Training Need Assessment Gaps: How Do You Spot and Address Them in Your Experience?

Below is a link to Consulting Connoisseurs' maturity model for Training Need Assessment and identified gaps.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/train...ijayaraghavan/

Have you ever identified not-so-obvious or obvious gaps in Training Need Assessments? What parameters did you include to resolve them? What challenges did you face while addressing such gap issues? What tools did you use then? Please share your experiences.

Dear SPV88, you have given the theoretical framework on conducting the Training Needs Assessment Maturity Model (TNAMM). However, how do we 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 the measurement of training effectiveness. Therefore, if you could provide a complete case study on how the TNA was done using this model, what type of training program was conducted based on the outcome of the model, and finally how the training effectiveness was measured.

In this connection, let me quote the famous words of Deng Xiaoping. He said, “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.” Taking a clue from the above quote, we can say that the model of TNA does not matter, as long as we measure the training effectiveness.

Possibly, you may not like my above views. Generally, on reading the above theories, the tendency is to give comments like "Great!" or "Awesome." Far from these comments, I have come up with something different. But please note that my views are grounded in reality and realism should precede any theory.

Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar

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 needs 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 program. If all the steps are done sincerely, then the gaps will not be significant.

Regards, V. Raghunathan

Dear Mr. Divekar,

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 it across 20 firms with fabulous results.

Thank you.

Dear Mr. Raghunathan,

I appreciate your views. I was wondering how significant it is to gain the appraisee's own view here. Please check your inbox, as I have a couple of queries. Your insights will be highly relevant and helpful.

Thank you so much.

Dear SPV88, my objective was not to get into a 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 the 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 uploading at least one case study to show what the ROI was on the training or if the model gave a higher ROI on the training?

Earlier, I have given an exhaustive reply on the subject of employee training. You may click the following link to refer to it: https://www.citehr.com/523786-traini...ml#post2222367

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Dear Raghunathan,

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, whose 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.

Regards

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 the 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 to 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.

Case 1

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.

Case 2

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 the organization would benefit from A's suggestion, C recommended A for SAP module training to D for doing the needful.

Case 3

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 C and prevailed, explaining the advantages of such training for the concerned individual and the department. C recommended A's training as A wanted.

Case 4

A was a rising star and wanted to attend a two-day in-house program. B recommended him for a three-day outdoor program. C, who knew A's potential, recommended A for a special six-week course in one of the premier institutions.

Case 5

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 program, explaining to him the merits of such programs. Reluctantly, A agreed, and after attending the program, A was very happy and realized 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.

General Thinking Process

In general, the thinking process that goes on 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 benefit from this training?"

C asks himself, "In what way will the organization 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 the above when the need arises.

We can also summarize in a lighter vein.

BOSS IS ALWAYS RIGHT.
SUPER BOSS IS EVEN MORE RIGHT.

Regards, V.Raghunathan