Picture the scene. You have been approached by a divisional director who has a reputation as being a ‘mover and shaker’ in the business. She is fairly new to the organisation and has been evaluating her team and strategy. You have not had an opportunity to spend much time with her but she is seen as a no-nonsense leader. She approaches you about a training requirement after identifying that her team need some customer service training. It seems they are not being as proactive as she would like and they are keen to reduce the number of complaints that the department receives. She feels that the team need some tactics and approaches to use on the telephone and this should be underpinned by simple processes that they can employ. Having read a number of development titles she has some specific content ideas and wants to discuss when the training can be scheduled. She will make some budget available and you definitely have the capacity to deliver with a couple of internal trainers.

Even if you have not experienced a situation this specific it may have features with which you can identify. It may be that you can relate to the idea of a business manager having identified a need along with a pretty good idea of the solution they want to see. In these situations, it is very easy to engage in a conversation about ‘when’ and then proceed to design the training using a combination of their ideas and yours. You might be driven by a desire to fulfil the perceived need, a pressure to ‘deliver some training’, a perception about how the other person views you (or your perception of them!) and a time pressured business environment that supports the idea of you ‘simply delivering’ – especially when approached by a senior leader in the business.

If you are going to undertake an effective needs analysis, you need to challenge, to look deeper into a presenting issue to ensure that what you deliver will make a difference in the work environment. Returning to the example, we have no real idea of what the issues are that are contributing to the current situation. We have no way of knowing whether training is the right intervention and what else is contributing to the behaviours this business leader would like to change. Far too often we have seen L&D managers engage in these sorts of conversations and deliver some business training anyway.

If you do not conduct an effective training needs analysis, you risk:

• focusing only on the ‘ability’ component of an issue and not on what is needed to implement change;
• ignoring the real reasons for the issue; therefore only being able to come up with a partial solution;
• rushing to ‘solution’ rather than considering the real performance issues;
• assuming that your clients are ‘performance experts’;
• not being seen as a ‘performance expert’ yourself;
• being seen as having tactical rather than strategic value to the business;
• operating in isolation from other departments;
• being considered as a ‘quick-fix’;
• being criticised for being palliative – relieving without curing;
• being seen as ‘out of touch’ and therefore being sidelined from the business;
• being blamed when training is seen to be not working;
• being considered a cost centre rather than a profit centre;
• being unable to justify how you add value to the business;
• not being taken seriously;
• being the subject of budget cuts;
• not making a positive difference to the business.

‘Satisficing’

Herbert Simon, the American political scientist, economist and sociologist coined the term ‘satisficing’ in relation to economic decision making. Satisficing is a combination of the words ‘satisfy’ and ‘suffice’. In our endeavour to satisfy a need that presents itself, we satisfy some criteria but deliver a solution that is simply ‘good enough’.

In our story at the start of this chapter, the nature of our interaction (should we choose to simply deliver on the perceived needs of this divisional director) falls into the category of satisficing. We might satisfy the ‘need’ of the divisional director for quick action and delivery of some training but we might sacrifice making a real difference to a more fundamental need. We might ‘teach’ some skills but not see these skills transferred to the workplace. We might settle for doing a job that is ‘good enough’. This could leave the divisional director looking elsewhere for her performance improvements and seeing us, potentially, as having failed in our task – a task that, at the outset of the project, she was fairly confident we could do successfully!

What are your priorities in needs analysis?

The extent and scope of needs analysis work that you undertake will vary. You will work on a variety of training programmes for different stakeholders and operate in a specific organisational context. What must your priorities be in any needs analysis? How do you ensure the best result from the time you invest in a needs analysis?

There are three priorities that need to be ‘front-of-mind’ in any needs analysis work:

1. focus on being a performance expert;
2. be a slave to the business outcomes required;
3. identify and address the barriers to change.

Priority 1: focus on being a performance expert

You must be seen as a ‘performance expert’. This is your first priority because your view of yourself will affect how you approach the needs analysis task.

Approach needs analysis as a training expert and you will engage in every conversation from the perspective of training. Thinking as a performance expert changes this and enables you to add real value to the business. The line managers you support will have expertise in their line of business (sales, marketing, operations) but are not likely to be expert in developing the performance of teams and individuals. They will consider their selfish needs and probably come up with simple solutions, often focused on filling a perceived gap in skills or knowledge. This will only be part of the complete picture. A performance expert will recognise this and look more broadly at the issues that stand in the way of improving performance.

