Analysis of Training Needs

According to Noe (2005), three analytical steps must be undertaken in order to identify training needs: organisational, personal and task analysis. Organisational analysis includes defining the extent to which training matches the organisation’s plans and resources, and whether managers and peers are willing to support trainees during the

36

post-training time. Person analysis is done to assure that training is actually needed, and includes an evaluation of who needs training, and whether the nominated people have the precondition skills, attitude and beliefs to chief the training programme’s contents. Task analysis focuses on identifying the skills and abilities, task and knowledge that will be imparted to the trainee during the training programme.

Training-needs analysis is the first significant phase of a systematic training process and it establishes the base of a training programme (Bimptos and Petridou, 2012). Noe (1999) has also indicated that certain techniques such as observation, interviews, surveys and questionnaires can be used to identify training needs, and Cole (2002) added performance appraisal as another method of establishing such needs.

Odiorne and Rummler (1988) pointed out that the quality of the training outcomes is based on the training needs assessment data; if the training needs have not been appropriately assessed, then both the design of the training programme will not achieve the expectations of participants, and the training efforts are a waste of time. Vermeulen (2002), Holton and Baldwin (2003) and Elangovan and Karakowsky (1999) stressed the need for the training to match what was required in context of the trainees’ jobs.

Goldstein and Ford (2002) stated that organisational support is one of the main requirements for the success of the training needs assessment process. When information is collected, either by external specialists or local employees, employees working in the organisation might be disrupted and those being appraised are sometimes unwilling to co-operate with the person gathering the data. However, when the needs identification process is carefully designed and supported by the organisation, the disruption is minimised and employees’ cooperation can be increased. Therefore, creating liaison groups and work groups that support simplifies the course becomes a vital part of the identification phase. Failure to establish organisational support will make it difficult, if not impossible; to accomplish training needs assessment (Goldstein and Ford, 2002).

Based on their review of more than 100 articles related to the area of training-needs analysis, Chiu et al. (1999) offered a broad theoretical framework for training-needs analysis, focusing on several questions as follows: first, who are the key initiators of training-needs analysis? Second, what are the levels of interest in the studies (i.e. organisation, process, group or individual). Third, what is the intended outcome of the

37

analysis. Finally, what methods of analysis are used. The researchers found that the literature was dominated by a supply-led approach to training needs-analysis (Chiu et al., 1999), which is largely trainer-driven and authority-oriented, coming from the vested interests of trainers (Thompson, 1994).

Goldstein and Ford (2002) argued that in addition to organisational support, four analytical steps are necessary to achieve successful training needs identification, as follows:

• Organisational analysis – this step begins with an examination of the short- and long-term goals of the organisation, and the factors that are likely to affect these goals. Due to the volatile competitive environment, and a certain degree of uncertainty about people and human resources issues, the organisational analyst has to consider these issues systematically.

• Requirement analysis – in this step the analyst focuses on the requirements of the job. In general, training programmes aim to provide people with expertise to perform jobs. Therefore, the requirements analysis has to identify how to collect the information and how much information is needed to ensure representative and reliable data.

• Task and knowledge, skill, and ability analysis –this process begins with specifying the tasks required on the job, and proceeds to identify what skills, knowledge, and attitudes are needed to perform those tasks.

• Person analysis – this is where the emphasis is on assessing how well the employee performs the job by using the knowledge, skills and attitudes required by it. In this step a set of criteria for measuring job performance is required. Another important aspect of person analysis is to determine which necessary knowledge, skills and attitude have already been acquired by the prospective trainees; as a result this will save time and money.

It has been indicated by Herschbach (1997) and Franceschini and Terzago (1998) that several parties contribute to the process of training. Trainers are one of the key actors in almost all of the stages of the training process, including training needs assessment, and their scope is wide enough to cover any level in the organisation. Consequently, Bennett and Leduchowicz (2007) concluded that there should be more contact between trainers and clients and trainees’ managers.

38

The demand-led approach, in contrast, is largely business-oriented where top managers, chief executives and directors are committed to investment in training due to its perceived importance to the success of the business. The key to this approach is the business planning process, which establishes the context and mission of the organisation, and its main characteristics are a top-down, finance-driven process, putting more emphasis on the business outcome and less on employees’ needs. Differing from the business-oriented approach in terms of its scope and emphasis is the process-oriented approach, which focuses on a local division or department rather than on the whole organisation. In the trainee-oriented approach, a bottom-up, self- assessment occurs, in which the employees’ needs are emphasised rather than the business outcome (Chiu et al., 1999).

The findings of Chiu et al. (1999) regarding the key initiators were that trainers constitute the largest proportion of initiators of training-needs analysis (supply-led contributors), whereas less than 14% top-level or line managers were among the initiators (demand-led) of training-needs analysis, and none of the trainees was found to be an initiator. The researchers revealed that there was little evidence that academics, consultants and managers would work together in training-needs analysis research.

Concerning the levels of analysis, the research demonstrated that the biggest proportion of studies focused on analysing organisational needs, followed by the group level, and then the process level (24%). Investigations at the individual level were relatively few (14).

In respect of the assessment methods, the overall proportion of the four types of assessment methods was: 15% for the organisational assessment; 9% for the process assessment; 40% (the highest proportion) for the trainers’ assessment; and finally, 36% for the self-assessment. The authors argued that regardless of the level of training-needs analysis, the main purpose was to improve the effectiveness of the organisation (Chiu et al., 1999).

Soloman (1999) affirmed that performance appraisal is considered as an essential feature of best training practice and the most important means of identifying training needs. Additionally, when appraisal systems are well structured, they can improve motivation and performance both in individual development and organisational planning (Torrington and Hall, 1991).

39

According to Rees and Porter (2004), who conducted a study on appraisal pitfalls and the training implications, when considering training needs it is important to recognise the problems of “wish lists” and the probability of conflict between employee and organisational objectives. Rees and Porter also indicated that in the determination of training needs, care needs to be taken to establish realistic priorities and to recognise the potential between individual aspirations and organisational needs, since the way in which employees wish to develop themselves may not coincide with the future plans of the organisation. Moreover, not all workers have a realistic assessment of their actual needs.

Cheatle (2001) concludes that a good training-needs analysis or assessment should provide some basis on which training actions can be considered in order to make clear what the employee is doing and why. The process should diagnose training concerns and priorities in a logical way by examining individual and overall features of the organisation. Therefore, conducting a systematic training-needs analysis is a serious initial step to training design and can significantly influence the overall success of training programmes (Goldstein and Ford, 2002; Sleezer, 1993; Zemke, 1994). Indeed, a systematic needs assessment can be used to specify a number of key aspects for the implementation and evaluation of training programmes.

It can be concluded that the training-needs analysis can guide and help as the basis for the design, development, delivery and evaluation of the training programme; the existence and comprehensiveness of training-needs analysis should be related to the overall effectiveness of training because it provides the mechanism whereby the questions central to successful training programmes can be answered. In the design and development of training programmes, systematic efforts to analyse the training needs of the organisation, identify the job requirements to be taught, and identify who needs training and the kind of training to be delivered, should result in more effective training (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick 2006; Arthur et al., 2003).

However, Yaghi (2008) and Alfaleh (1999) have argued that there are unsystematic training approaches in Jordanian organisations, in addition to an absence of scientific training-needs assessment methods in almost all Jordanian public and private sector organisations. They identified three main reasons for these problems: that training programmes are not based on identified needs; the lack of a systematic training process;

40

and lack of training programme evaluation methods, training methods and trainer- selection criteria.