“Performance Needs Analysis – Why do it when we already know we need training?”

Every organisation will at times, have a new capability introduced or old capability retired, that impacts on human resource productivity or efficiency levels.  This will inevitably trigger the organisation’s human resource professionals to review the situation and come up with a number of possible causes such as under-skilled employees or the application of out-dated workplace processes or methodologies. Both these causes (and numerous others) can be solved through the application of a properly designed, methodical, and accountable training program; and the learning and development team will always tell you good Instructional Systems Design says the first step towards any training program is a Needs Analysis.

Instructional Systems Design has been in place since the mid-1970s. Driven by the need for more efficient training on more advanced and sophisticated weapons systems in the Defence environment, Florida State University developed the original Analyse, Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluate – ADDIE – model. 

The ADDIE model commences in the Analyse Phase with the analysis of the workplace, employees, and possible training solutions, and continues through to the Evaluate Phase. The five phases are wrapped in a continuous improvement process where progress to the next phase is premised on revision of the products and processes stemming from the previous phases.

But why do we need to go through all the phases of the ADDIE model? What is so important about doing a performance or training needs analysis? Why do we need to an analysis at all when we already know we need some training? Can’t we just skip that and develop a course?

As Judith Brown, Director of Research, International Personnel Management Association said:

“Often, organizations will develop and implement training without first conducting a needs analysis. These organizations run the risk of overdoing training, doing too little training or missing the point completely. ……… Without a clear understanding of needs, training efforts are at best randomly useful and at worst, useless.”

Reference: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/009102600203100412 Volume: 31 issue: 4, page(s): 569-578 Issue published: (December 1, 2002)

Engineers will tell you that the best way to build a complex product is using Systems Engineering.  Systems Engineering considers the whole product that’s being created as a “system” not a series of individual components, and engineers these components for connectivity and cohesion. The alternative is to consider all the components separately and try and stich them together afterwards which often results in a bunch of bits that are poorly connected, possibly incompatible, and very likely won’t meet user needs. The Systems Engineering process starts with a Requirements Analysis the goal of which is to determine the needs that make up a system to satisfy an overall need.

Just like engineering a product, a training program can be considered as a complex system where an analysis is required to determine what the overall need is:

• who needs to be trained,

• what do they need to learn,

• what do they already know,

• what training do they already get,

• what’s left to train,

• what’s the best way to do that training,

• what assessment is needed to ensure they have learnt what they needed to learn.

And just like in engineering if a training needs analysis is conducted at the start of the process, the answers to the “needs” questions will lead to a product that aligns with the organisation’s objectives, is cohesive and comprehensive, and less likely to fail.

Most organisations consider training as an essential part of the business and see investment in the development of their employees as an investment in the future of the business and yet no organisation has money to “waste” on failed training.

MMCLD uses the ADDIE model to identify and develop solutions for a training intervention to a performance problem. This approach, starting with the Needs Analysis, can create training that meets work force capability requirements effectively and efficiently by directing training towards clear workplace performance needs and using training strategies that reflect best practice, are feasible, and make the best use of available resources.

So don’t waste your time or your money, start with a needs analysis and be sure you’re training the right people, the right skills, the right way.

Would like to know more on how MMCLD can support you in conducting a training or performance needs analysis?  Refer to our Consultancy – Services & Solutions.

Written by Pam Price - Strategy and Marketing Director, MMC Learning and Development Pty Ltd.

---

Pam Price is MMCLD’s Strategy Director and Instructional Design Specialist. Pam has over 30 years’ experience in instructional systems design, training development and project management for Defence and Commercial markets.

AR or VR: which “reality” is right for your organisation’s learning needs?

The use of technology in training is nothing new but learning and training specialists now have so much more to choose from and the choice is getting greater.

According to Digi-Capital’s Augmented/Virtual Reality Report Q2 2018 augmented and virtual reality start-ups raised over $3.6B USD from venture capital in the 12 months up to the end of Q1 2018. 

With this much investment going into the technology there must be something in augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) of value to today’s learning and training specialists – but which one is right for you?

Notwithstanding the known benefits of using simulations in training – increased safety, reduced risk, reduced need for real equipment, learning while having fun – there are other factors to be considered when deciding between the use of AR and VR as your simulation media.  In MMCLD’s experience, the suitability of AR or VR as a media for learning solutions is driven by a number of underlying principles.

To start with there is the definitional difference between VR and AR.  

VR creates an environment or “virtual world” that the learner and training equipment can be inserted into – think Sam Worthington in Avatar. Like Sam Worthington’s character, the learner can experience all elements of the virtual world they are training in albeit there are often restrictions on “physical” connections.  By “physical” connections we mean that the learner’s options to use real, physical assets can be restricted. In a lot of instances such a restriction may have minimal impact on the learning effect but for operators or maintainers of specialised equipment, experiencing the physical feel and responses of real controls or tools can accelerate the transfer of learning from the classroom to the workplace.

In contrast, AR inserts equipment or assets into an existing environment, that is the real world whether that be a workplace or a classroom.  Using the existing real-world environment can extend the learning experience through creation of layers of digital information on top of real equipment or the actual physical environment.  

On the downside the real world can also restrict the authenticity of the learning environment if there are conflicting visual information or cues. For example, when overlaying an AR traffic accident scene in a classroom the learner will still see the tables and chairs in the room, which can detract from the “realism” of the scenario.

Then there is whether the learning is for operation of equipment or devices in “static” or “motion” mode.

When we refer to equipment or devices being in “static” mode or “motion” mode, we’re referring to whether the equipment is in motion relative to the learner or whether it is anchored to a set location.  MMCLD has found that, depending on the AR device used, AR is generally more suitable when “operation” is conducted on equipment or assets in a “static” mode not a “motion” mode.  This is because of the technical functionality of devices such as the HoloLens which anchor the equipment or asset to a single position in the classroom or area where the training is being delivered.  This anchoring allows the learner to move the equipment or move around the equipment but does not allow the equipment to move from the anchored position. 

“Motion” mode learning scenarios such as first person shooter (FPS) type scenarios, are better addressed using VR.  FPS activities typically map the learner’s movements and provide a view of what an actual person would see and do.  VR allows the learner, equipment or assets to all move within the virtual environment.  To achieve the same level of “motion” in an AR environment would rely on the AR being overlayed on an existing environment that is a high-fidelity replication of the real operational environment with the added need for any equipment or assets in the environment being able to move relative to the learner. 

As is the case when designing any learning solution, the feasibility of using different method and media along with consideration of learning and assessment strategies is needed to identify the most appropriate and effective solution for delivery of your training. The principles outlined above are just a few of the many that should be considered when you’re deciding on whether AR or VR is the right media for your training requirement.

Would like to know more on how MMCLD can support you in selecting the right media for your training needs?  Refer to our Consultancy – Services & Solutions.

Written by Jarratt Holliday - Chief Technology Officer, MMC Learning and Development Pty Ltd.

---

Jarratt Holliday, MMCLD’s Chief Technology Officer, has been with MMCLD for over 20 years.  He is a software engineer with extensive experience in designing, developing, optimising and maintaining IT infrastructures, and is responsible for driving MMCLD’s research and development into future learning technologies.