flowchart LR A[Organisation Level<br/>strategic capability requirements] --> B[Task Level<br/>role-specific capability requirements] B --> C[Person Level<br/>individual capability gaps] C --> D[Learning Plan<br/>programmes designed to close the gaps] style A fill:#E8F0FE,stroke:#1A73E8 style B fill:#FEF7E0,stroke:#F9AB00 style C fill:#E6F4EA,stroke:#137333 style D fill:#F3E8FD,stroke:#8430CE
26 Training and Development Analytics: Training Requirements
26.1 Why Training-Requirements Analytics Matters
The training that fails most often is the training that was never the training the workforce actually needed.
Training-and-development analytics begins, before any course is designed or any platform is bought, with the question of what the workforce actually needs to learn. The discipline that answers that question is training-needs analysis, and it is the most consequential single step in the learning function. A programme built on a careful needs analysis can survive a mediocre delivery; a programme built without one cannot be saved by even the best delivery, because it is solving the wrong problem in the first place.
The case for treating training as a planned response to a defined need is older than HR analytics. As Irwin L. Goldstein & J. Kevin Ford (2002) set out across multiple editions of their foundational textbook on training in organisations, the credible learning function operates on a three-level model: organisation analysis, task analysis, and person analysis. Each level produces evidence about a different dimension of the gap between current and required capability, and each level uses different methods, different data sources, and different visualisations. A function that runs only one level is operating on a partial picture, and its programmes will succeed or fail on luck rather than on design.
The contemporary frame extends the foundational work into the ways modern organisations learn. As Raymond A. Noe (2017) emphasises in his work on employee training and development, the learning function increasingly has to design for continuous, role-specific, and self-directed learning rather than for episodic classroom programmes. The needs-analysis discipline is the same; the data sources have widened to include learning-platform telemetry, capability inventories, and project outcome data, and the visualisations have widened with them.
The visualisation lens makes the analysis legible to the audiences that depend on it. A training-needs dashboard surfaces the strategic gap from the organisation analysis, the task-level gap from the task analysis, and the individual-level gap from the person analysis, with each gap rendered against the planning horizon, the role family, and the segment of the workforce. The page that combines all three lets the chief people officer and the chief operating officer agree on which capability is most binding for the strategy this year, and what the learning programme is being asked to produce.
TipThe training-requirements contract
- Every learning programme proposed for the dashboard is paired with the needs analysis that justified it: organisation, task, and person evidence on the same page.
- Capability gaps are quantified rather than asserted. The dashboard surfaces the gap as a measured difference between current capability and the capability the strategy requires.
- The needs analysis is refreshed on a defined cadence, and the dashboard tracks how requirements shift as the strategy, the role mix, or the workforce composition evolves.
26.2 The Three Levels of Needs Analysis
A credible training-needs analysis runs at three nested levels: organisation, task, and person. The levels are nested because each one constrains the next. The strategy of the firm constrains which tasks matter; the tasks constrain which capabilities are required; the capabilities of the current workforce constrain which individuals need to develop them. A function that operates all three levels in sequence produces a learning agenda that aligns with the strategy and reaches the people whose development will move it forward.
TipThe Three Levels at a Glance
| Level | What it asks | Data sources | Visualisation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organisation | Which capabilities does the strategy require | Strategy map, business plan, market signals | Strategy-aligned capability map |
| Task | What does each role have to be able to do | Role profiles, task analyses, performance evidence | Task-and-capability matrix |
| Person | Where do current incumbents stand against the required capabilities | Performance data, assessment results, manager input | Capability heat map by employee |
TipThe nested logic
A learning plan that does not trace back through person, task, and organisation analysis is a learning plan that cannot be defended in an executive review. The dashboard’s role is to make the trace visible: every programme on the plan can be clicked through to the gap it closes, the role family it serves, and the strategic capability it advances.
26.3 Organisation Analysis
Organisation analysis is the strategic upstream of needs analysis. It reads the firm’s strategy, market position, and operating model to identify which capabilities will determine whether the strategy succeeds. The analysis produces a small list of strategic capabilities, ranked by their criticality and by the gap between current and required levels.
TipWhat Organisation Analysis Surfaces
| Question | Source | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Which capabilities does the strategy depend on | Strategy map, business plan | Ranked capability list |
| Which capabilities does the market reward | Customer research, competitor intelligence | External capability benchmarks |
| Which capabilities are scarce in the labour market | Talent-supply data, hiring evidence | Build-versus-buy preference per capability |
| Which capabilities will become obsolete | Industry research, technology shifts | Decommission list |
| Which capabilities are emerging | Innovation programmes, partnerships | Future-readiness list |
TipFrom organisation analysis to investment priority
The output of an organisation analysis is not a long list of nice-to-have capabilities. It is a short list of strategic capabilities ranked by criticality, with a build-buy-borrow recommendation for each. As Irwin L. Goldstein & J. Kevin Ford (2002) emphasise, the organisation level of analysis is where the learning function earns its place in the strategic conversation, because it is the level at which learning is connected to the firm’s economic outcomes rather than to its internal activities.
