This is another one of the questions that may be asked when playing the Learning Loop™ , a new and exciting replacement for the traditional ‘train-the-trainer’ course.
It’s is an interesting question because some people go straight to the obvious, things they need to get from a Learning Needs Analysis:
Knowledge – WHAT they will keep in their head.
Skills – WHAT you will be able to see them do (or their outputs).
Attitudes – HOW they do things.
These are 3 very good things to look out for and specifically you would want to find the difference between where they are now and where you/the stakeholders would like them to be.You are essentially wanting to know the gaps that you need to fill. If you can gauge what level they are at the start, defining what they need to know by the end will certainly be easier!
What will help you greatly in this is something like Blooms Taxonomy. Watch the video below to fi;nd out more.
There are of course other things that you may be looking for in a Learning Needs Analysis:
A clear idea of the problem(s) you are trying to solve
Clear organisational outcomes and measures
Clear learning outcomes and levels of learning
Which stakeholder’s will be involved and supportive
How line managers may help imbed the learning
The resources that are available
What has and has not worked in the past for similar projects
And many more things….. if you would like to chat to Krystyna about how you even make start, then book a free 30 minute consultation to ask all the questions you would like!
This is one of the first questions that may be asked when playing the Learning Loop™ , a new and exciting replacement for the traditional ‘train-the-trainer’ course.
Notice that it does not say “Training Needs Analysis” or “Learning Needs Analysis”, simply “Needs Analysis”.
By implication, if you conduct a Training Needs Analysis (TNA), any of the solutions will be training courses. In the same way, if you conduct a Learning Needs Analysis (LNA), the solutions will be broader than for the TNA, but the assumption is that the outputs will involve learning of some sort.
So if you conduct a Needs Analysis (NA), you will look beyond training or learning requirements and it may force you to identify the problem(s) more clearly and concisely. Now you may worry about conducting a Needs Analysis, for fear that you might be required to solve problems which are beyond the scope of what L&D does. This is where working with the right stakeholders will really help. If you identify a problem outside of your remit, your stakeholders will be grateful, but not necessarily expect you to solve it. In this way you do not end up wasting your money on trainingor learning that is not required. Again, happy stakeholders!
Going back to the question raised in the title……
Reasons to conduct a needs analysis:
To ensure you have measurable outcomes
To rule out that the problem has nothing to do with training or learning
To make the design easier (clear objectives)
To get on board with your stakeholders requirements
To get an idea of the gaps in knowledge, skills and behaviours so you will know how to fill them
To identify any issues that were not identified in the brief
To get line manager buy-in for follow up (the biggest reason training fails)
It was such an interesting chat today in the L&D Mastermind 2nd Friday natter on Clubhouse. We started off talking about the ‘ROI of Learning’ and we finished off discussing about how to find the higher purpose of compliance training.
If you have never attended anything on clubhouse, it’s an informal (non-video) way of having a great discussion. Our next L&D Mastermind natter is on December 10th at 9am on this link.We will be talking about ‘Reflection: its purpose and value to L&D’.
These are some of the memorable take-aways I have from the natter (prompted by Cat Nelson, who was on fire btw!):
1) Measuring ROI can be a great weapon to use when someone wants training without a purpose – get them to define what they will get out of it and ask lots of questions
2) If you have a clear purpose to be fulfilled by the training it is easier to deliver it
3) The WAY that we train can have a completely different impact even with the SAME purpose
4) The L&D role is evolving and rather than think about L&D strategy we need to be clear about the business strategy so that we help deliver on it
5) Even in compliance training, by digging deeper into the wider purpose you can broaden the impact and gain more buy-in.
6) For ‘cost-centres’ like customer service start to look at the value you bring rather than the cost you incur – this forces you to look at your purpose
You may already be using subject matter experts to deliver training and see the huge benefits that this model brings. You may have considered using them or used them already without success. Whichever camp you fall into, in this blog I am going to explore the pros and cons of using subject matter experts within your organisation. I am going to share a real live case study from Stockport Homes who have had great success with their ‘Facilitator Pathway’ programme, which was introduced in 2015 and has been reaping rewards ever since.
Liz Chadwick, Head of Organisational Development at Stockport Homes said about the (Learning Loop) Facilitator Pathway:
“The Facilitator Pathway is fundamental to SHG’s approach to personal growth and development. It has enabled us to provide development opportunities for our team members whilst addressing learning needs across the organisation. Having a tailored approach based on organisational priorities and policies allows us to get it right first time”
So why would you consider using subject matter experts and not external consultants? Here are just a few considerations:
Training budgets are limited or about to be cut
The specialist external consultants in the subject of interest do not always understand the intricacies of how it applies to your organisation and you want the training to be tailored
You have a lot of external consultants coming in as you need the training frequently as part of your compliance requirements.
Stockport Homes introduced the facilitator pathway alongside other career development pathways in 2015 to strengthen their personal growth offer and generate efficiencies. This pathway provided stretch and recognition of talent, whilst knowledge sharing with other colleagues. The pathway has been a fundamental part of SHG’s Learning and Development Plan, providing bespoke solutions internally across the group.
Here are some of the pros and cons of using subject matter experts:
They have knowledge not only relevant to your industry but the application in your organisation
Cost savings* see table below
Promotes a learning culture where learning is not ‘owned’ by L&D but can be seen to be done by anyone who is willing and with an aptitude
Person is a known and respected part of the organisation
Tailored to the organisation
Opportunities to build team cohesion when leaders and managers are involved
They are not trainers or facilitators, so may not be able to put their subject across in an engaging or impactful way
Their ‘day job’ pulls them away from delivering the learning
A consultant will know what trends are happening in the broader industry and be able to share those
Employees may not think out of the box
Lack of inclusion and diversity if hearing the same voices
Since 2015, I have been running the Learning Loop programme for the Facilitator Pathway for Stockport Homes. Part of the needs analysis identified that the main driver was to save the £1000 per day fee that external consultants were charging. There have been significant money savings since 2015, although it is difficult to be exact in the tracking of all the days the subject matter experts have trained.
Below is a very conservative estimate of how much money will have been saved by the July 2022. Most cohorts have had 12 participants and the cost of the training (mainly safeguarding) has not been adjusted for inflation over the last 6 years. Some of the people on the Facilitator Pathway have done maybe 10 days training whereas others have done none. Therefore, to give an idea of the sort of savings that could be had, we have assumed just 2 days training per year per person since 2015. You can see that will mean by this time next year they will have (conservatively) saved £380,000
Facilitators trained (cumulative total)
Days trained per person annually
Money saved that year (£1000 per day)
*2020 no training face to face due to COVID19
The impact of these figures speak for themselves. As a consultant, if the client knows annually, I am going to be saving them initially £20,000, my fee in comparison will seem insignificant.
Training subject matter experts is not the same as training trainers or facilitators. They do not have experience in how people learn or how to create engaging learning activities. The role of any programme to help them deliver training in an impactful and engaging way is to:
Role model great practice
Provide simple models to follow to make analysis, design, delivery and evaluation straightforward.
Give them confidence that they can facilitate (not just present)
Be pitched at a level where the SME’s may have no L&D knowledge
If you would like to know about the impact of the Learning Loop programme on the participants of the “Facilitator Pathway” look at some of the comments from past participants:
“Motivates me to think outside the box and make a different way of learning key to improving the organisation”
“Very interesting, not what I thought it was going to be. Have always had training but not like this. Was much better :)”
“Energising and inspiring. You get lots and lots of different tools and ideas to make training interesting.”
“Very informative. Brilliant teaching techniques and great activities”
“Really interesting training that helps to inspire you and bring out your creative side”
Liz Chadwick, Head of Organisational Development at Stockport Homes said about the Facilitator Pathway: “The Facilitator Pathway is fundamental to SHG’s approach to personal growth and development. It has enabled us to provide development opportunities for our team members whilst addressing learning needs across the organisation. Having a tailored approach based on organisational priorities and policies allows us to get it right first time”
Contact us to find out how we can help develop your subject matter experts to deliver training in-house to save you money year on year.
Should we in L&D be focussed on improving job performance and hence all learning is focussed on that or should we be looking for people to be inspired to learn more and be more self-directed?
I spent some time in July 2018 writing my book, “How Not To Waste Your Money On Training” and during the week I had a few philosophical moments. One was about the difference between education, training and learning. I often speak to L&D professionals about the difference between a training needs analysis and a learning needs analysis. How the former always leads to training whereas the latter leads to something broader than just training; it could be learning in many different forms.
In a similar way I was thinking about how my degree in chemical engineering and fuel technology was a good education. It prepared me for the world of work and also began a lifelong desire to learn more. When I moved from engineering to IT training with IBM we were called “instructors” and I worked in the IBM Education Centre in St. John’s Wood. Was what people received when they came to us there, an education? I am not so sure. I would hope the delegates were more prepared for their world of work and that they were inspired to learn more. But how broad was that inspiration? Did they become self-motivated learners keen to go beyond the traditional training course to further develop themselves?
This leads me to the present day; my title changed from instructor to trainer to L&D professional/facilitator. How do I define though whether I am educating, training or helping people to learn?
A few years after I gained my Certificate in Training Practice, I began working with trainers, delivering the CIPD Certificate in Training Practice, then the Certificate in Learning and Development Practice. Through my accelerated learning programmes, I further worked with L&D professionals to help them learn more about an approach that has been taking shape over many years. An approach that helps me focus on organisational needs as well as learner requirements. Programmes that took 8 months of weekly 4 hour sessions, were delivered in 8 one day sessions moving to a well-known learning provider. Now I deliver a 6-week programme, which includes a 2 day workshop and I cannot possibly ‘cover’ all I used to.
Leading by example and walking-the -talk have been driving forces in our organisation “How to Accelerate Learning”. Facilitation is practiced and runs like an invisible thread through the programmes. Inspiring resources and innovative ways of learning through gamification, create a different feel to the programme, leaving many people “inspired” – their words not ours. Even hardened trainers with years of experience under their belts talk of how different it feels.
This has not always been a deliberate intention, but a on occasions, a happy and accidental one. One that we persist with because of the results we achieve and the feedback we get. We put effort into:
Drilling deeper into needs to see if learning is the appropriate course of action
Delivering learning via a blend of activities not just training
Helping people to gain confidence in stepping out of their comfort zone – to experience new ways to help people learn
Using unusual materials and resources to inspire a different approach
Following up the learning so it is not just a one-time event
So, I don’t feel like it is training in the traditional sense; not like when I was a VM Instructor. Nor do I feel that it is just learning because of the feedback we get. So are we educating and is that now the remit of L&D?