If you ask employees about their reaction to training programs, chances are that they react in one of the following ways. “Oh! I dread the training programs as they are really tiresome and boring with too much theory to assimilate” or “Training programs are paid holidays…we attend a few session and just chill out the rest of the time”. We probably hear others saying, “I catch up with colleagues and friends and do a lot of networking during training programs”. Does it sound familiar? Wouldn’t training programs be more purposeful if participants attended them for the purpose of which they were being organized? How can you possibly achieve this objective? It is important that after determining the training needs you are clear about the approach you wish to adopt for the training program.

Read More

In the previous blog talking about traditional training solutions, I explored some reasons for why traditional training solutions don’t work anymore. This blog is a continuation of that list.

Read More

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