26.4 Task Analysis
Task analysis takes each strategically important role family and decomposes the work into the specific tasks, knowledge, skills, and other characteristics that define competent performance. The output is a structured task-and-capability matrix that the learning function uses to design programmes and that the workforce-planning function uses to evaluate hiring options.
TipThe Three Outputs of Task Analysis
| Output | What it captures | Use |
|---|---|---|
| Task list | The activities that define the role | Job description, learning-objectives mapping |
| Knowledge-skills-attitudes inventory | The capabilities required to perform the tasks | Capability framework, assessment design |
| Criticality and frequency map | Which capabilities matter most and which are exercised most | Prioritisation of learning content |
TipMethods for task analysis
Task analysis uses a small set of established methods: subject-matter expert workshops, structured observation, performance-data review, and criticality surveys. As Raymond A. Noe (2017) documents, the most useful analyses combine at least two of these methods, because each method captures something the others miss. A task analysis built only on SME interviews tends to surface idealised work; one built only on observation tends to surface routine work. Combining methods produces a richer, more defensible task profile that the learning programmes can be designed against.
26.5 Person Analysis
Person analysis maps the current workforce against the required capabilities. The output is the capability gap at the level of the individual, the team, and the role family. Person analysis is the most data-rich of the three levels and the most operationally useful, because its output points directly to the people whose development will move the gap.
TipSources for Person Analysis
| Source | What it provides | Quality consideration |
|---|---|---|
| Performance evidence | Current performance against role requirements | Inherits the rating quality of the performance system |
| Capability assessments | Scores against a capability framework | Reliability and validity of the assessment matter |
| Self-assessment | Employee’s own view of their capability | Pair with manager and peer input to triangulate |
| Manager input | Manager’s view of the employee’s capability | Subject to leniency and central-tendency bias |
| Learning history | Programmes completed and skills certified | Tells you what was taught, not what was learned |
TipTriangulation as the discipline
No single source produces a defensible person-level capability map. Self-assessments overstate; manager assessments under-vary; learning-history records confirm exposure rather than mastery. The discipline is to triangulate at least three sources for each capability and to surface the disagreements as the most informative findings. As Raymond A. Noe (2017) emphasises, the credibility of person analysis rests on the willingness to surface uncertainty rather than to present a single confident map of capability that the workforce will not recognise as their own.
26.6 Visualising Training Requirements
The training-requirements dashboard is the single page on which the chief people officer, the chief operating officer, and the head of learning agree on what the function is being asked to produce this year. Five design choices, applied consistently, hold the three levels of analysis together on that page.
TipFive Design Choices for the Training-Requirements Dashboard
| Choice | What it does on the page |
|---|---|
| Strategic capability ranking | The headline area surfaces the small ranked list from the organisation analysis |
| Role-family capability matrix | A matrix shows required and current capability by role family |
| Capability heat map by individual | A drill-through view shows the person-level gap |
| Build-buy-borrow indicator | Each capability carries a recommendation that links to recruitment and learning plans |
| Refresh and source disclosure | Every chart shows its source and refresh date |
TipThe dashboard as the learning agenda
A well-designed training-requirements dashboard becomes the learning function’s agenda for the year. Each programme that the function commissions traces back to a strategic capability, a role-family task profile, and a person-level gap that the dashboard surfaces. The page is read by the executive committee as a capability briefing, by the head of learning as a programme plan, and by the workforce-planning team as the basis for the build-versus-buy mix. Building the page deliberately is what aligns the three audiences and what gives the function the right to invest the budget the dashboard implies.
26.7 Hands-On Exercise: Building the Training-Requirements Dashboard
NoteAim, Scenario, Dataset, Deliverable
Aim. Build the three-level training-needs analysis — organisation, task, person — as a layered Excel workbook and promote it to a Power BI page that surfaces the strategic capability ranking, the role-family capability matrix, and the person-level capability gap.
Scenario. You are running the learning function for an organisation. The chief people officer has asked for a single page that justifies the year’s learning budget by tracing every proposed programme back to a strategic capability, a role-family task profile, and a person-level gap.
Dataset. Learning and Development Metrics (Excel) from the HRMD library. The workbook includes EmployeeID, Department, Role, Training Programme, Completion Status, Training Hours, Capability Score, and related fields used to compute capability coverage and gap measures.
Deliverable. A Training-Requirements.xlsx workbook with three sheets — Organisation, Task, Person — and a Training-Requirements.pbix Power BI file with the layered dashboard described below.
26.7.1 Step 1 — Build the organisation-level capability list
On a sheet called Organisation, list the strategic capabilities the firm is pursuing this year. For each capability, record Strategic Theme, Criticality (High / Medium / Low), Build-Buy-Borrow recommendation, and Target Coverage Percentage. The list anchors the year’s learning agenda.
26.7.2 Step 2 — Build the task-and-capability matrix
On a sheet called Task, list each role family from the dataset and the capabilities each role requires from the Organisation list. Record Required Capability Level (1 to 5) for each role-capability cell. The matrix becomes the source for the Power BI role-family heat map.
