Most respondents agreed to the importance of ‘Training Needs Analysis’.

Some of the ‘cut’ diamonds (according to me):

• It should happen every time – if we don’t research the training request there is an increased chance that we’ll miss an opportunity to address the root cause and almost certainly fail to add value in the training.
• Training should be an investment, not a cost, and if I buy stock as an investment would I not also do research to find out which investment gives me the most bang for my buck? In my opinion TNA does exactly the same thing.
• Some level of needs analysis is necessary to validate the purpose and expected value of any training that is to be delivered.
• Training Gap Analysis as part of that process allows us to address inadequacies in the development solution.
• It is best not to skip the Needs Analysis.
• Training need analysis is the essence of the entire training process. If we skip TNA, then we wouldn’t be able to comprehend that what are the skills and competencies the employees lack and consequently there can be a huge performance gap.
• It “helps us gauge the skill gap, employee competency gap and other additional training requirements”.
• It is unrealistic to expect a training initiative to effectively address the talent development needs of an organization without conducting a relevant needs analysis.
• It cost more to NOT do a needs analysis in the long run however the old business adage for us anyway seems to still be holding true “there is never time to do it right in the first place but always time to do it over…”
• To skip Needs Analysis means you will ultimately pay for this by spending more time on development.
• Conducting a training without a needs analysis is like carrying out a research without defining the research problem.
• It is not necessary to do analysis for everything because we cannot afford it. But, learner analysis and performance analysis are still essential.
• It is not only crucial to execute needs analysis at the beginning of a training project, but that it should be done on a continual basis.
• It depends on what kind of training.
• Directly and indirectly, the analysis may simply involve identifying what it is you really need to know to define and characterize a quick-moving target in a fast-changing environment.
• A thorough training needs analysis is ideal when designing a blended programme.
• It is important to strike a good balance between doing TNA and replacing TNA with educated guesses and intuition when necessary.

Usually, training needs are identified during an annual performance appraisal done by HRD. These needs are handed over to corporate training to initiate involvement to address them. The needs are classified and collated; training calendars drawn; training budgets projected and so on.

That’s fine but when the demand arise from the line managers for training other than those that fall in the above category, how do we react? Do we go by the book and start from the beginning? Sounds logical, especially knowing the fact that a majority of performance gaps do not fall under the purview of training.

Most line managers want the training to be delivered yesterday! There is always a dearth of time, resources and money, which makes us think twice before we jump into a full-fledged analysis.

So, the question is when can we skip and when can we not?

We tend to skip a formal analysis process when we use rapid prototyping where Instructional Designers (IDs) and Subject matter Experts (SMEs) work in a continual loop to produce a prototype. The prototype becomes the first step in the cycle and front-end analysis gets integrated into an ongoing, iterative process between subject matter, objectives and courseware.

According to Mager & Pipe, we should explore fast fixes before spending time and resources on further analysis. All that is required is a quick-and-easy remedy such as:

• Uncovering invisible expectations
• Providing proper resources
• Supplying feedback

Although most respondents agreed to the importance of ‘unlearning’, they think that ‘unlearning’ is another form of learning. Literal ‘unlearning’ occurs only in case of brain damage!

Some of the ‘cut’ diamonds (according to me):

1. Learning is clearly not a permanent change, otherwise we would never forget.
2. ‘Unlearning’ is a process of learning technique rather than knowledge and concepts.
3. It is not unlearning as much as it is relearning and establishing new neurologic paths in our brains.
4. “Unlearning” can mean seizing the opportunity to break precedent.
5. Unlearn? I suspect that is difficult as it would require brain neurons to atrophy and the information to literally die out in the brain.
6. To me, unlearning is just learning a new way.
7. Who said you can unlearn a behavior?
8. You never un-learn, unless you sustained brain damage.
9. Learning and change of behavior are not synonymous.
10. I don’t think that we ‘unlearn’ any basic learning.
11. Learning is a form of memory.
12. You just learn new things…you don’t unlearn.
13. Which came first, the chicken or egg?
14. Do you really need to unlearn? Or are you just learning something new?

We know Alvin Toffler as a sociologist, writer and a futurist, not as a learning expert. It is said that this quote is from his book, “Rethinking the Future.” As I haven’t read it, I really don’t know the context of this quotation. But I think his definition of the illiterate makes us ponder. It also reminds us of a quotation by Charles Darwin, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines unlearn as “1: to put out of one’s knowledge or memory, 2: to undo the effect of: discard the habit of”.

There is so much we unlearn without much effort. Knowledge not often revised, skills not regularly practiced and beliefs shattered by contradictory experience are all day-to-day examples of unlearning.