Another example of where thinking as a performance expert can bring real benefits is in the area of personal development planning (PDP). In many organisations, employees work with their line managers and the L&D function to create PDP that charts their development objectives and achievements. This PDP must align personal objectives with performance objectives to ensure that both the individual and the business goals are met through developments such as training. A performance expert will recognise and leverage this structural link between training and performance.

Performance experts need to:

• engage in business conversations rather than training conversations;
• be capable of delivering strategic and not just tactical conversations and solutions;
• challenge managers into identify the real issue – not just the presenting one;
• not rush into solutions but focus on asking the right questions to get to the root of the issue;
• challenge the manager as to what they are prepared to commit to in order to bring about the required change;
• look at what may be getting in the way of the change being implemented in the work environment;
• see themselves as results centred rather than intervention centred;
• continually ask ‘What is this training really in service of? What are the business outcomes we are seeking to support or contribute to?’

In order to conduct an effective needs analysis you need to question your view of your role within the business:

• Are you a training professional or a performance expert?
• Are you focused on training or on results?
• Are you a business support department or a function that is central to business results?
• Are you prepared to challenge to get to the root cause or do you simply respond reactively to a perceived need?
• Do you seek to question or simply gain agreement?
• Do you simply teach skills and impart knowledge or do you influence people to apply them in the workplace?
• Do you work in isolation or holistically?

Some of your answers may not be as simple as ‘either/or’ but these questions are useful in prompting our thinking and, therefore, inform the approach that we take.

Are business trainers simply about ‘training’ or are we about change? Central to effective needs analysis is our self-perception. Our self-perception drives our behaviour. If we believe we are simply about ‘training’ then the questions we ask might assume that training is the right answer to the presenting issue. Further, our questions may be geared towards the substance and method of the training. If, however, our self-perception is as a performance expert focused on the needs of the business and on what needs to happen to bring about change, our analysis is likely to reflect that. We might bring more challenge to the sponsor about what is holding back this change occurring in the workplace. We might look more holistically at the system in which our participants operate rather than the training intervention in isolation.

Being a performance expert adds more value to the business

Considering ourselves as training professionals can limit our value-add to the business. As a training professional we can be both reactive (to training requests from business managers) and proactive (taking pre-emptive action to consider what training is needed by a department or should generally be available across the business – perhaps in the form of a training calendar of programmes that employees can sign up for). But the value is around our knowledge of training and this thinking will limit the challenge we bring to the business.

As a performance expert we have different conversations which will often challenge thinking to expose the real issues around creating sustainable behaviour change. When we are reacting to a training request we will seek to align this with a clear and present business need and look at the wider picture of what will contribute to or detract from achieving a result. When we are proactive, our thinking will be in service of the business. We will look for what is important to the business and how we can support achievement of the business objectives.

Priority 2: be a slave to the business outcomes required

All through this book we maintain that any business training must be in the service of achieving business objectives. In nearly all cases this requires participants in your training programmes to bring about change in the work environment. This change might be in terms of following a new process, applying new skills, becoming more proficient with existing skills, utilising new or existing knowledge or simply benefiting from raised awareness.

As you plan your training needs analysis you need to be fully aware of the business’s agenda.

You must focus on these core questions:

• What is the business or organisational outcome or result that is required?
• How are the business outcomes measured?
• What should people do more of, or do less of – individually or as a team – to help achieve the desired result?
• What are they doing now and how is this influencing the desired result?
• What are the barriers to change? This should include looking at processes, habits, management, key performance indicators (KPIs) and motivations.

There is a popular questioning technique called the ‘five whys’. It is used to explore and help determine the root cause of a presenting issue. The technique (developed by Toyota) suggests that by asking ‘Why?’ five times, the true nature of the problem or issue becomes clear, along with its solution. Training professionals need to ask ‘Why?’ in order to get beneath the surface of a presenting issue and understand what the real issues are and why these are important to the business. Sometimes, you will need to ask ‘Why?’ a number of times.

Business outcome measures

These must be at the heart of every training needs analysis. Key questions that you should ask are:

• What organisational goals or strategy does the training need to support?
• What are the business results that must be achieved?
• How will we measure success for the business?
• How will we measure the training’s success?

