Consultation/Training Needs Analysis checklist

These are some thought-starter questions and by no means an exhaustive list...part of an exercise in my attempt to collate my scattered bits of writing...

I have found the questions below useful to ask when analyzing an organization's readiness/need for e-learning. I have jotted them down as they occurred to me and are in no ways very refined. These will need several iterations to reach some measure of perfection...

The Pre-Training/Consultation/Training Needs Analysis checklist could be something like this:

1. What is the nature of the business the organization is in?
2. What is the strength of the organization?
3. Is the organization globally spread?
4. Is there a stated training need, i.e., has clear areas of performance gaps been identified by the LoB manager/training department?
5. How is this “improvement in performance” perceived to impact the organization’s bottom line?
6. Can this training requirement be fulfilled by e-learning alone? If not, what could be the other possible solutions?
7. What is the organization’s current mode of training and how “successful” has it been? What is the gap that is being sought to be fulfilled.

If e-learning is a viable option, then it is important to find out:

1. Has the organization experienced e-learning before?
2. Will employees get sufficient support from the organization to take the courses?
3. Does the top management believe in or is willing to open up to the e-learning approach?

If there are no defined training needs but a general feeling from the top management that some improvements are required, the situation becomes tougher. This is when IDs have to become consultants and solution architects. This would require a deep dive into the processes, current training scenarios, the pain points that need to be bridged.

What makes analyzing difficult is the complicated issue of measuring ROI. It is not really possible to do a one-on-one mapping of a training program—be it e-learning, ILT, blended, etc.—with the performance. I’ll keep that as a new topic of discussion…

The learning solution must be effective enough within a constrained budget and time-line. We all know what we could do if we had more time, if the client opened his wallet a bit more, and all other ideal situations. However, our consultancy and design thinking skills comes to the forefront when we can deliver effective programs within the defined constraints.

This is where, as consultants, we have to blend project planning with solution thinking. I believe such challenges force us to think creatively and out of the box to come up with better time and cost effective solutions.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. What are some of the specific challenges you have faced? How did you overcome them? What were some of the creative measures adopted? What key questions are missing from the list?

Possible hindrances to user adoption of e-learning courses

Why do many organizations fail to enthuse their learners about their e-learning drive? What are some of the possible reasons for a low adoption rate? Is it only the e-learning design or lack thereof?

What organizations treading the path of e-learning or introducing anything new need to understand is that:

~The implementation is only the beginning
~The culture of the organization should actively support and drive post-implementation adoption
~Users/learners should perceive themselves as being appreciated and recognized for adapting to a new method

Applying these to the adoption of e-learning in an organization:

Mistakes that many organizations tend to make that get in the way of user adoption are:

1. Managers responsible for team productivity and performance define the learning objectives and ask a vendor to create an e-learning course failing to take the opinion of end users (what the managers perceive as difficulties may not be the real/root cause for productivity or quality failures)
2. Insist on "jazz" which if not aligned/required for the end learning can distract and confuse users (Refer to: Could animations hurt learning? from http://blog.cathy-moore.com/2009/06/could-animations-hurt-learning/)
3. Feel that transferring a ppt into flash is all about e-learning (putting "lipstick on a pig" effect takes place...Refer to: How to avoid putting lipstick on a pig from http://blog.cathy-moore.com/2008/02/how-to-avoid-putting-lipstick-o...)
4. Think of the implementation of an e-learning program as the end of their responsibility, a task to be ticked off on their list for that quarter (the course is out there, learners will go through and performance will improve)
5. Unwillingness to go the whole way and invest in a course that can be made truly effective; the incentive for an e-learning course, from an org's perspective, is often to cut down on training cost and the hassles of coordination rather than learning efficiency

All of these points lead to the creation of a training program and an atmosphere that is not conducive to adoption.

Mistakes that most vendors make that get in the way of user adoption are:

1. Accepting the brief from an organization's representatives and creating a course that they want but not necessarily what they need
2. Failing to do a thorough "Learning Needs Assessment" and thus barking up the wrong tree
3. Failing to carry out UAT because "implementation is not our problem; it's up to the organization to do what they want with the course"
4. Thinking that "jazz" can make up for sound instructional strategies and design
5. Not bothering to help the organization with suggestions on adoption (often, for an organization walking the path of e-learning may be a new measure with no set path to tread; a vendor/consultant/learning solutions designer, in such cases, need to suggest means of inspiring and driving user adoption...

Look out for some thoughts on helping organizations drive adoption in the next post...

In Response: Accidental Instructional Designers #dl09--Part I

I have been following the discussion on Cammy Bean's blog around the post Accidental Instructional Designers #dl09. It started around the attributes that make a good ID and then devolved into, as Cammy says, the "degree vs. non-degree" debate.

A few of the comments that made me go, "Yes! yes! I know what you are saying..." are:

1.Brent Schlenker: I see New ID as being more about aggregating and monitoring the existing content streams. And identifying the critical information, highlighting it, and improving upon the media that explains or clarifies the content.

2.
Cammy Bean: Maybe ID programs need to come out of business schools instead of education schools.

3.
Karl Kapp: Good ID programs create good instructional designers and an instructional designer from a good program can do some wonderful, creative and innovative instruction without having to gain experience over 11 or so years before they are able to do so.

I have been primarily thinking about point #2-Cammy's comment in the light of my recent business trip.

This trip was focused on meeting the client to understand the following:
1. Why is the client thinking of moving toward an online training/blended training format? (So far, all training has been instructor-led.)
2. What are the business needs they are trying to address via online training?
3. What are the key drivers behind this shift?

The more I thought about these questions and Cammy's comment, I realized what I had been doing for the last 10 weeks is somewhat different from the Needs and Task Analysis that are the classic first steps of a training project that an ID begins work with.

I had been working to understand the business drivers of an organization. Apart from the usual drivers that force organizations to move to e-learning with an eye to cutting cost (the wrong reason) like global reach, less time away from work for learners, easy dissemination and lesser logistics management, and so on, I had had to understand factors that impact on organization's operational efficiency and hence its productivity and bottom line.

This meant deep diving into the organization's existing processes, noting how things are done now and pin-pointing the gaps that can be filled to achieve:
1. Process Improvement
2. Process Standardization
3. Automation

One of the key needs expressed was to scale business through operational efficiencies which the organization felt could be achieved through effective training. A far-sighted organization indeed!

Reflection point:
Honestly, I have taken a formal ID training course and nothing there had prepared me for this kind of analysis. Most ID courses start with the content and the learners--both key aspects of effective training design. However, here I found myself starting with the organization first that "house" the learners, so to speak.

Even before I could think of what the desired performance output would be and the psychographics and demographics of the end users, I had to comprehend the organization's:

1. Business model
2. Current productivity level
3. Desired productivity level
4. Future plans of expansion, new launches, if any
5. HR policies as training would map to career progression

None of these are classic ID roles and require a grasp of how businesses function, especially in the light of today's economic downturn, the fears and desires that drive business goals, the key factors that will enable a business to survive today and prosper.

These fell into place like a jigsaw puzzle once I saw Cammy's comment...and I literally spoke to my laptop for a good few seconds sharing my agreement. Thanks to Cammy for helping me to clarify my thoughts...

I would love to hear what you think about the need to understand an organization's business model...