You have given the theoretical framework on conducting Training Needs Assessment Maturity Model (TNAMM). However, how to assess the efficacy of this model?
The effectiveness of this model can only be assessed if it becomes easy to measure the training effectiveness itself. Whatever model of TNA may be, we do not have case studies on measurement of training effectiveness. Therefore, if you could provide complete case study as to how the TNA was done using this model, what type of training programme conducted based on the outcome of the model, and finally how the training effectiveness was measured.
In this connection let me quote here famous quote of Deng Xiaoping. He said “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.”
Taking clue from the above quote, we can say that model of TNA does not matter, as long as we measure the training effectiveness.
Possibly you may not like my above views. Because generally, on reading the above theories, the general tendency is to give comments like "Great!", "Awesome" etc. Far from these comments, I have come up with something different. But please note that my views are grounded to the reality and realism should precede any theory.
Your link connected me to an article that dwells on the GAPS in a TNA process.
My view is based on my experience in some of the Corporates. Here an Appraisee first gives his own assessment of his training need to start a process. His superior records his own views.
Above the superior in the hierarchy is a reviewer who also adds his observations.
The three inputs are then sent to the Training officer who arranges for the appropriate programme. If all the steps are done sincerely, then the GAPS will not be significant.
I am sorry if this article gave you the impression that the model was pure theory. The GAPs represent only one of the 11 parameters. This is very much a practical model and we have already successfully applied across 20 firms with fabulous results.
My objective was not to get into theory Vs practical debate on the TNA model that you have mentioned. My point is that TNA or conducting training itself is just the means and not an end. The end result is positive change that training efforts bring.
You have mentioned in your second post that you have applied this model in 20 companies. In that case would you mind to upload at least one case study to show what was the ROI on the training or did the model give higher ROI on the training.
Earlier, I have given exhaustive reply on the subject of employee training. You may click the following link to refer it:
I am just trying to understand the context of your response. If a person, his boss and his boss's boss (super-boss) are the ones to decide, who's opinion would hold?
If the three are in sync, there is no problem. However, if the super-boss has a different view from the employee, does it not compromise the efficacy?
Do let us know your views.
I already owe an answer to spv 88 and your query has hastened my reply. Thank you for seeking my views. For the purpose of this discussion and ease of writing, let us christen Appraisee as A, his boss as B and the super boss as C. We will also have a D who is the Training in-charge.
I would like explain the different possibilities from my experience. As rightly pointed out by you, I am not dwelling on a case where all three are in full unison about the training area.
A wrote that he has to improve his communication. Seeing this B wrote that A has to have training in oral and written communication. C examined and wrote that written communication was the area to be trained. A was supposed to log all the shift activities as a written report and hence C made his recommendation accordingly.
A wanted to learn a particular ‘SAP’ module. B thought if A gets this training he might leave his department and so suggested some other topic as he did not want to lose him. Seeing that Organization would benefit by A’s suggestion C recommended A for SAP module training to D for doing the needful.
A expressed his desire to get trained in Emotional Intelligence. B strongly recommended his case. C was not convinced and rejected the idea. B persuaded with C and prevailed explaining the advantages of such a training for the concerned individual and the department. C recommended
A‘s training as A wanted.
A was a rising star and wanted to attend a two - day in-house programme. B recommended him for a three day outdoor programme. C who knew A’s potential, recommended A for a special six weeks course in one of the premier institutions.
A was a workaholic. In his own training requirement column, he did not mention anything. B spoke to him and he was still firm. C called both and advised A to take a break and attend the external programme explaining him the merits of such programmes. Reluctantly A agreed and after attending the programme A was very happy and realised the importance of training.
Several more combinations can be recalled but I think this sufficiently brings out the different possibilities that one comes across in a real-life scenario.
In general, the thinking process that goes in the minds of A, B, C and D can be as follows:
A asks himself this question “What is in it for me?” – the well-known WIIFM
B asks himself “How will my department be benefited by this training?”
C asks himself “In what way the Organization will stand to gain?”
D thinks of fulfilling his duty by arranging the training.
Before the finalization of the training, there are several communications that take place in specific cases like above, when the need arises.
We can also summarise in a lighter vein.
BOSS IS ALWAYS RIGHT.
SUPER BOSS IS EVEN MORE RIGHT.