We want to know what success will look like in business terms. A training needs discussion often starts more tactically than this and our challenge is to elevate the discussion with the right people to ensure that any training (or other development) solution is fully aligned with what the business needs to reach its goals. If we allow the discussion to focus on the training rather than the business we risk looking at training in isolation and of creating a solution that does not address the real issues or bring about the change the business needs in order to achieve its goals. We also risk playing to our own agenda and falling back on tried and tested methods that are part of our comfort zone.

Six situations that drive training requests

Thinking in terms of business outcomes helps us to understand that most training requests are driven by one or a combination of six business situations. In Ron Drew Stone’s book, Aligning Training For Results (2008, Pfeiffer) he refers to these as the six signals and suggests using this concept to help find out what is really driving the training request.

Source: Aligning Training for Results, John Wiley & Sons, Ron Drew Stone (2009)

In order to illustrate the impact of this concept, once again let’s take the example of customer service training.

If we do not consider the business outcome measures or what is driving the training request we could have a conversation resulting in skills training that has limited impact. By asking what the desired business result is and how success will be measured, the conversation will focus first on objective success criteria. This might be around increased customer loyalty and cross-selling opportunities, higher customer satisfaction ratings and a focus on satisfying those key accounts that have a disproportionately high impact on sales revenues.

Looking at the six signals, you explore whether the current need is the result of an execution deficiency, a new expectation, a business change or a business opportunity. This aspect of needs analysis will help you decide what is needed and what other elements you need to consider to ensure success. If you decide it is an execution deficiency, you may look at job descriptions, individual KPIs and remedial skills development. If you decide the driver is a new expectation, you might look at developing some new skills and behaviours, introducing a new process to bring a focus on key accounts and setting new KPIs.

You can use this concept to identify what is driving the request for training and this will enable you to consider the nature of any performance gap that currently exists and what needs to change. Because we have not mentioned training in any of our questions yet, we are able to consider the whole system in which the business operates and not just the skills or knowledge required for the individuals who attend any training. Our solution can be aligned with the business needs and focused on any aspects of the business – its culture, processes, management, rewards and its people – that will contribute to achieving the results. This systemic approach might require us to look deeper than simply at the presenting issue because the causes could be interrelated. Focusing on one element or issue in isolation may not resolve the underlying cause.

Once you understand what is driving the request, your needs analysis will provide an objective understanding of what is required to bring about the desired change.

Priority 3: identify and address the barriers to change

Needs analysis must identify the barriers that could prevent application of what has been learned in the training being applied in the work environment. If priority 2 is about what the business needs, priority 3 is about what participants need if they are to transfer their learning. Consider all of the variables that can act as barriers so that you can challenge business leaders, line managers and participants to raise awareness and understanding. Once all concerned fully understand the issues, you can work together to mitigate, avoid or address them.

The table below summarises the most common barriers to change:

Before, during and after the training event

Having identified training as the appropriate primary intervention to deliver on the business outcomes required, there will be specific transfer practices that you can employ before, during and after the event to maximise the chance of success.

A recent study by the Kite Foundation researched what was behind the poor rate of learning transfer that resulted in only 5–10% of the annual expenditure on training leading to improved workplace performance. The research identified that the 10 least frequently used learning transfer practices featured the participant’s line manager as the most heavily involved stakeholder, with all occurring either before or after the learning event. As there is significant evidence that the learner’s line manager is the most influential stakeholder in learning transfer (outweighing not just the trainer but the learner as well), this element should definitely be considered when evaluating the barriers to change.

Visit www.ftguidetobusinesstraining.com and follow the link to the Kite Foundation Survey Results. This document provides detail about 66 learning transfer practices that cover the ‘before, during and after’ of a learning intervention.

Summary

The needs analysis you conduct will vary based on the programme, stakeholders, organisational context and time available. Keep in mind the following to ensure that you focus on the right elements to be successful:

• It is easy to fall into reacting to perceived needs rather than question to find the underlying cause of the issue.
• If you do this, your needs analysis will be faulty and subjective.
• You need to be seen as a performance expert by line managers and executives.
• Your focus needs to be on what needs to happen for change to take place in the work environment rather than on training in isolation.
• Your self-perception is key to success.
• Ensure that you have business rather than training conversations.
• Focus on what the desired business outcomes are and their measures.
• Consider what is driving the request for training using the six signals.
• Challenge business leaders, stakeholders and participants to identify and address the real barriers to change taking place in the work environment.