26.7.3 Step 3 — Compute person-level capability scores
On a sheet called Person, join the Learning workbook to the Task matrix to compute current capability per employee and the gap to the role’s required level.
Code
Excel Formula
Capability Score = AVERAGEIFS(Learning[Capability Score], Learning[EmployeeID], <emp>, Learning[Capability], <cap>)
Required Level = VLOOKUP(<role-cap>, TaskMatrix, "RequiredLevel", FALSE)
Capability Gap = Required Level - Capability Score
Coverage Indicator = IF(Capability Gap <= 0, "Covered", "Gap")26.7.4 Step 4 — Aggregate to role-family and organisation views
Pivot the Person sheet to compute coverage percentage by role family and by capability across the firm. The aggregate view is the primary visual for the executive audience; the person-level view supports drill-through.
26.7.5 Step 5 — Promote to Power BI
Open Power BI Desktop and load all three sheets plus the underlying Learning data. Build the relationships through EmployeeID, Role, and Capability.
26.7.6 Step 6 — Build the layered dashboard
Lay out the page using the design choices from Section 5 of this chapter.
- The headline area surfaces the small ranked list of strategic capabilities from the Organisation sheet, each with its criticality and target coverage.
- The middle area shows a role-family-by-capability heat map with current coverage percentage and gap indicator.
- The drill-through area shows a per-employee capability scorecard for any cell selected on the heat map.
- A side panel surfaces the build-buy-borrow recommendation for each capability, linked to the recruitment and learning plans.
26.7.7 Step 7 — Add refresh and source disclosure
Every chart shows the source of its data and the last refresh time. The discipline matters because the dashboard is being read by a senior audience that has to trust the numbers without seeing the underlying calculation.
26.7.8 Step 8 — Publish
Publish the report and tag it as the year’s training-requirements artefact. Confirm that every learning programme proposed for the year traces back to the page and that programmes without a trace are returned for redesign.
TipConnect to the Visualisation Layer
The training-requirements dashboard sits as the upstream of the training-effectiveness dashboard from Chapter 27. The capability gaps surfaced here are the gaps that Chapter 27’s effectiveness pages will measure the firm’s progress against.
TipFiles and Screen Recordings
Training-Requirements.xlsx, Training-Requirements.pbix, and ch26-training-requirements-walkthrough.mp4 will be attached at this point in the published edition. The screen recording walks through Steps 1 to 8 with the Excel three-level workbook and the Power BI layered dashboard shown side by side.
Summary
| Concept | Description |
|---|---|
| Why Needs Analysis Matters | |
| Needs analysis as the consequential first step | Training that fails most often is training that was never the training actually needed |
| Three-level model | Organisation, task, and person analysis run as a nested sequence |
| Continuous learning frame | Modern learning is continuous, role-specific, and self-directed |
| Quantified gaps over assertions | Capability gaps are measured differences, not assertions |
| Refresh cadence for needs | Requirements shift as strategy, role mix, and composition evolve |
| The Three Levels | |
| Organisation level | Which capabilities does the strategy require |
| Task level | What does each role have to be able to do |
| Person level | Where do current incumbents stand against the required capabilities |
| Nested logic of the levels | Each level constrains the next; strategy bounds tasks bounds people |
| Trace from programme back to gap | Every programme can be traced to the gap it closes and the strategic capability it serves |
| Organisation Analysis | |
| Strategic capability ranking | The output of organisation analysis is a short list ranked by criticality |
| External capability benchmarks | Customer research and competitor intelligence anchor the external view |
| Build-buy-borrow recommendation | Each capability carries a build, buy, or borrow recommendation |
| Decommission list | Capabilities that will become obsolete are scheduled for decommissioning |
| Future-readiness list | Capabilities expected to become important are tracked in advance |
| Task Analysis | |
| Task list | The activities that define the role, used for objectives mapping |
| Knowledge-skills-attitudes inventory | The capabilities required to perform the tasks of the role |
| Criticality and frequency map | Which capabilities matter most and which are exercised most |
| Subject-matter-expert workshop | Workshops with experienced incumbents to surface task structure |
| Structured observation | Direct observation of work as it is done |
| Performance-data review | Review of performance evidence to surface task patterns |
| Combining methods in task analysis | Combining at least two methods produces a richer task profile |
| Person Analysis | |
| Performance evidence as a person source | Inherits the rating quality of the performance system |
| Capability assessment as a person source | Reliability and validity of the assessment matter |
| Self-assessment as a person source | Pair with manager and peer input to triangulate |
| Manager input as a person source | Subject to leniency and central-tendency bias |
| Learning history as a person source | Tells you what was taught, not what was learned |
| Triangulation discipline | Triangulate at least three sources and surface the disagreements |
| Visualising Requirements | |
| Strategic capability ranking on the headline | The headline area surfaces the small ranked list from organisation analysis |
| Role-family capability matrix | A matrix shows required and current capability by role family |
| Capability heat map by individual | A drill-through view shows the person-level capability gap |
| Build-buy-borrow indicator on the page | Recommendations link each capability to recruitment and learning plans |
| Refresh and source disclosure | Every chart shows its source system and refresh date |