)” that bring in some additional worthy points (I have not been able to locate the original source). I particularly like including #5, 6, 7 and 9 into the up-front conversation:

  1. What is the perceived problem?
  2. What are the aims and objectives?
  3. What is expected from the TNA process?
  4. What performance is required from the target group/ individuals?
  5. Timescale?
  6. Budgets, should they be considered, who allocated what?
  7. What barriers might exist?
  8. How the information is to be presented / collected
  9. Is anything out of bounds?
  10. Key issues/ areas of focus

In their recommendations for data collection, the CIPD focuses more on the learner in the following list of potential data:

  • Business objectives
  • Technology and organisation of work
  • Employee demographics
  • Education / qualifications
  • Past experience
  • Job roles / responsibilities
  • Current competence
  • Employee status (full or part-time, etc.)
  • Location
  • Length of time in job
  • Employee attitudes and culture

Net: ‘needs analysis’ can mean a lot of different things. Pick what it means for you in your context (using the above as possibilities and thought prompters) and then run with it.

Side note: In writing this I’m reminded of my work some years ago as a business analyst in software development and finding that in practice there was (and should be) a pretty blurry line and more iteration between the analysis, design and development project phases than suggested by the neat chevrons in the methodology presentations to the client and the resulting consulting statement of work and contract. When is needs analysis completed and the rest of analysis started? Or, when have we really crossed into Design? Having this thought also got me started with writing an “ADDIE Schmaddie” blog post — let’s see if I finish it.

Still for future posts:

  • More on the actual needs analysis process and good practice.
  • Content needs analysis from an information management perspective.

Needs analysis round-up (Part-1)

Published on 23 February, 2008 in instructional design, learning and methods. 10 Comments

Young CowboyI’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: