training needs analysis
Training Needs Analysis (TNA) or Development Needs Analysis (DNA)?
29/03/10 17:52
Some years ago I was put in charge of the training
function of a large manufacturing company. They
already had a Training Manager so I had to come up
with a job title that was a bit different. Since my
role, apart from managing the training function, was
to look at the future H.R. needs of the organisation,
introduce a Manpower Plan and develop people for
future roles, I chose the title Human Resource
Development Manager. I had never seen the title
before then, but over the years it became popular.
Training sounds a bit restrictive, development sounds
more future oriented and creative and I am sure
better describes the role. In recent years Learning
has become a popular word in training circles and
Learning Advisors, Learning and Development Managers
etc are replacing Training Managers in many
organisations.
Training Needs Analysis seems to have stood the test of time when referring to the process of finding out, in advance of training, who and what should be trained. Is this term accurate I wonder? What about Development Needs Analysis? (could be abbreviated to DNA) This would suggest a more proactive, forward looking approach. And of course, since training is not always the solution, what about broadening it to Performance Improvement Needs Analysis? (PINA?)
I suspect it will be Training Needs Analysis for some time to come.
Training Needs Analysis seems to have stood the test of time when referring to the process of finding out, in advance of training, who and what should be trained. Is this term accurate I wonder? What about Development Needs Analysis? (could be abbreviated to DNA) This would suggest a more proactive, forward looking approach. And of course, since training is not always the solution, what about broadening it to Performance Improvement Needs Analysis? (PINA?)
I suspect it will be Training Needs Analysis for some time to come.
0 Comments
Why do some Supervisor training programmes fail?
04/10/08 13:54
First off, let me say that I believe that just about
any training programme has some benefit in the
overall development of people. If one attends
training courses over a period of time, changes in
knowledge, skills and attitude happen. But this can
be a slow process, and it's expensive.
To improve results, supervisor training programmes should be based on a clear understanding of what needs to change. In addition, the material must be presented using well established learning principles. Thirdly (not to mention fourthly fifthly and sixthly) there should be support to ensure that what has been learned is implemented. This may very well be the most important factor in ensuring that the desired change takes place.
Most trainers will have faced a group of learners who say "why don't our managers attend this course, they need to know this too." And of course the managers may very well have the knowledge and skills that have been taught. The issue is that they don't always believe it, or they don't take the time to follow through and coach their staff after the course.
There are ways around this, but they are not always used - Involve managers in the decision as to what will be trained: facilitate a shortened version of the course and add coaching skills for the managers; visible support from the very top. Also, never underestimate the power of administrative systems that support the correct way to do things.
Coming to think of it, all that I have said applies to any training, not just supervisory.
To improve results, supervisor training programmes should be based on a clear understanding of what needs to change. In addition, the material must be presented using well established learning principles. Thirdly (not to mention fourthly fifthly and sixthly) there should be support to ensure that what has been learned is implemented. This may very well be the most important factor in ensuring that the desired change takes place.
Most trainers will have faced a group of learners who say "why don't our managers attend this course, they need to know this too." And of course the managers may very well have the knowledge and skills that have been taught. The issue is that they don't always believe it, or they don't take the time to follow through and coach their staff after the course.
There are ways around this, but they are not always used - Involve managers in the decision as to what will be trained: facilitate a shortened version of the course and add coaching skills for the managers; visible support from the very top. Also, never underestimate the power of administrative systems that support the correct way to do things.
Coming to think of it, all that I have said applies to any training, not just supervisory.

