The Importance of Needs Assessments
Let’s pretend:
Whirling dervishes
A Customer Service Organization received customer feedback related to poor customer service response times and lack of quality. The executive team proactively decides that training Customer Service Agents in communication skills will solve the problem. I have been tasked as a Learning Designer to build a communications training program (which implies more than a single course, but rather a set of related courses as a solution linked to organizational strategic goals—a small communication curriculum) to address Leadership’s perceived base problem and their suggested remedy to fix said “problem.”
Big deal, so what?
The interaction leaves me with a few thoughts. First, has Leadership investigated the problem and shown an understanding of it in any way? Are they reacting with superficial, knee-jerk bias that pushes problem-solving interventions to other internal/external entities, such as Learning and Development (L&D)?
In my career experience, L&D and their Designers fall under the umbrella of the Human Resources Department. I’ve had conversations with Execs who unabashedly and purposely push many of their assumed solutions to the L&D. Often, they plonk the solution and responsibility on a different organization. They have now manipulated the situation so they are not connected to a solution and, therefore, are insulated from the risks of an unsuccessful training outcome — an easy finger to point to another that does not involve them. Avoidance of responsibility happens in every instance of negative results – this a very popular tactic in every part of life that requires a relationship.
In this scenario, several potential causes are identified that contribute to the issue of “fix long call times and poor quality.” Outdated software, frequent system issues, and related disruptions appear to lead to overwhelming backlogs and delays in customer support despite the team's communication efforts. Employees feel as if their work environment has become more toxic due to core issues being unaddressed. Such issues can lead to significant employee turnover and increased on-boarding costs to back-fill newly these now open positions. Employee churn is costly due to the loss of native knowledge (infeasible to quantify) and the costs involved in hiring green employees.
The previously acknowledged problems cannot be addressed with the one-trick pony that is training. Leadership is often blinded and falls prey to “the law of the instrument,” a.k.a. the law of the hammer, Maslow's hammer, or the golden hammer. Maslow (1966) posited, "It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” Leadership loves a good hammer. In a nutshell, the concept is a cognitive bias that involves an over-reliance on a familiar tool—in this case, training. Whether or not Execs want to accept alternative perspectives or not, the assessment identifies issues that cannot be fixed using the training hammer.
Rather than assuming that Leadership’s solution to their issue is the best option, I would use data to support an argument for a non-training intervention and suggest the use of a screwdriver. Gathering data may reveal that there are more cost-effective ways to do things. The cost of fixing IT infrastructure issues and utilizing available IT professionals to design a more accessible system UI/UX could pale in comparison to the direct, indirect, hidden, reputational, cultural, and opportunity costs associated with a training solution. The identification of oft-overlooked underlying costs may keep a project manager/change agent from having to dip into contingency reserve and management reserve fiscal resources. A well-executed needs assessment could lead to better non-training recommendations, provided my proposal shows evidence of a better ROI.
Keeping the stakeholders involved allows them to voice agreement or dissent with my non-training solution. Their feedback, when provided during the development stage (as opposed to the end of the project), can be investigated, validated by data, and incorporated into my solution immediately, rather than incurring rework costs (such as new design, development, and roll-out of solutions that do not involve L&D). I would use a stakeholder engagement assessment matrix to determine where individual stakeholders relate to the project and how, when, and their preferred method to keep them up to speed. I would employ several methods to engage stakeholders and provide options to ensure they understand the root cause of the performance issues. If feasible, I would tailor the communication strategy to highlight key findings, offer visual data dashboards, provide context and interpretation, acknowledge the limitations of my proposal, and again request feedback.
I’ve served as a Technical Team Manager, Training Designer, Facilitator, and Methods and Procedure Engineer. There are many times when I needed to step outside of the sometimes narrowly defined “Designer” role (where one only builds end-user-facing learning experiences). I would use the needs assessment as an opportunity to become a better “T-shaped” person. A “T-shaped” person is an individual who possesses deep knowledge in a particular field (the vertical part of the "T") and a wide range of understanding in various other areas (the horizontal part of the "T"). This blend of skill sets enables me to excel in one area of expertise while collaborating effectively with people from different disciplines.
My vertical expertise is primarily in Learning Development and Design. However, effectively communicating with internal and external stakeholders, SMEs, and end-user learners helps me develop my horizontal skills. As I hone my “T,” creating a needs assessment allows me other unique opportunities. I often use the process of creating a needs assessment to open windows to the larger world. My favorite part of the process is cross-pollinating with new groups. I get to say to myself, “Hey, that looks really fun.” When conducting a needs assessment, I expect to step outside the confines of my design “walled garden” and explore new fields in which I have little experience, much like a whirling dervish. I love new and very steep learning curves and want to be a “TTTTTT” person. The opportunity to work and communicate with people outside of my silo not only offers new perspectives on the project but also helps me identify what I don’t know or what questions I should ask.