But what about a situation where person’s knowledge, skills and beliefs serve him well and is therefore reinforced? How can he unlearn them in the face of a superior learning, which will serve him better?

In a company where I worked, head office staff used to call long distance to collect current sales figures from branch offices spread across the country. Email was introduced to increase efficiency and reduce cost. Although adequate training was conducted on email, the phone bills never came down substantially. The reason – people continued to use the phone to find out if the emails were sent or received!

Another more personal example of unlearning, a habit, is quitting smoking. I too quit smoking some years ago. I remember trying everything under the sky – sticking patches, chewing gum, counseling…nothing helped. One day, suddenly, without any apparent reason my urge to light up just wasn’t there. I unlearned but I don’t know how

We learn as much as we unlearn. I am sure you will agree that one’s existing knowledge is one great hindrance to future learning. That brings me to my questions

Is there a formal process for unlearning? Can we just plainly unlearn knowledge, skills and attitudes? Or can we unlearn only when we discover a substitute behavior or skill?

How useful it would be for both organizations and individuals if they master unlearning! Imagine organizations casting away ineffective and inefficient processes and methods effortlessly so that they do not hinder learning better ones.

Can organizations conduct “unlearning programs”? If so, how can we facilitate unlearning? Can we think of having an unlearning module before we start a learning module so that we can clear the old hindering structures before we build a brand new one?

Thank you for reading my blog and look forward to your comments and opinions.

RK Prasad

CEO

We will, of course, begin with an analysis if a job aid is appropriate or is proper training intervention needed. Once that is decided, then the requirement can be addressed by a non-training intervention. Let’s move ahead with evaluating the appropriateness of these two alternatives.

An (EPSS) Electronic Performance Support System is Appropriate when:

• Infrequent performance; situation is complex with multiple steps
• Consequence of errors is high; Performance depends on large amount of information
• Dependent on frequently changing knowledge, procedures, approaches
• High turnover, task can be codified; less time and resources for training

It is Inappropriate when:

• Would damage credibility; Unpredictability or novelty exist;
• Smooth/fluid performance is top priority; Users lack reading/listening skills;
• Employees aren’t motivated; Users are unable to access

We need to also determine the level of integration of the aid with the task in hand. Tasks like maybe washing of hands needs a non-electronic job aid.

Additional determinants are cost, resources (technical capability & skilled developers), and performance environment and ability of users.

Thank you for reading my blog and look forward to your comments and opinions.

RK Prasad

CEO

In today’s technology and availability of multiple delivery media days, we are tempted to use a blended approach (more than one medium of delivery) to deliver training. In corporate training, many a times, singular delivery method is enough to do the job.

Before we zero down on the criteria for selecting a delivery environment, let us know more about the typical singular and blended learning environments. Some examples of instruction delivery environments are:

Examples of Singular Delivery Environment

• Face-to-Face (FTF) classroom (with or without audiovisual media)
• Distance Learning
• Action Learning
• Independent self study

Examples of Blended (Hybrid) Environment

• FTF classroom with web-based team projects, or game simulations
• Satellite video conferences followed by small group discussions at remote sites

The main criteria for deciding between a singular and a blended approach are:

1. Complexity of the task at hand
2. Desired Learning outcomes

If the task is fairly simple and the desired outcome is to know or understand (cognitive), a singular learning environment is enough. For example a Logistics Officer in the Armed Forces needs to understand logistics processes probably for that classroom training would suffice.

On the other hand, if the task to be accomplished is complicated and involves multiple domains, a blended approach is recommended. For example, continuing with the Armed Forces setting, let’s take combat capability such as using heavy artillery. I suppose it would start with classroom instruction, move on to game simulations, field operations and back to classroom for some kind of debriefing.

If there is a need to analyze, synthesize and evaluate (Bloom’s Taxonomy), a heavy artillery soldier in a life threatening situation must be able to apply his knowledge to operate the tank, must be able to analyze conditions to determine what action(s) to take, must be able to synthesize operational information with environmental conditions, must be able to evaluate overall situation given full scenario that includes receiving instructions from higher commands, working jointly with other soldiers in immediate environment, working with soldiers in other heavy artillery of same and different make-up i.e. ground (tank) versus air, and/or light artillery, evaluate threat levels, make decisions of when to fire etc (critical incident). And if he is a good leader (affective), he must have higher level knowledge skills (cognitive) and must be able to engage in physical combat (psychomotor), and then I think a blended approach is warranted and justified.

The example may look a little extreme for a corporate training challenge but certainly not incomparable to certain higher level organizational responsibilities.

Thank you for reading my blog. I welcome your comments and opinions.

RK Prasad

CEO